|
Edited on Thu Apr-14-05 08:52 AM by Tom Rinaldo
Part One (too long for a single post)
Here are Clark's answers to the League of Conservation Voters Questionaire from his 2004 race (you may want to particularly look at 30c) John, and also 2c):
League of Conservation Voters Questionnaire
Introduction
This questionnaire is designed to elicit your responses and your ideas regarding what environmental groups consider the most important national environmental issues of the day. In some cases, we refer to certain bills or environmental positions, which are before the Congress or the Executive at this time. Where you may differ with the position as stated or implied by the question, please give us your views on these goals. If you have an environmental record, please cite examples of your past accomplishments. LCV is, however, looking for your vision of leadership on these key issues, in addition to your record.
This questionnaire is due by close of business on Monday, August 4. If you have questions, please contact Betsy Loyless at 202-785-8683. LCV’s fax number is 202-835-0491. Thank you.
Natural Resources and Public Lands
1. Public Lands
This nation’s 630 million acres of public land are a resource enjoyed by Americans today, and are a natural heritage legacy for future generations. These public lands include America’s parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Wilderness areas are protected within all four management systems.
1a. Would you support designating the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a wilderness area, to put it permanently off limits to oil and gas development?
Yes. We should pass this pristine wilderness on to our children just as we found it.
1b. Would you support the moratorium on new road construction and logging in the roadless and undeveloped portions of our national forests?
Yes. Wild places should stay wild. Building new roads in the undeveloped portions of our national forests makes no sense economically or environmentally.
1c. Do you support more snowmobiles, jetski and ORV use in our parks?
No. I think we should ensure diverse recreation opportunities for all Americans on our public lands. Decisions about which lands are suitable for different uses should be supported by environmental impact analyses and full public involvement.
1d. Would you reverse the Bush administration’s decision to deny future wilderness consideration of BLM land?
Yes. The Bush administration policy does not even permit land managers to analyze whether wilderness is the best use of the land. It is an unbalanced and myopic approach.
1e. What policies would you institute to protect communities at risk from forest fires?
I would instruct the Forest Service to thin fire-prone forests and underbrush near homes and communities. I would help communities and homes most at risk by increasing fire fighting capacity and helping people fireproof homes. I would insist that Congress provide adequate funding to accomplish these steps. I would not allow logging of older, larger trees (which tend to be more fire resistant), particularly when those trees are located miles from homes and communities. I would also explore ways of using my National Civilian Reserves Plan to send volunteers who have been properly trained to assist in fire prevention and fire suppression.
1f. Do you support continuing protection for offshore areas from oil and gas drilling?
Yes. These continuing protections exist for important reasons, including the protection of coastal ecosystems and the concerns of those living in coastal areas with respect to oil and gas drilling.
2. Wildlife
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, provides protection for threatened and endangered species of plants and animals. The law preserves these species for their own sake, and serves to maintain the overall health of larger natural systems necessary for the preservation of other species. Critics claim the law unduly restricts private property rights and interferes with reasonable economic development of land. Some observers believe the ESA should provide incentives, like tax breaks, for private landowners to encourage them to help save imperiled species.
2a. Do you support the goal of this law? Do you believe that current efforts are sufficient to recover our declining plants and wildlife?
I strongly support the goals of the Endangered Species Act – to protect the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend, to protect the species themselves from extinction, and to implement our obligations under international conservation agreements. While I believe the ESA has been quite successful in the 30 years since its enactment, more needs to be done to stem the tide of extinctions. We should once again pursue multi-species habitat conservation plans over wide landscapes. These plans protect species, as well as the economic interests of landowners. As Professor E.O. Wilson has said, allowing species to go extinct is the folly future generations are least likely to forgive us.
2b. How, if at all, would you propose to modify the law in regard to its application to private landowners?
I would not be inclined to seek changes in the law from the current Congress or any similar future Congresses. Instead, I would focus on administrative reforms. The current law – through administrative efforts such as habitat conservation plans, streamlined processes, candidate conservation agreements, and “no surprise” assurances – can readily protect species and address private landowner concerns.
2c. Would you support additional exemptions from the ESA for the Department of Defense?
No. Additional exemptions aren’t needed. I spent a lot of time in the Army and, in all my years of service, complying with the environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops under my command.
3. Oceans
Conservation of the ocean’s living resources, particularly fish populations and the marine ecosystems they support, has never achieved the same priority as other environmental initiatives. Management of living resources within the United States 200-mile exclusive economic zone is the responsibility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Act was amended and the conservation provisions strengthened by Congress in 1996, but NOAA Fisheries has been slow to implement the changes necessary to protect declining fish populations and threatened marine ecosystems.
3a. Do you support rebuilding fish populations that have been overfished in order to protect marine ecosystems and preserve long-term economic benefits, even if this results in adverse short-term economic impacts?
Many fish populations, especially commercially fished populations, are classified as “fully fished.” This not only threatens our fragile marine ecosystem, but also threatens the American fishing industry. Currently, declining fisheries are producing far below their potential at a cost of billions a year. Yet, government estimates show how managing our marine ecosystems in an environmentally sustainable manner could generate many thousands of new jobs. If this results in some adverse short-term economic impacts, we must provide support and assistance to affected individuals and communities. Significantly, in many places around the world overfishing can be addressed by phasing out costly government subsidies for overcapitalized fishing fleets. However, the long-term economic and ecological benefits make these adjustments imperative. I believe we need to manage our marine ecosystem in an environmentally sustainable manner to ensure healthy marine life and a plentiful supply of fish for generations to come.
Protecting the environment is necessary for a healthy economy and healthy citizens. The human side of the story is in the fishing communities themselves. We want to help preserve the culture of these fishing communities, and if conservation is not enhanced and over-fishing continues, these communities will be devastated.
