BushAdmFlux

By JOE GROSSMAN, UPI Science News

April 18 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush's top appointees are focusing on environmental issues as the new Administration approaches 90 days in office. Global warming, carbon dioxide emissions, arsenic in drinking water, and a thorny national forest roadless rule are high on the agenda.

The new directions being taken by the Administration in all these areas have caused widespread concern. Budgetary cuts that have slashed environmental programs have elicited scathing remarks. The president's withdrawal of a commitment to curb carbon dioxide emissions, believed to cause global warming, drew fusillades of criticism when announced. The announcement that a planned lowering of permissible arsenic levels in drinking water was being put on hold for more study was greeted with widespread disapproval.

A senior White House official, speaking on background, told United Press International that weekly cabinet-level meetings are focusing on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.

Vice-president Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman comprise the group. They are studying many reports and articles, including the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, the official said.

Both reports predict at least a 3-degree Centigrade (5.4 degree Fahrenheit) temperature increase if there is no change in current patterns of use of carbon-based fuels such as gasoline, coal, and natural gas.

While there is still some debate on how much global warming will occur, there is essentially a consensus in the scientific community that a 3-degree Centigrade (5.4 degree Fahrenheit) increase, were it to occur, would have profound environmental and economic impacts on essentially all countries.

The Cabinet group is looking at the science involved in reaching the conclusion that the earth is warming. Research and development efforts to develop new technologies are being studied and market systems are being assessed to determine if they are working or not, said the official, who attends the weekly meeting.

The Cabinet members are taking a "sober" look and not jumping to any conclusions. Climatologists are being consulted, the official said. No timeline for the meetings has been set and no commitment has been made to issuing a report, the official explained.

UPI asked one of the co-chairs of the Congressionally-mandated U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Tony Janetos, what he would tell the Cabinet group if he were at the meetings."One of the things that I'd be telling them is not to think that this is an ideological issue. There's some very solid science here in terms of one might reasonably expect from the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," Janetos said. "They should talk to every scientist they can possibly get to come talk to them on this issue," Janetos, who is chief program officer at the World Resources Institute in Washington, added.

At the same time, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman is taking a very close look at permissible levels of arsenic in the drinking water. Arsenic, regularly consumed at greater than 50 parts per billion, is generally believed to cause several kinds of cancer.

One of Whitman's senior staff told UPI that Whitman has accepted the conclusions of the National Research Council that the legal level of arsenic had to be reduced below 50 parts per billion, the standard for more than half a century. Ideas are being floated and critically examined in Whitman's office, the staff person said.

A spokesperson for the EPA said that two panels were going to be convened to study the issue, but Whitman's senior staff person said that this was not definite. The staff person denied that Whitman was being dictated to by the White House and said that they had received no mandate regarding a course of action on arsenic levels in drinking water.

Ten months ago, while Whitman was Governor of New Jersey, her NJ Department of Environmental Protection recommended "that public water systems and private well-owners take action to reduce exposure when arsenic levels exceed 5 (five) parts per billion."

UPI asked Karl T. Kelsey, professor of cancer biology and environmental health at Harvard School of Public Health about the risk of arsenic in the drinking water. "The nature of public health risk at 50 parts per billion is too high. I personally support lowering it. The amount of work that went into the NRC recommendation of lowering the standard is enormous. People have thought about this for a long time. We've got a standard that's been with us since the 40's and science suggests that lowering it is appropriate. . . . To do nothing at this point, I think, is inappropriate."

Asked about drinking water in communities with high arsenic levels Kelsey said, "I wouldn't want to drink the water and I wouldn't want my kids to drink the water."

Kelsey commented on the potential misuse of an inherent degree of uncertainty present in all scientific conclusions: "Misusing science to represent uncertainty in ways that are political is a problem and I do think that's where we are going. That's why I'm concerned, personally." It is the job of politicians to make decisions in the absence of total certainty based on what is known, not what is unknown, Kelsey said.

Meanwhile, back at the Department of Agriculture, Secretary Ann Veneman is wrestling with a rule developed in the last three years of the Clinton Administration that would make tree cutting, new road building and existing road maintenance off limits in 30 percent of the 777,000 sq. km. (300,000 sq. mi.) managed by the Forest Service, part of USDA.
President Bush put the rule on hold when he came into office.

Although the rule was developed largely by the Forest Service, they have had little say thus far on whether it will be eliminated, an action that would be welcomed by the timber and mining interests that have contributed heavily to the President's election.
Allen Mattison, a spokesperson for the Sierra Club, told UPI that core programs for environmental enforcement and the primary missions of agencies are being slashed, while the Bush budget is cutting back on the government's ability to crack down on polluters and delegates too much control to the States over natural resources.

The Executive Director of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope, was pointed in his criticism of the specific budget cutback that would limit the rights of citizens to take legal steps to protect endangered species, saying "President Bush's actions would gut the Endangered Species Act, our nation's premiere wildlife protection law . . . Americans don't want just one politician giving a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on whether an animal vanishes from the planet."

The Wilderness Society issued a statement that said, "President Bush's real agenda is coming out - an assault on public health, safety and the environment on behalf of industries that contributed to his campaign."

Thus far, the Administration seems unconcerned at the reaction its environmental policy actions are causing.