Election Year Spending - Editorials About the EPA, OSHA and the Environmental Field - From Professionals in it!

EHSO's Environmental & Safety Editorials

Current:

Recent:

Election Year Government Spending

Enforcement of Environmental Regulations

Election Year Spending

So its another presidential election year. Mr. "Environmental Vice-President" Gore (a.k.a, "Inventor of the Internet") almost reminds me of Jerry Brown (remember "Gov. Moonbeam"?) with his lack of touch with reality.

Al Gore professes to be the champion of the environment... so what are his accomplishments? Anyone? Don't all shout at once.

There is the problem: how can the democrats get Al Gore elected when he hasn't delivered on any of his alleged interests or strengths thus far... in fact, he is most notable for have a weak grasp on reality, and standing by his boss, as he pumped out more spins, parsing, sound-bites, and blatant lies from the White House. I guess Gore's claim to any sort of inherent ethics went out the window long ago.

Which brings us back to what can they do. Oh, yes! Spend money! As much as possible! Make people forget that they did almost nothing (save adding a few acres to some forests) to protect the environment.

Perhaps that's why EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner today announced President Clinton's proposed Fiscal Year 2001 budget of $7.3 billion for the United States Environmental Protection Agency and $2.2 billion for the Better America Bonds program. The budget is the largest increase in the history of the Clinton/Gore Administration in spending for EPA.

All I can say is "too little, too late". A responsible ongoing budget tied to measurable goals and achievements dealing with the real issues: air quality in nonattainment areas (like Atlanta), wastewater treatment capacity (wanna swim in the river after a heavy rain?), Superfund (Europe has dealt effectively with brownsfields sites for years; why is the issue here still largely a pipe dream?) and the various myriad of point source pollution created by small business that know they can get away with because they will never be inspected (almost everyone knows at least one neighborhood business that uses persistent toxics but never ships them offsite for disposal).

Solutions? Ask the candidates, both democrat and republican, what they are doing to resolve the environmental issues.

And don't accept platitudes and "spin" for an answer.

Oh, yes, one more thing. If just one more candidate talks about protecting the environment for "the children", I'm gonna scream. As if anyone over the age of 18 won't be breathing the air or drinking the water for another 20 to 60 years, too!

We would love to hear your opinions - just email us a note (anonymously, is fine)

Back to top