4. Mining
Right now, mining on public lands for metals like gold, copper and silver is given preferential treatment over all other uses of the land. This type of mining produces more toxic waste than any other industry, and has polluted 40% of the stream reaches of Western watersheds, according to the EPA. Metals mining has also contaminated water with acid and heavy metals, destroyed landscapes and wildlife habitat, and damaged public spaces. The 1872 Mining Law is one of the major culprits in this story – the antiquated law contains no mining-specific environmental or cleanup standards, and allows companies to mine on public lands with virtually no return to taxpayers.
4a. Would you support changes to the law to allow other uses of the land, such as hiking, clean water, wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing, to be weighed equally against mining when determining uses of public lands?
I would support such changes to provide additional clarity in this area, although I believe that current law in fact allows federal land managers to treat hiking, clean water, wildlife habitat, hunting, and fishing the same as mining in determining uses of public lands. With wise management and strong enforcement of current laws, we can achieve a balance in our use of public lands that has been absent under the Bush administration.
4b. Would you support changes to the law to require environmental and cleanup standards that apply specifically to mining?
I would support appropriate changes. However, I believe that existing laws -- properly administered -- are sufficient to compel cleanups for existing mines. We need sound management and strong enforcement of current laws.
4c. Would you support a royalty system for metals mining comparable to what the oil and gas or coal industries have to pay for mining and drilling on public lands?
Yes. It makes no sense that the gold industry, for example, pays nothing to take minerals from the federal taxpayer.
Global Warming; Energy, Transportation, and Land Use
5. Global Warming
Global warming is caused by pollution that comes mostly from cars and power plants and builds up in the atmosphere trapping heat like a blanket. Global warming is the most far-reaching environmental problem our civilization has ever faced. The hottest 10 years on record have occurred since 1980 culminating in 1998, the hottest year ever recorded. The world’s leading scientists warn that if the nations of the world fail to cut greenhouse gas emissions, we are likely to commit the world to massive irreversible damage—rising sea levels, crop damage, heat-related deaths, mass extinction of species and the spread of infectious diseases.
The U.S., with 4% of the world’s population, is the largest emitter of gases that cause global warming; it is responsible for contributing over 23% of world carbon dioxide emissions. Two- thirds of the U.S. carbon dioxide pollution comes from transportation and energy generation. We have the technology and know-how to lead the world in energy efficiency and clean energy, while creating good-paying jobs here at home and strengthening America’s economy.
Virtually all of the other industrial nations have already committed themselves to start acting to reduce their own carbon pollution. We cannot stop global warming unless all important contributors to this pollution problem do their fair share. But, the average American is responsible for 10 times as much global warming pollution as the average Chinese, and 20 times as much as the average Indian. We have the know-how and the resources to lead the way forward to new clean technologies that produce energy without pollution.
5a. Do you support a reduction in U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide? Do you support a mandatory cap on U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants?
Global warming is a problem we can fix. America leads the world in the know-how and the technology to start cutting global warming pollution immediately, while at the same time, enhancing our quality of life. However, President Bush has failed the test of leadership and stewardship on this issue. He says we should rely on the coal and oil industries as well as on the power and auto companies to police themselves. He opposes any limits on carbon dioxide pollution. He even refuses to call it “pollution.” Under his do-nothing plan, global warming will just keep getting worse.
Solving this problem requires real accountability. As president, I will reduce global warming pollution from our power plants, factories, and vehicles using the market-based “cap-and-trade” approach that has worked so successfully to combat acid rain. I will take action under our current clean air laws and work with Congress to enact new ones that curb all major pollutants from our power plants and reduce global warming emissions from the industries that contribute to this problem.
5b. Do you support U.S. participation in a binding international treaty that caps emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants?
Global warming is a global problem. While we must begin to clean up our own emissions, we cannot safeguard the American people from the dangers of global warming solely by action here at home. We need the cooperation of all nations that contribute significantly to this problem, and American leadership in this regard is essential. But President Bush unilaterally walked away from the global warming treaty talks without proposing any alternatives.
As President, I will re-engage with other nations to craft a fair, effective, and enforceable international treaty that uses the free market to cap and reduce global warming pollution at the lowest possible cost. And I will work to ensure the engagement of all critical nations in a framework that safeguards our environmental security, protects the global environment, and advances economic growth and development for all.
6. Energy efficiency
Automobiles are responsible for 20% of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. One way to reduce this pollution is for our vehicles to use fuel more efficiently. Because of an exception in the current vehicle fuel efficiency laws, light trucks such a minivans and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), which account for nearly half of all new cars sold, are permitted 25% lower fuel economy standards (20.7 miles per gallon) than passenger cars (27.5 mpg). Fuel economy standards have not been significantly modified since the 1980’s.
6a. Would you support legislation sufficiently increasing fuel economy standards for cars, SUVs, mini-vans and other light trucks? What goals and timetables would you set?
America’s oil dependence is a grave threat to our national security, our economy, and our environment. Americans send more than $100 billion overseas each year to pay for imported oil. We already import more than half our oil, and if nothing changes, imports will increase to two-thirds by 2020. Our dependence on foreign oil limits our freedom to pursue other goals, including the war on terrorism. Also, emissions from our cars and SUVs worsen global warming.
We now have the know-how and technology to make cars and SUVs that go twice as far on a gallon of gas by using more efficient engines and transmissions, including hybrid cars that use both gasoline and an electric motor. As President, in consultation with scientists, environmental groups, industry, and others, I will set new standards to raise the fuel economy and reduce the emissions of cars, SUVs, and light trucks. The choice of specific goals and timetables will depend on a careful analysis of the existing data on technology, trends, and emissions from this sector as well as policy approaches to help industry meet those goals. We can clearly achieve a great deal in this area. With better, cleaner cars, we can fight global warming, reduce our oil dependence, and strengthen our economy.
