Red, Blue and Green

By Jason Mark, AlterNet. Posted June 15, 2004.

Since John Kerry's presidential drive shifted from the heated debates of the primary season to the more choreographed campaigning of the general election, the Massachusetts senator has begun his predictable move to the political center. Without Howard Dean on his case, Kerry's prescriptions for Iraq have become ever greyer, even as he criticizes the White House's handling of the occupation. With John Edwards out of the race, Kerry has dropped his populist (and crowd-pleasing) lines about "Benedict Arnold" corporations. He seems to prefer prudence over pugnacity.

This is not to say there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. On several issues -- including Social Security, health care, and reproductive rights -- Kerry's views diverge sharply from the current occupant of the White House. Another important topic on which Kerry could easily distance himself from Bush is the environment.

According to one poll, 62 percent of voters -- including 54 percent of Republicans -- want more environmental protections rather than less regulations. While the environment rarely ranks high on voters' lists of top concerns, the Kerry campaign, if it acts smartly, could use the Bush Administration's record to attract undecided but environmentally-conscious voters.

This isn't just a green pipe dream; it also happens to be a fear of some of the GOP's top strategists, including Frank Luntz, Republican über-consultant and architect of the 1994 "Contract with America." In a memo to Republicans, later leaked to some environmental organizations, Luntz warned: "The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general -- and President Bush in particular -- are most vulnerable. A caricature has taken hold in the public imagination: Republicans seemingly in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle manically as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit."

Bush counsel Karen Hughes told Time magazine back in 2001 that green issues "are killing us."

Environmental concerns are poised to play a decisive role in an election that is likely to be a nail-biter. Though the soccer moms of 2000 may have morphed into the security moms of 2004, obsessed with shadowy terrorist threats, they still care deeply about the air their kids breathe and the water they drink. The Bush/Cheney campaign faces some high hurdles in convincing voters that this is an administration that really cares for the environment.

Rhetorically, the Bush environmental policies sound fine: The administration has gone to great lengths to trumpet its Clear Skies and Healthy Forests initiatives. As always, however, the devil is in the details, and critics charge that Bush's details have been devilish indeed. Environmental groups claim that the sweet-sounding programs are Orwellian masks for policies at odds with a healthy environment -- allowing more air pollution and paving the way for further deforestation. The drive to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, the repeal of Clinton-era rules limiting arsenic in water, the reduction in protection for wetlands, and the resignation of EPA director Christine Todd Whitman have combined to give the Bush Administration a black eye when it comes to green issues.

It's unclear whether this will have any significat impact on voting behavior in different states, especially the battleground states which both the Kerry and Bush campaigns are targeting.

The White House's environmental policies are already igniting passions in local communities and increasing grassroots involvement in the political process. From the fight to stop mountain top removal coal mining in West Virginian, to sprawl battles in Minnesota, to forest-management issues in fire-prone Arizona, environmental concerns are energizing citizens in a lot of key states. These issues, among others, could end up hurting Bush at the polls if -- and it's a big if -- the Kerry campaign can take advantage of Bush's weaknesses and articulate a greener message.

One hot-button issue riling voters is the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada. For decades the nuclear industry has grappled with questions over the disposal of spent nuclear fuel which remains dangerously radioactive for millions of years. Industry and government officials figured the best plan was to just put all the hot stuff in one site, and picked the deserts of Nevada where the first generation of nuclear weapons were tested. Not surprisingly, many Nevadans did not take kindly to the idea of being the dumping ground for the nation's nuclear waste, and for years the proposed repository has been one of Nevada's most inflammatory political issues.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush and Cheney said they would not agree to open Yucca Mountain unless the science was sound and the site proven safe. Bush won the state by a margin of less than four per cent.

Four years later, Congress and the White House -- overriding the objections of most of Nevada's elected officials -- have agreed to start sending waste to Yucca Mountain. But according to Peggy Maze Johnson of the local environmental justice group Citizen Alert, a host of safety questions remain unresolved. "Two hundred and ninety-three scientific questions about Yucca Mountain are unanswered," Johnson told AlterNet. "If you weigh the options, it just doesn't compute."

The Bush Administration's support for Yucca Mountain has many Nevadans crying foul -- and it has provided the Kerry campaign with a wedge issue. In a recent visit to the state, Kerry said he wouldn't support opening the nuclear waste site, detailing his reasons in an Op-Ed in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Jason Mark is the co-author, with Kevin Danaher, of Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power. He works for the human rights group Global Exchange.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »