Bush Criticized as Fear for Environment Grows

Americans are growing increasingly concerned about the environment and believe that protecting it should take precedence over economic development, according to a Los Angeles Times poll.

The nationwide survey found strong sentiment that pollution is getting worse and that President Bush is on the wrong track on issues ranging from global warming to wilderness protection to allowable levels of arsenic in drinking water.

The poll also found a broadly held affinity for nature. More than seven out of 10 people said they have visited a national park at some point in their lives and nine in 10 said it is important that wilderness and open spaces be preserved.

Four in 10 claimed to be environmentally active in some fashion, either donating time or money to environmental groups or getting politically involved in environmental causes.

The Times poll, completed last week, compared a sampling of opinions nationwide with environmental views in the Western states, where most of the nation’s public land and wilderness are located. There were few policy disagreements, although people in the West tended to favor more development and greater local control.

Overall, the survey found a broad green streak running the length of America, from the California coast to the woods of Vermont.

A 58%-34% majority said that protecting plants and animals should take priority over preserving personal property rights--a sentiment that held true even in Alaska and the mountain West, places with a traditional aversion to government control.

Somewhat surprisingly, given signs of a weakening economy, most people tended to put a premium on preserving nature even if it means creating fewer jobs. By 50% to 36%, those surveyed said improving the environment should take priority even when it conflicts with economic growth. The attitude cut across most regional lines and even income levels, although support for the environment tended to be stronger among the more affluent.

“I don’t think the environment or natural things should be destroyed just to get ahead,” said Frank Sawyer, 46, of rural Shermandale, Pa., one of several people contacted in follow-up interviews. “There’s plenty of think tanks out there that can come up with an alternative solution other than destroying the natural habitat, because once that’s destroyed, it’s never going to come back.”

Distrust of Business’ Motives

The survey also found a deep-seated suspicion of business and doubts that corporations can be trusted to take good care of the environment.

In an era marked by distrust of government, by a margin of more than 2 to 1 Americans said they believe businesses will cut corners on environmental protection unless government reins them in.

That sentiment may explain why Bush, who generally favors less regulation, received poor marks for his handling of environmental issues.

“It’s in [businesses’] benefit to self-police to the degree that they don’t want to make themselves look bad,” said Rob Humphreys, 31, of Woodbridge, Va. “But to the extent they can save money wherever possible I think they’re going to, which probably means cutting corners and not doing things to the degree they should.”

Overall, the survey suggests that Americans are more concerned about the environment than they have been in years. A Times poll in January 1998, for instance, found that just 2% of Americans mentioned environmental issues as the most important problem facing the nation. In the latest survey, 13% cited the environment as their most pressing concern. Most people still ranked the environment behind concerns about the economy, social issues, crime and education.

Fifty-one percent said the county’s environmental problems have worsened over the last 10 years; 20% said things have gotten better, and 25% said things have stayed about the same.

Since taking office, Bush has moved to review, weaken or undo a host of President Clinton’s environmental protection policies dealing with global warming, air and water pollution, national forests and national monuments. That may be working to Bush’s detriment.

While the president enjoyed an overall 57% approval rating after his first 100 days in office, the country was much less enthusiastic over his handling of environmental issues: 41% approved and 38% disapproved.

Opinions were harsher on a number of Bush’s specific decisions.

The most controversial may be a move overturning a Clinton administration ruling that would have reduced the level of arsenic allowed in drinking water by 80%. Bush said the regulation was too costly and vowed to find a less expensive way to deal with the problem.

However, by 56% to 34%, respondents opposed Bush’s move. Several people interviewed said they placed a priority on protecting human health. “I’m 50 years old. I want to live at least another 50,” said Gerald Baca, a maintenance employee in Duarte and a father of eight. “I’ve got kids. I want them to be there.”

Americans also disagreed with Bush’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto global warming treaty, by a substantial 59% to 21%. Opponents of the treaty said the international effort to fight the “greenhouse effect” could hurt the U.S. economy.