6b. What additional means of reducing transportation-related
emissions would you support?
First, we need to provide tax incentives to get hybrids or other highly efficient vehicles into the marketplace and out on the road. With currently existing technology we can make great strides in reducing emissions. Second, I will put a stop to President Bush’s interference with California’s pioneering program to cut global warming pollution from new vehicles. Third, my Administration will lead an aggressive effort to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which hold great promise for the future. Fourth, I will increase support for better public transportation and other measures to clean the air in new highway legislation.
6c. Would you support a renewable energy standard that would achieve 20% renewable energy by the year 2020?
Renewable energy has an enormously important role to play in our energy future, because of the opportunity it presents to reduce pollution, clean the air we breathe, and mitigate climate change. I endorse the standard supported by Senate Democrats for inclusion in the energy bill. A 20% standard by 2020 is aggressive, but it's the kind of goal we should set our sights on and then work with Congress to devise the right kind of policies to achieve.
7. Power plants
The electric power industry is the nation’s largest source of air pollution. Our power plants emit 40% of all U.S. carbon pollution – 10% of all carbon pollution in the world. They also release other dangerous air pollutants that cause up to 40,000 early deaths each year, as well as thousands of asthma attacks and hospitalizations.
7a. Would you support legislation that controls all four air pollutants that come from power plants including carbon dioxide, does not weaken current law, maintains safeguards for national parks and prevent local pollution increases?
President Bush has proposed new legislation – mis-named “Clear Skies” – that actually would weaken current clean air laws and let the nation’s power plants continue to pollute at unsafe levels. For this President, environmental policy is all about rhetoric, not action. His plan would be much worse for the health of our children and all Americans -- especially those at risk for respiratory illness -- than enforcing current clean air laws. His plan does nothing to curb the carbon pollution that causes global warming.
President Bush has also weakened long-standing clean air standards. He has let power plants, oil refineries, and other big factories undertake huge expansion projects without modernizing their pollution controls – increasing dangerous pollution in neighboring communities – simply by mis-labeling their projects as “routine maintenance.” We have already given polluters a free pass for thirty years since the passage of the Clean Air Act by not requiring them to use the best available technology to control their pollution unless they build new plants. And now that the time has come for them to install the appropriate technology – technology that was developed in the United States and installed on nearly every power plant in Germany and Japan – the Bush administration wants to change the rules of the game. Not only is this bad for the environment and the health of our community, but it is also bad economic policy. We need a level playing field: one that is fair to the utilities and refineries that have complied with the law as well as those to which this administration has sold out by changing the laws.
We have the technology and the know-how to do better. As President, I will carry out our existing Clean Air Act fairly and firmly, and I will work with Congress to enact legislation that curbs all four power plant pollutants that threaten our health and cause global warming. I will maintain safeguards for local communities and for our treasured national parks. We can do this. We will save thousands of lives and create thousands of jobs by doing the right thing.
8. Nuclear Materials
The U.S. has had a policy in place against reprocessing nuclear fuels since the Ford administration. One of the greatest security threats to the United States today, and of paramount concern to American citizens since September 11th, is that nuclear weapons-usable materials will be stolen, seized or secretly diverted from nuclear facilities. It would then used by terrorists to develop and deliver a crude nuclear explosive device, or by a hostile proliferant state to develop more sophisticated nuclear weapons.
8a. Would you oppose the U.S. reprocessing nuclear fuels? Would you support exporting nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies?
I believe reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates serious environmental and security risks without securing us a reliable, safe energy supply. It is critical that the U.S. maintain its 25-year opposition to reprocessing. Commercial reprocessing fuel creates bomb-grade nuclear material; I believe that we should be working to reduce, not increase, the supply of such material. I oppose changing U.S. law to support the reprocessing of nuclear fuels to produce plutonium either at home or abroad.
I also believe we should stop focusing on the power supplies of the 20th century, such as nuclear, coal, and oil power, and instead develop the energy supplies of the 21st century, such as hydrogen, wind, and solar energy. These sustainable energy supplies will advance our national security interests, create sustainable jobs, and facilitate the development of our renewable resources.
8b. How would you improve security at the places nuclear materials are now stored, both internationally and at home?
Secure storage requires, at a minimum, physical protection, material tracking systems, detection capabilities, and rapid response plans. Where these are missing or in doubt, we must work to establish and maintain them. Our nation's nuclear power plants are potential terrorist targets, and thus, we must do everything we can to prevent the devastation that a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant would cause. When the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts mock assaults on our nation's nuclear power plants, they tell the power plants beforehand. The Commission also allows the plants to have extra guards for the day of the drill--guards that would not be on hand in the event of an actual attack. I would insist on surprise drills of our nation's nuclear power plants, so that we can get a more realistic assessment of the plants' preparedness level. If terrorists ever attack our nuclear power plants, they won't give advance notice, and so neither should our regulators. In the years ahead, international co-operation and additional resources will be needed to improve security measures and protect against sabotage. I would show international leadership and work with our allies to enhance security at all of the world's nuclear power plants, because this is a global problem.
9. Nuclear waste
Nuclear waste, whether low-level, transuranic, or high-level, is lethal. Environmental groups believe that federal nuclear policies must be based on science and that protection of public health and the environment are paramount. The current administration is aggressively preparing a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada and making efforts at Department of Energy (DOE) sites nationwide to either relax nuclear waste cleanup standards or void regulatory obligations. As an example, and despite a pending court challenge, DOE is planning top abandon significant amounts of high-level radioactive waste in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and New York.
9a. Do you oppose weakening of environmental and public health laws regarding nuclear waste disposition?
Yes.
9b. How would you propose to deal with high-level radioactive waste in leaking storage tanks presently in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and New York?
