THE PUBLIC MIND: CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Dear Editor:

An examination of the environmental record of the current administration in relation to the record and ideas of the challengers reveals a clear pattern. Those who feel that environmental protection needs leadership from the White House will support Bill Clinton and Al Gore. A brief review of the positions of the candidates will reveal the reasons.

In terms of energy policy, George Bush would promote further mining and drilling for resources, resist efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions, oppose raising fuel efficiency standards, and urge increased reliance on nuclear power. Clinton, the other hand, would promote alternative energy and energy conservation, would promote a reduction in carbon dioxide release, would encourage increased auto fuel efficiency, and is less supportive of nuclear power.

Contrary to the evidence, George Bush denies that overpopulation is an problem, and limited U.S. support for international family planning programs, does not require environmental safeguards to be incorporated into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and has a poor record of defending forests at home or promoting forest management abroad. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, supports the United Nations population programs, supports free trade only with reservations about environmental safeguards, and supports debt-for-nature swaps that protect tropical forests.

While George Bush supported the Clean Air Act, he has since blocked attempts to enforce its provisions (particularly through Dan Quayle's Council on Competitiveness) and has attempted to destroy many thousands of acres of wetland by defining them out of existence. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, recently pushed through measures to protect the Arkansas environment, endorses the Clean Air Act, and rejects the Bush rewriting of wetlands law.

George Bush has promoted drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, encourages timber harvesting at non-sustainable levels, and seems poised to torpedo the Endangered Species Act. Bill Clinton, however, supports protection of the Arctic refuge and old-growth forests, and would endorse reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.

While Bill Clinton cannot claim a spotless environmental record, it is far superior to that of the Bush/Quayle administration. There is no doubt among those concerned with environmental issues that a Clinton administration would be a vast improvement over what we have had for the last 12 years.

Sincerely,

Kathy Conway

Cape Girardeau