On November 3, 2004, at II: 10 a.m., Senator John Kerry called President George Bush. Minutes after, word went out across news wires and the Internet: Kerry was conceding the election. This would not be another 2000; the presidency would not be left hanging for weeks and months of uncertainty.

Instead, in 2004, George W. Bush was re-elected president with 286 electoral votes - l5 more than he received in 2000. But even as the dust settles and the smoke c1ears, there is a sense of ambiguity: newspapers inc1uding the Boston Globe and USA Today trumpeted headlines such as “Clear Mandate Wi]] Boost Bush’s Authority, Reach” even as columnists in the L.A. Times and Wan Street Journal observe that a 5 1 % victory is hardly a mandate and Bush’s re-election was “the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916″.

The 2004 election has been described as the most important election of our lifetimes; the truth of this statement remains to be seen. Regardless, one thing is for sure: environmental issues were not on voters’ minds when they showed up at the pons this year. Instead, a deep fear of same-sex marriage, abortion and terrorism hijacked the election and galvanized millions of new voters. As long as these so-cal1ed “moral values” continue to dominate the nation’s political consciousness, questions of environmental policy that affect public health and resources both at home and around the world win be ec1ipsed. If Bush has won a mandate by virtue of winning a vote of confidence from 20% of Americans, chances are he did not do so on the merit of his environmental policies or plans.

The First Four Years

In the second presidential debate, held on October 8 at Washington University, when asked to rate himself as an environmentalist, President Bush touted his Clear Skies initiative and plans to increase national wetlands by 3 million acres. His jovial conc1usion: “I guess you’d say I’m a good steward of the land. The quality of the air’s cleaner since I’ve been the president. Fewer water complaints since I’ve been the president. More land being restored since I’ve been the president.”

Kerry responded snappily: “Boy, to listen to that — the president, I don’t think, is living in a world of reality with respect to the environment. … Now, when it comes to the issue of the environment, this is one of the worst administrations in modern history. “

The Democratic chal1enger was not alone in his opposition to the Bush environmental record. In his first administration, Bush managed to provoke serious outrage from the environmental and scientific communities. Major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters, as well as newly-formed 527s, organized multimillion-dollar campaigns against Bush’s re-election. The LCV even awarded Bush their first-ever “F” rating for a presidential candidate, calling his administration’s environmental record the worst in our nation’s history. The Union of Concerned Scientists has also jumped into the fray, signing on dozens of Nobel laureates to letters accusing the administration of distorting science for political purposes. Even the Republicans for Environmental Protection, a national grassroots organization billing themselves as “the environmental conscience of the Gap”, has come out against their party candidate, asserting that “the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace”.

What could anger and unite so many environmentalists and scientists, even across party lines? The Bush administration’s refusal to properly regulate mercury emissions especially pollution by chlorine manufacturers, which could account for the 65 tons of annual unaccounted-for mercury pollution - has caught at least some of the public’s attention. Many Democrats and Republicans alike have been galvanized by fear of the potent neurotoxin. Mercury, a heavy metal which passes through the food chain and accumulates in fish that are eaten by humans, can cause neurological development disorders in children and fetuses. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been heavily criticized for its weak approach to mercury regulation, including an attempt to reclassify mercury as a nontoxic pollutant.

The Bush administration’s attack on the hugely popular Roadless Area Conservation Rule has also drawn widespread criticism from the environmental community. The Clinton-era rule, which had, by the time of its passage in 2001, elicited a record-setting 1.1 million comments - the vast majority of which were in favor of roadless protection - conserves millions of acres of back-country, federally-owned forest. Defying clear public support for the rule, the Bush administration announced a planned elimination of the roadless rule in July 2004, leaving 58.5 million acres of pristine national forests vulnerable to destructive logging, construction and development.

In the unglamorous world of pesticides, the Bush administration has defied the global environmental community and jeopardized the entire world’s health by increasing use of the dangerous pesticide methyl bromide. Methyl bromide, used to kill pests on farms as well as in storage or transport, is a potent ozone-depleting chemical that is also known to cause prostate cancer in workers. Along with 183 other nations, the U.S. agreed as part of the 1987 Montreal Protocol to completely phase out all use of methyl bromide by 2005. However, thanks to the zealous petitioning efforts of the Bush administration, methyl bromide use has been extended to at least 2006, and in greater quantities than ever before. A new U.S. Department of Agriculture rule, published this September, exploits a “quarantine” loophole in the Montreal Protocol and calls for a ten-time increase in methyl bromide use for treating raw wood packing materials used in international transport. This increase, which could demand as much as 100,000 metric tons of methyl bromide, would triple the global application of this hazardous chemical.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s stealth attack on environmental protection through insufficient funding and budget cuts has remained mostly under the radar. In May 2004, the watchdog group Coalition of National Park Service Retirees reported that Congressional under¬funding of national parks was resulting in reduced park hours and other resources. The White House proposed a deep budget cut for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, the largest financing source for communities to improve and protect water quality. Despite more significant needs for improvement in water quality, the White House requested a budget slashed by $500 million, or 37% lower than last year’s funding level.

Four More Years: What to Expect

The White House has been stunningly quick to interpret their electoral victory as a clear mandate on the administration’s environmental record and plans. As early as November 5, EPA chief Mike Leavitt was clearing the path for continuation of the Bush administration’s heavy¬handed environmental policy, declaring: “We now have a clear agenda, one that’s been validated and empowered by the people of this country.”

With $2 per gallon of gasoline at the pumps this summer, both Bush and Kerry campaigned heavily for “energy independence”. While Kerry promised independence from Middle Eastern oil through energy conservation and efficiency as well as a shift towards renewable sources, Bush - whose campaign received $4.4 million from the oil and natural resources sector this election cycle - pushed for an oil pipeline from Alaska, an ill-advised pipedream that may well be realized in the next four years.

Bush has championed drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) since his 2000 presidential campaign, and only narrow Congressional margins during his first administration thwarted his endeavors. In 2000, the House of Representatives voted to approve drilling for oil in ANWR, which is a pristine,19.6 million acre area of Alaskan wilderness that has been protected since 1960. In 2002, the Senate rejected the proposal by a vote of 54-46, with eight Democrats and five Republicans voting against party lines. In the immediate aftermath of Bush’s reelection, oil development in ANWR - which, if attached to a budget bill would only require 50 votes to pass - is one of the most obvious goals of the second Bush administration. Republican majorities in Congress - including a 55-seat majority in the Senate - swept into office on Bush’s coattails, suggesting that drilling in ANWR is almost guaranteed to pass. Policy experts predict that Congressional Republicans will put off introducing the energy bill in 2005 - possibly dropping controversial riders like the MTBE provision that stalled previous incarnations of the bill.

On November 8, White House science advisor John Marburger announced that, despite the release of key scientific studies addressing the unexpectedly high immediate impact of global warming on the U.S., the administration would not change its policy on climate change. Bush’s first administration withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and has instead pursued a plan that allows for emissions increases.

The outlook for Superfund, the EPA division responsible for cleaning up highly toxic waste sites, is similarly bleak. Superfund has worked on 1,551 sites since its 1980 establishment by Congress under the “polluter pays” principle, wherein chemical and petrochemical companies were required to pay taxes into a “trust fund” that is used to pay for cleanup operations. Under Bush’s first administration, the White House allowed the corporate tax to expire and the funding burden to be shifted to taxpayers.

These areas are, of course, only the tip of the iceberg: Bush’s Orwellian-ly-titled Clear Skies and Healthy Forests plans offer a preview of what more is to come, while the fate of threatened and endangered species, destructive and polluting recreational vehicles in the nation’s public lands, and the ambitious “Oceans 21″ bill have yet to be sealed.

Even with four years of experience, policy records, and promises, the direction of the Bush administration’s environmental policy cannot be entirely predicted. Before the 9/11 tragedy invigorated and redefined his presidency, Bush campaigned for a carbon cap-and-trade regime similar to that used in Europe - but in September 2004, Bush’s energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, blasted Kerry for bringing up the idea, saying it “would likely devastate the coal sector”. The uncertain and tumultuous state of security-related issues and foreign affairs leaves the administration’s environmental policy flexible to reinterpretation and - to borrow a phrase from the 2004 campaign - flip-flopping.

With so much uncertainty in the aftermath of the 2004 election, the immediate prospects of national environmental policies may appear unpromising. But in actuality, November 2 produced mixed - and in some cases, surprisingly positive - results in regards to environmental issues. The League of Conservation Voters’ 18 “Environmental Champion” candidates all won, while four of their designated “Dirty Dozen” were defeated. Voters passed ballot measures in 25 states approving $11 million in funding towards projects for conservation, renewable energy, mass-transit, and nuclear waste disposal. Tens of thousands of environmentally¬minded volunteers engaged millions of Americans in the debate on environmental policy issues.

The national political agenda for the environment is not altogether hopeless: key Congressional environmental leaders like Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Sen. Harry Reid (D¬Nev.) were re-elected with strong margins, while pro¬environment gubernatorial candidates achieved victories in New Hampshire and Montana. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) are expected to re-introduce their widely supported, bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act - a balanced energy plan that aims to reduce global warming through a cap-and-trade approach to emissions.

Overall, environmentalists need not be disheartened by the outcome of the 2004 presidential race; as environmental luminary and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi wrote in an early reflection on the election: “The voters certainly did not give the president a mandate to continue rolling back more than 30 years of bipartisan progress on the environment. There is no doubt that Americans want clean air and clean water. Americans want to preserve our natural heritage, from sea to shining sea.” While the outcome of the presidential election may be disappointing to environmentalists, the environmental movement itself has not suffered insurmountable setbacks; in fact, the impressive grassroots volunteer turnout this election cycle suggests that environmental issues are still an important mobilizing issue for Americans. As long as environmental groups, grassroots efforts, and stalwart environmental defenders in public office manage to thrive and keep up political pressure, we can keep environmental hope alive in the U.S.