As a general matter, the government must take responsibility for protecting its citizens from dangerous waste created as part of our weapons production programs. I would need to review the specifics with respect to each of the storage sites involved to determine in detail the proper action to be taken at the site. The action, obviously, should be based on the best available science and untainted by politics. The workers at these sites and their families living in the area have already made sacrifices for our national defense by virtue of their work on these weapons. It would be highly irresponsible to apply less rigorous environmental and scientific standards to these areas by virtue of this commitment to our national defense.
10. Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power plants now supply about 20% of U.S. electric energy. While the nuclear industry argues that nuclear power should be seen as a solution to global warming, the entire nuclear fuel cycle (from uranium mining, milling and enrichment to waste disposal and reactor decommissioning) is (1) a potential source of material for nuclear weapons or terrorist activities; (2) inherently subject to serious accidents (and fully dependent on taxpayer funded safety net in the event of such a serious accident); (3) damaging to land, water and air (e.g., the uranium enrichment process in this country has significant carbon emissions); (4) produces radioactive waste that will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years; and (5) cannot compete in the energy marketplace without significant federal subsidies for existing reactors and for research and development.
10a. Do you support the current administration’s $400 million in subsidies to the commercial nuclear industry for research and development in new nuclear reactors?
No.
10b. Should issues such as environmental impacts, cost-efficiency and vulnerabilities to terrorist threats be considerations in deciding whether nuclear power remains a viable energy option?
Yes. Issues such as environmental impacts (here including waste disposal as a critical issue), cost-efficiency, and vulnerabilities to terrorist threats should always be part of the equation in deciding the makeup of the country’s energy portfolio.
11. Sprawl
Many Americans now consider suburban sprawl -- low-density, automobile dependent development beyond the edge of service and employment areas -- to be a fast growing and obvious threat to their local environment. Suburban sprawl is contributing to the loss of farms, forests, wildlife habitat, wetlands, open space and water quality. Longer commutes and increased traffic congestion causes air pollution. State and local governments are beginning to pursue sprawl-fighting, smart growth strategies.
11a. What role should the federal government play in helping communities address this fast-growing threat to their quality of life and environment?
Smart growth is not synonymous with no growth. Although land use planning is ultimately a local choice, the federal government can ensure that local communities have the resources and expertise to protect their communities, and that federal policies do not encourage sprawling development. The federal government should support mass transit and other measures that would mitigate runaway sprawl.
11b. Would you support changing federal policies and funding priorities that contribute to or encourage suburban sprawl? For example, would you support providing a greater portion of the Highway Trust Fund for transit and alternative transportation choices rather than highway construction and expansion?
I believe the federal government should review its policies and funding priorities to ensure that they do not encourage sprawl. One example is to spend less on highways and more on mass transit.
11c. Would you support federal tax incentives to help local communities set aside open space, protect water quality, and clean up abandoned industrial sites in urban areas? What other measures would you support to address these problems?
Yes. Tax incentives are a powerful and effective tool to help local communities protect the environment and improve quality of life. In partnership with the federal government and state governments, local communities should be given every tool they need to preserve parks, ball fields, trails, and other open space in their neighborhoods, as well as cleaning up their water and any abandoned hazardous sites. When we protect our environment, all Americans benefit.
International
12. Global Population
World population is increasing by 77 million people per year. Continued human population growth aggravates virtually all environmental problems including deforestation, extinction of species through habitat loss, land degradation, global warming, air and water pollution, and freshwater scarcity. With these problems increasingly challenging the governments of developing and developed countries alike, slower population growth and eventual population stabilization are critical to environmental sustainability. Through its assistance for family planning services, the U.S. government has contributed significantly to the fertility decline that has occurred in developing countries since the 1960s. By law, no U.S. foreign assistance funds may be used to provide abortion services.
12a. Do you support increased funding for the U.S. portion of international population assistance necessary to achieve universal access to contraception by the year 2015?
Yes. The U.S. should increase its funding for international population assistance, which advances U.S. foreign policy goals by promoting sustainable population development and health. This funding supports family planning and related reproductive health services through programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Such programs directly benefit tens of millions of couples each year, improving both maternal and child health and contributing to slower population growth rates. Despite the fact that the United States is the largest bilateral funding source for population assistance programs, the United States is still not contributing its fair share of the funds needed. From the perspective of national wealth, the United States is dead last among donor nations in overall development assistance, contributing only 0.1% of its wealth. As President, I support giving women all over the world access to information they deserve to make crucial personal health decisions -- decisions that ultimately affect the ability of our planet to sustain healthy populations.
Increasing our funding for international population assistance reflects my vision for a New American Patriotism and shows our willingness as an international leader to address the needs of developing nations.
12b. In 2002, the United States withdrew its $34 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports family planning programs in over 150 countries. Do you support reinstating a U.S. contribution to UNFPA with safeguards to ensure that no funds provided by the United States are used by UNFPA for abortion or in China?
Yes. The United States needs to reinstate its $34 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund. While the United States should always reserve the right to ensure funds contributed by American taxpayers are spent on programs representative of American values, the UNFPA is a program that deserves our support. The UNFPA works to promote reproductive health in the world’s poorest countries, helping to ensure the safe delivery of healthy babies, even in unsafe environments. Through educational programs and contraceptives, UNFPA aggressively fights the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as reduces the need for abortion. As a result, UNFPA saves thousands of women and children’s lives every year. Officials at the UNFPA estimate that the $34 million contribution from the United States prevents two million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000 cases of maternal illness or disability, and 77,000 infant and child deaths.
Additionally, as anti-American sentiment grows, we could help mitigate this trend by continuing our commitment to international organizations, especially aid organizations. Supporting UNFPA shows the U.S. is committed to addressing health issues facing developing countries.