Even though some scientists dispute the severity and the causes of global warming, 68% of Americans deemed it a “serious” problem, with 60% blaming it on human activities. Just 20% blamed it on natural climate changes.

The president also received poor marks for reversing a campaign pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, which many experts believe contribute to global warming. Americans disagreed with that decision 54% to 34%.

Forty-five percent of those surveyed ascribed Bush’s move to his ties to the energy industry, which opposes the regulations. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are both former oil industry executives.

Thirty-six percent supported Bush’s action, taking the position that he made the move for cost reasons and because of insufficient evidence that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming.

Strong majorities also supported greater protection of public lands and wildlife. The Bush administration is calling for new approaches that would weaken protection in both areas.

By 53% to 36%, Americans said they would like to see wolves and grizzly bears restored to their natural Western habitat--a policy initiated by the Clinton administration that has been called into question by Bush. The Clinton plan was supported by 56% in the Mountain West and 51% in Alaska.

There was also strong support both nationally (69%) and in the Mountain West (75%) for limiting commercial activities in places where wolves and grizzly bears are still living.

On another contentious issue, Clinton set aside millions of acres of federal land as national monuments, declaring them off limits to commercial uses such as mining, logging and off-road vehicles. By 65% to 24%, a majority opposed rolling back those regulations. The sentiment held firm even in the more conservative Western states, with the exception of Alaska. Residents there opposed Clinton’s move 51% to 40%.

A 58% majority supported Clinton’s decision to extend a ban on logging and road building to nearly 60 million acres of national forest; again, the sentiment was shared in all regions, save for Alaska.

Alaska also differed with the rest of the country on perhaps the most contentious environmental issue today: the president’s proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A 65% to 34% majority of Alaskans supported the proposal; nationally, sentiments are 55% to 34% against. (Each Alaska resident receives an annual stipend derived from oil revenues and mineral development.)

The Bush administration has also advocated oil and gas drilling in the northern Rocky Mountains as a means of boosting the nation’s energy supply and reducing reliance on foreign sources. By 57% to 32% most Americans opposed that proposal, a sentiment shared in the Western states that would be most directly affected.

New Supplies and Conservation Needed

But Americans were not unalterably opposed to drilling, mining or logging anywhere on public lands: Only 4% favored an outright ban. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said they support development on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, while one in three doubt that drilling can ever be done in an environmentally sensitive manner, 52% said they believed that drilling can be done with controls that prevent harm.

When it comes to the nation’s energy needs, 15% called for greater conservation efforts, 17% supported development of new supplies and 61% said they favored both steps in equal measure.

The survey showed that Americans feel a sense of ownership over the nation’s public lands: 61% said the federal government should consider “the views of all Americans” when setting environmental policies, while 34% said more attention should be paid to the feelings of those living nearby.

In Alaska and the Mountain West, views differed somewhat. By a much narrower majority, 51% to 46%, residents of the Mountain West said “all Americans” should have a say in public land policies. In Alaska, however, a 54% to 40% majority of residents said local people should have greater input.

Overall, by 56% to 31%, Americans said the federal government can do a better job than private business in managing the national parks. By 55% to 38% the public believes the government should concentrate resources on upgrading parks rather than expansion. The Bush administration has said that improving park roads and buildings would be a priority.

To help preserve the parks, 82% backed a system requiring motorists to park their vehicles and use public transportation to get around. And to better care for national forests, 51% supported user fees.

“The whole purpose of being in a national park is to be present and one with nature,” Rosemary Lloyd, a 21-year-old archeology student at Sonoma State in Northern California. “Having a car separates you from nature.”

The Times poll, under the supervision of Director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 813 adults nationwide April 21-26. In addition, 512 Californians, 332 Oregonians, 322 Alaskans and 317 Washingtonians were contacted, as were 553 residents in seven states of the Mountain West: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada.

The margin of error for the national sample is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points; for California and the Mountain West it is 4 points and for Alaska, Oregon and Washington it is 5.5 percentage points.