13. Trade
The North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization restrict domestic and international law in order to promote international trade and investment. Dispute panels under these agreements have ruled against a number of environmental and health laws, including clean gasoline standards, sea turtle protections, and food safety standards. In order to comply with the rulings, governments may be forced to weaken laws or regulations. In other instances, the U.S. government has proactively weakened environmental standards to comply with international trade rules. For example, the U.S. has established weak standards to control imported tree and fruit pests in order to avoid trade conflicts.
13a. What steps would you take to prevent international trade bodies and international trade agreements from weakening public health and environmental laws?
I believe in free and fair trade. I believe that, properly negotiated, trade agreements can open markets for U.S. products while ensuring that U.S. environment and public health laws remain the strongest in the world. While efforts to open markets can provide important mutual benefits to both countries, its critical that we work to ensure that trade agreements are always designed to raise all boats and never lead to a race to the bottom on either labor standards or the environment. I think that it is critical that prior to the conclusion of any trade agreements the United States should undertake a full environmental impact assessment. In order to be certain that U.S. laws are protected, we need to make the dispute mechanisms in NAFTA, WTO, and other agreements less secretive and more accountable. NGOs, including environmental groups, should be allowed to present their case in front of NAFTA chapter 11 tribunals and other trade dispute bodies. We will work to address the unintended negative consequences of NAFTA chapter 11 so that foreign investors do not have special standing to challenge U.S. public health and environmental laws. Future free trade agreements must contain similar built-in controls that ensure the environment will not suffer as a result. As President, I'll make sure these protections are central to all future trade agreements. With these steps and others, we make sure that a fair and open trading system promotes economic growth while improving the environment around the world.
13b. Would you increase congressional oversight and public involvement in trade negotiations to better ensure that future trade agreements protect public health and the environment? How would you do so?
Congress and the public have an important role to play in crafting trade agreements. As President, I'll work with Congress and environmental groups closely on trade. I'll improve the current practice of conducting environmental reviews of trade agreements, promote openness and transparency in the negotiation of trade agreements,f and push to open trade dispute processes to the public (for example, by allowing non-governmental organizations to file amicus curiae briefs in cases involving the environment).
14. Biodiversity
There is a consensus among the world’s leading scientists that one of the greatest long-term threats to human welfare is the loss of species and their natural habitat, collectively resulting in the massive loss of biological diversity. The international Convention on Biological Diversity was negotiated in 1992 to help provide for a coordinated international effort to deal with biodiversity loss problems. The Convention has been ratified by 187 countries—nearly every country on earth. In spite of the fact that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations overwhelmingly approved ratification, the United States (along with Iraq and Somalia) is one of only seven countries that has not joined this important treaty.
14a. Will you work to persuade the Senate to ratify the Convention?
Yes. Loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest environmental challenge facing the world today. U.S. participation in the Convention on Biological Diversity would help make the treaty a more powerful for meeting this important challenge.
15. Participation in international environmental agreements
The biodiversity and climate change conventions are only two of the many multilateral environmental treaties to which the United States is not a party—including important agreements on persistent organic pollutants, hazardous chemicals and wastes, the law of the sea, environmental impact assessment and public participation. The consistent failure to participate has transformed the United States from a leader to a laggard in global environmental cooperation, jeopardizing not only our shared environment but also our ability to influence new international rules in these areas.
15a. What will you do to speed ratification of important environmental agreements and restore the United States to its historic leadership role in global environmental issues?
Nowhere is the failure of President Bush’s unilateralism more clear than on questions of global environmental security. America is not an island. There are no barriers that separate us from the global atmosphere or the oceans. Our health is protected and our economy prospers when we engage and lead in international efforts to protect the earth’s shared atmosphere, oceans, and living resources.
As President, I will work with the leaders of the Senate to rebuild the consensus for U.S. participation in critical environmental agreements that have languished under this administration. I will reach out to re-engage with other nations on the global environmental dangers we all face.
Environmental leadership is also an important component of American leadership for democracy around the world. Our own environmental laws are models of open government, public access to information, and participation of those with a stake in their government’s actions. As the leader of the free world, we can, and should, be a strong voice for these values abroad.
Pollution and Public Health
16. Clean Water
The Clean Water Act has been the foundation of clean water protections for over 30 years, protecting rivers, streams, lakes and ponds from pollution and destruction. Small rivers, intermittent streams, and so-called “isolated” wetlands play a crucial role in maintaining water quality. Efforts are underway to limit the ability of the federal government to protect up to 60% of the nation’s waters. Also under development are regulations to limit the ability of the state and federal governments to control runoff from farm fields, animal feedlots and city streets.
16a. Would you support and promote legislation to reaffirm the historic scope of the Clean Water Act to protect all of the nation’s waters?
Yes. All America’s waters need to be protected and a clean environment is of the highest importance to the long-term future of the American people. I believe that the Supreme Court erred in its 2001 ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, when it overturned the federal government’s power to protect wetlands, streams, and other waters that may be considered isolated. The Administration has contributed to the damage caused by this decision by failing to issue guidance interpreting the court’s ruling. These actions have endangered the ecological balance in significant portions of our nation’s wetlands. Consequently, I support the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2003, which would clarify that the Clean Water Act of 1972 applies to all of the waters of the United States, and would delete the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act. All waters of the U.S. need to be protected, not simply ones deemed navigable. I would support legislation that extends Clean Water protection to all United States waters to the full extent constitutionally permitted.
16b. How would you act to assure that sources of polluted runoff are appropriately controlled?
I believe that polluted runoff is one of our nation’s most pressing environmental problems because it is the single largest source of water pollution. It is crucial that we ensure strict control in this area. The fact is we cannot meet water quality standards if we don’t address runoff, particularly from stormwater. Here too the Bush administration is moving in the wrong direction by weakening EPA’s capacity to control water pollution. I believe the Total Maximum Daily Load program (TMDL) that was established as part of the 1972 Clean Water Act to control the amount of both point source and non-point source pollution should be continued and strengthened. The Bush administration’s proposed rulemaking would make the EPA’s responsibility to intervene when TMDL standards are not being set by states optional instead of mandatory. Therefore, I oppose the Bush Administration’s attempt to rewrite these rules. In addition with tax incentives, I would support state and local land use planning efforts to address runoff. Ensuring all Americans have clean water to drink, clean water to swim in, and clean water to fish in is not subject to political bargaining.
17. Wetlands
Wetlands - the marshes, bogs, bottom land hardwoods and estuarine areas where water meets land – act as nature’s water filters and as sponges that help prevent flooding. Our nation has lost over half its original wetlands and continues to lose over 100,000 acres of wetlands each year.
17a. How would you act to reverse the steady erosion of this natural resource?
My administration would begin immediately to enforce a “no net loss” policy. I would ensure that all wetlands, including isolated and seasonal wetlands, remain subject to the protection of the Clean Water Act. I would ensure that the Corps of Engineers and the EPA maintain regulations to protect these waters of the United States and I would call on Congress to reauthorize the Clean Water Act with these protections in place. I would ask Congress to regulate drainage and conversion of wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
18. Clean Air
According to the American Lung Association, at least 137 million people live in areas where it is unhealthy to breathe the air due to ozone or smog pollution. During the 2001 smog season, there were more than 4600 violations of EPA's health standard for smog in 42 states across the country. The elderly, children and people with asthma are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Scientists estimate that up to 40,000 Americans die prematurely each year because of fine particle pollution, or soot.
The electric power industry is the nation’s largest source of air pollution. Electric power plants produce one third of the nitrogen pollution that causes smog, and two thirds of the sulfur pollution that forms fine-particulate matter, acid rain and haze. And they produce 40% of carbon pollution, the heat-trapping chemical that causes global warming. Power plants are the largest sources of mercury emissions, which contaminate fish in our lakes and streams. The current administration has announced a “Clear Skies” proposal that purports to deal with this pollution, but would actually increase harmful emissions and air pollution compared to effectively enforcing the Clean Air Act and this proposal completely ignores global warming pollutants from this industry.
18a. What measures would you take to protect public health from air pollution?
President Bush has weakened clean air standards and programs that are supposed to protect Americans from soot, smog, and toxic pollutants like mercury. My first act to clean the air will be to restore requirements that big polluters install modern pollution controls when they expand their plants and increase their pollution. Every American has the right to breathe clean air. As President, I would roll back the Bush Administration’s effort to allow older power plants to continue polluting at high rates even as they undertake massive expansion. I think the so-called “Clear Skies” initiative is similarly misguided and shows a callous disregard for the health of all Americans, particularly those in lower-income communities.
I would support a cap-and-trade system, to reduce four major pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide. (Some areas such as those within close proximity to national parks would be subject to strict limits and might not be eligible for the trading program.) Further, as President, I would work with the EPA to set realistic and enforceable timetables to phase out and/or upgrade the dirty obsolete coal-fired power plants grandfathered by the Clean Air Act. I would also provide federal support to help develop cleaner safer energy alternatives.
My EPA will work together with the states to meet health protection standards for soot and smog, as required by law. And I will set tough new standards to curb the mercury emissions from power plants and other industries that are contaminating lakes and streams in nearly every state.
18b. Do you support comprehensive efforts to address ozone, mercury, particulate and carbon pollution?
Yes. Phasing out old plants and passing a four-pollutant cap and trade law (see 18a.) will make a large dent in both carbon and nitrogen oxide—the precursor to ozone. In addition to these measures, I'll push to close the "SUV loophole" in fuel economy standards and improve fuel efficiency. Simultaneously, the federal government should assist to develop clean and sustainable energy technologies. As part of the job plan outlined under “New American Patriotism,” the United States can be a leader in sustainable energy technologies. Not only can these technologies help the environment, but they will also provide sustainable jobs to this country. Finally, we need to re-engage with the international community to address carbon emissions and global warming more broadly. Whether it's rejoining Kyoto or finding other multilateral approaches, we have to address this global problem with global leadership. And global leadership is environmental leadership.
18c. What efforts would you support to address issues, such as acid rain and regional haze?
The most important step to combat acid rain and restore visibility is to enact comprehensive power plant legislation (see answer 7a). I will also carry out and strengthen new vehicle emission standards and limits on sulfur in fuel. Together with measures to improve energy efficiency, these measures will help restore the health of our lakes and forests and bring back the magnificent vistas that make America uniquely beautiful.
19. Food Safety/ Pesticides
In 1996, Congress enacted the Food Quality Protection Act to assure that America’s food supply is safe from dangerous pesticides.
19a. Do you support implementation of this law to assure that children and other vulnerable people are fully protected from dangerous pesticides contaminants?
Yes. Chemical contaminants have no place in our nation’s food supply, and FQPA’s new standard for regulating pesticides --- reasonable certainty of no harm --- imposes the proper level of protection. While I am mindful of the difficulty involved in implementing this new standard, I believe that the EPA can and should do more to meet the statutory deadlines for various regulatory actions mandated by this important legislation. As President, I will work with the EPA to ensure that every effort is made to implement the FQPA.
19b. Would you oppose efforts to delay the food safety requirements of this important law?
Yes I would. The American people are entitled to enjoy the full benefits of this important, seven-year-old legislation.
19c. Do you believe all pesticides that may remain on food products should be comprehensively tested for safety, and that, where data is not available, conservative assumptions should be applied to assure public health protection?
I support full implementation of the provisions of the FQPA regarding the review of the safety of pesticide residues on food (known as tolerance reassessments). I also support the review of the safety of existing pesticides and their uses according to the most up-to-date science as part of the ongoing EPA re-registration process. Environmental decisions such as these should always be made on the basis of the best available scientific information. When data are lacking, conservative assumptions should be used where supported as a generally accepted scientific practice.
I also believe in “right-to-know” laws. Food producers have the obligation to ensure that the produce provided to America’s consumers and their children is healthy and safe. When the produce industry fails to establish and adhere to internal standards for safety with regard to pesticides on its produce, laws and a mechanism to enforce them must exist to protect the health of the consumer.
20. Toxics, Right to Know, Preventing Toxic Exposures
In the last 50 years, chemical manufacturers have flooded society with tens of thousands of chemicals, but weak laws haven’t kept pace with industry production. Of 80,000 chemicals on the market, approximately 90% lack even basic publicly available information on potential health effects. Manufacturers are only required to report industrial pollution for fewer than 700 of these chemicals. There is no law providing disclosure of toxic chemicals contained in consumer products. And finally, the government’s ability to restrict or phase out known hazardous chemicals is extremely limited (resulting in a judicial repeal of EPA’s ban on asbestos).
20a. Do you believe that the public has a right to know about the full range of toxic chemicals in foods, drinking water and consumer products?
I believe that the public has both a right and a need to know about such chemicals, subject to the practical limitations on making such information available. We have learned over the years that many of the chemicals to which we are exposed on a daily basis can have harmful impacts on many Americans. It is imperative to our individual health and the nation’s health care system that information be available concerning exposure to chemicals in foods, drinking water, and consumer products.
20b. Would you support legislation to require manufacturers to disclose the potential health effects of chemicals to which they expose the public?
I would enthusiastically work with Congress in fashioning such legislation.
20c. Do you believe that chemicals with known links to serious health effects should be phased out where there are safer alternatives?
I believe we should reduce or eliminate exposure to chemicals with serious health effects when there are realistic alternatives that are shown to be safer.
21. Toxics
The Superfund program was steadily increasing the rate of site cleanup through the 1990’s - with over 85 sites completed each year in 1997 - 2000, with the rate now slowing to about 40 sites per year. Under Superfund’s “polluter-pays” liability system, polluters have directly paid for cleanups at more than 70% of Superfund sites. In addition, the liability structure has created strong incentives for pollution prevention and better waste management. However, the program of polluter-pays taxes that support the program expired in 1995, and Superfund cleanups are increasingly paid for with taxpayer funds. In fiscal year 2004, it is estimated that 79% of EPA's cleanups with be paid for by taxpayers. Critics of the program, however, assert that cleanups are unduly expensive because they too often involve treating wastes rather than simply trying to contain them, and that litigation has been excessive.
21a. Do you support reinstating the Superfund tax?
Yes. The Superfund tax preserves an important principle of environmental policy: namely, that polluters should pay to help clean up environmental hazards. As a result of the failure of Congress and the Administration to support reinstatement of the Superfund tax, the Superfund trust fund is now going bankrupt. This unfairly allocates the full cost of these cleanups to the U.S. taxpayer and removes an important enforcement tool that could be used to make responsible parties pay their full share of cleanup costs.
21b. What measures would you support to accelerate the pace of clean up at Superfund sites?
First, I will appoint an administrator to head the agency who would be committed to increasing the pace of clean up at Superfund sites across the country. The Clinton administration recognized the unacceptable length of time that it was taking many of these sites to be cleaned and made the cleaning up hazardous waste sites a national priority and challenged EPA regional administrators to work hard with states to get the job done. Second, I will seek to reinstate a Superfund tax so that the program’s trust fund would have sufficient resources to permit the federal government to step in to take action when responsible parties are unwilling or unable to act on their own. Third, I will request additional resources for the program based on a review of the number and kinds of sites that still need to be cleaned up, taking into account their size and complexity. Finally, I will expedite the speed of cleaning up these sites as part of my support for making Superfund sites both protective of the public health and more attractive to redevelopment as a way of attracting private investment.
22. Environmental Justice
Environmental problems -- from toxic pollution to loss of biodiversity -- affect all of us. Some communities, especially communities of color and poorer communities, are likely to suffer disproportionate impacts from environmental degradation. Evidence of environmental disparities includes: higher incidences of childhood lead poisoning among African-American children and among lower-income children; higher exposures by people of color to air pollution and higher penalties for violations of federal environmental laws levied in white communities compared to minority communities. Other areas where environmental disparities can exist include the siting of waste management facilities, access to clean drinking water and food, job-related exposures to toxic chemicals, access to well-maintained public parkland, and the availability of transportation options.
22a. What is your vision for insuring equal access to a clean and healthy environment?
Equal access to public goods is one of America's most deeply held values. No American should have to live or work in conditions that threaten their health. Environmental health hazards are too often borne by the most vulnerable among us -- the children, the elderly, and low-income communities. Critics often say that environmentalism is an issue that is only a concern for the well-to-do, but in fact just the opposite is true. The affluent are more likely to have the means to protect themselves from exposure to unsafe living conditions like lead, asbestos, hazardous waste, polluted air, and dirty water. The government must protect disadvantaged communities from these dangers.
22b. Would you support and strengthen compliance with Executive Order 12898, the President's Order on Environmental Justice (2/11/94), which mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations?
Yes. The Federal government affects the environmental health of Americans in many ways, through its own activities, programs, and policies. With Executive Order 12898, President Clinton recognized that we have to look closely not only at the total amount of pollution, but also at where that pollution falls. No single racial or ethnic group should bear the burden of excess pollution. I will ensure that all federal agencies perform their activities in such a manner as to identify and eliminate the potential for any disproportionate impacts.
22c. Are there other ways you would address this issue?
I will tap the creative energy of all groups involved in environmental issues. Too often we fall into the trap of doing things the way they have always been done. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice could be more effective in promoting environmental justice. My Administration will not be afraid to try new approaches, to work with diverse parties, to promote unique solutions and partnerships between industry and affected communities, and when necessary, to use its enforcement and compliance powers to ensure that my commitment to a clean and healthy environment for all Americans is achieved.
Environmental Process and Procedures
23. Budget/Environmental Funding
Federal spending for Natural Resources and the Environment budget category (Function 300) has declined substantially since 1980. Environmentalists believe that the management needs of national parks, wildlife refuges and other federal lands and clean water and clean air programs as well as programs that protect wildlife continue to increase.
23a. Would you support a reassessment of federal spending priorities and restoration of an equitable portion of the federal budget to natural resource and environmental programs and agencies?
Yes. These programs have been critical to the preservation and continued maintenance of the land and water resources that are so much a part of our American character and so vital to the public health. I fully support an appropriate allocation of each year’s federal budget to these programs. Also vitally important for these programs is a predictable and consistent level of funding on a multiyear basis. An important step toward this goal was taken in 2000 in the enactment of the Conservation Trust Fund, a commitment made that has not been fulfilled in recent years. I would support not only increased funding levels for these programs, but also a mechanism that would make consistent funding available each year.
23b. What are your top funding priorities for national parks? Do you support more funding for national parks?
Yes, I support more funding for our national parks. The national parks are a unique American treasure and provide an unparalleled opportunity for families to enjoy nature and engage in recreation. Our top priority should be to maintain the resource base essential to preserving each park’s special experience, including its plants, wildlife, and cultural artifacts. We should also pay more attention to maintaining and modernizing in suitable ways the facilities and transportation systems in each of our parks.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was authorized by Congress at $900 million each year with revenue derived from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing and production. Congress has regularly failed to appropriate the authorized amount. The unappropriated balance in the LWCF account now exceeds $11 billion.
23c. Would you support full funding for the LWCF at $900 million each year and limiting its use to the purposes for which it was originally established?
Yes. This program provides vital funding to federal agencies as well as state and local entities so that they can protect open space and important natural resources.
In 2000 Congress established an historic Conservation Trust Fund intended to provide guaranteed funding for LWCF and other programs to protect wildlife, open space and marine and coastal areas. But Congress is now backing away from that commitment.
23d. Would you support efforts to fully fund and maintain the historic Conservation Trust Fund established in 2000?
Yes, I would support efforts to maintain and fully fund the Conservation Trust Fund or to adopt other methods that accomplish the same funding mission through the use of the budget process. The Conservation Trust Fund was a monumental achievement based on a bipartisan consensus. However, the Bush administration has allowed Congress to erode the program to the point that its future viability is now in doubt.
24. Takings/Property Rights
Zoning and various environmental protections at all levels of government protect property owners who may find themselves downwind or downstream from harmful activities. Recently, there have been efforts in the courts, the Congress and in state legislatures to expand the application of the Fifth Amendment’s so-called “takings clause” in the name of protecting property rights. These efforts have the effect of paying polluters not to pollute.
24a. Do you support legislation that would reject the case-specific approach the courts now follow, redefine “property” or otherwise expand the Constitution’s takings clause?
No. There is no need to fix what isn’t broken. The Constitution has served our country and our people well and doesn’t need to be tinkered with.
24b. Do you support legislation to allow private interests to challenge local land use decisions in federal court, bypassing local and state procedures?
No. Land use decisions are local decisions and the proper place for them to be challenged is in state and local venues.
25. Legislative Riders
In recent years, Congress has increasingly relied upon the insertion of unrelated anti-environmental provisions into budget bills, appropriations, and other legislation to bypass regular legislative procedures and avoid presidential vetoes. Environmental groups believe this procedure avoids public scrutiny and debate over new laws, which roll back environmental protection.
25a. Do you believe that changes in environmental laws should be subject to open debate and recorded votes in the Congress?
Yes. Free and open debate is an essential feature of democracy. Too often in recent years, legislative proposals to weaken environmental protection have been agreed to as appropriations riders literally in back rooms or under cover of night, without the public review that such changes deserve.
25b. Would you, as President, veto budget bills or other measures that include unrelated provisions weakening environmental programs?
I would seriously consider vetoing any budget bill containing unrelated provisions that weakened environmental protections.
26. Regulatory Reform
For the past 30 years, most environmental protections for public health have been set based on health-based or technology standards. Critics of many environmental laws and regulations claim that the regulatory process should place a much greater emphasis on the costs of compliance to business. They claim that the regulatory process does not adequately consider costs of compliance to business.
26a. Under what circumstances should human health standards be lowered set based on the cost of compliance to industries?
Different statutes mandate different criteria for determining environmental standards. Under parts of the Clean Air Act, for example, the cost of compliance is explicitly excluded from consideration, while other environmental laws allow costs to be considered when determining standards. While it makes sense for statutes to have their own particular criteria depending upon the nature of the problem being addressed, generally speaking, it is best to set standards based on the level needed to protect human health or on the availability of control technology, and to take costs into account in choosing the most efficient approach to the implementation of the standard. Even the Bush administration admits the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules.
26b. Would you support legislation or executive action to require more detailed assessments of costs and benefits than currently undertaken by federal agencies before new public health or environmental regulations are put in place?
An executive order already requires a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of federal regulations, and a federal statute requires the Administration to report on the costs and benefits of federal regulations on an annual basis. No further assessments should be necessary.
26c. Would you support an adjustment that lowers the estimated benefit in saving someone’s life by his/her age or remaining life expectancy? Explain your views.
When estimating the benefits of saving human life, the government should not discriminate against older Americans based on their age. The value of the life of all adults should be treated the same and should not be lowered simply because one person has lived longer than another. To
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
