Month: November 2006

Carter contrasts the Bush Administration’s environmental record with his own administration’s record, and even with past Republican administrations. Needless to say, the Bush Administration is shown to be lacking. He points out that Republican attempts to open up the Alaska refuge, which Carter established, would not be necessary if the federal government had not exempted “light trucks� from mileage requirements:

The tragedy of the decision to savage the Alaska refuge is that when oil from the area might reach peak production, fifteen to twenty years from now, it will equal the amount that could be saved by requiring the efficiency of “light trucks” (SUVs) to be the same as that of ordinary cars (20 miles per gallon). To reach the target we set in 1980 would result in far more savings. Perhaps not surprisingly, political pressures from the oil industry and automobile manufacturers have prevailed on this issue, and gas guzzlers have become a major product in our country. This foolish government decision against fuel economy might be a serious long term blow to the American automobile industry in its competition with more efficient vehicles manufactured in Japan and Europe as fuel prices inevitably rise in the future.

As Carter points out, this decision seems especially unwise when we see what the long-term effect has been on American automobile manufacturers.
As I pointed out in a blog entry right before the last presidential election, the current administration has gutted Superfund legislation:

Almost simultaneously with the passage of ANILCA in 1980 came the completion of work on what was known as Superfund legislation. I had long been concerned about the emission of toxic materials by some irresponsible corporations, and working with a bipartisan Congress we established legal requirements that such wastes be reduced drastically and that those responsible be required to finance the cleanup of their poisonous deposits. Also, a small surcharge on polluting chemical companies established a permanent fund to cover future costs. Now, with the advent of a new administration in Washington, industry lobbyists have been able to prevail again, as the “polluters pay” principle was abandoned. American taxpayers were forced to pay about 8o percent of the cleanup costs in 2004 and will bear the total bill in fiscal year 2005. There is little financial incentive for unscrupulous corporations to restrict their dumping of toxic wastes.

And who says it doesn’t pay for businesses to make political contributions? If businesses put up money to support candidates, you can be sure that they plan on making a profit on that money, profit that’s paid for with public dollars. It was a little unnerving to recently read that businesses had started making more donations to Democratic candidates.

Of course, who can forget the Bush administrations rejection of the Kyoto Treaty:

One of the most controversial and universally condemned decisions made in recent years by top American leaders was to reject participation in the laboriously negotiated international agreement to control greenhouse gases, which are causing an increase in the planet’s temperature. It has become widely known that manmade gases, mostly oxides, rise into the stratosphere and create a blanket similar to the plastic or glass bubble that surrounds a greenhouse. The sun’s rays enter, and an increasing amount of heat is retained instead of being dissipated from the earth’s atmosphere.

While the Bush administration argued that Greenhouse dangers were being blown out of proportion by radicals who were relying on junk science, i.e., anyone who didn’t agree with Exxon’s view, the rest of the world certainly seemed convinced by the science.

It was reassuring when a number of religious groups broke rank with the current administration, apparently convinced by recent findings that man was, indeed, in danger of destroying God’s greatest creation:

In April 2005, a definitive report was published in the journal Science by a group of scientists led by James E. Hansen, a NASA climatologist, that should dispel all doubts about forecasts of climate change. After a five year study using more than two thousand monitoring stations around the globe, they determined that temperatures would continue a slow rise even if greenhouse gases are capped immediately, and will “spin out of control” if strong corrective action is not taken. An increase of ten degrees Fahrenheit this century could occur. Based on additional scientific proof of the long range problem, Holland has committed to cut emissions by 80 percent, the United Kingdom by 60 percent, and Germany by 50 percent in the next forty years.

I’d like to think that increasing public opinion would force this administration to reconsider their environmental policies, but somehow I doubt that it will. Those who consider it vital to “stay the course� in face of a war started under false pretenses and that has turned out dramatically differently than they predicted will surely not be deterred by a few scientific studies, no matter how definitive.

America likes to think of itself as a world leader, but I really wonder how many Americans are proud knowing that:

America is by far the world’s leading polluter, and our government’s abandonment of its responsibilities is just an other tragic step in a series of actions that have departed from the historic bipartisan protection of the global environment. Our proper stewardship of God’s world is a personal and political moral commitment.

If God actually left us in charge of his masterpiece, it’s hard to believe that He would be satisfied with how we have ruled it if He were to return today.

My biggest problem reading Carter’s Our Endangered Values is that too often I merely feel like a member of the congregation, my participation limited to shouting “Amen� after a passage I’ve read. Generally I want more than that from a book; I want something that challenges my ideas and helps me see the world differently. Still, just the fact that my values are so similar to a born-again Christian is a constant amazement.

I could easily spend days citing passages from the book, but I’m skipping over several chapters to focus on chapter entitled “Attacking Terrorism, Not Human Rights?� I’m sure earlier comments hear on my joining the ACLU and on the Patriot Act have made views quite clear, but hopefully Carter’s comments will encourage you to get out and vote your values Tuesday.

Carter notes that during his administration he focused on trying to protect civil rights abroad, among allies who seemed felt little compulsion to protect those rights in their own countries:

This triumph of civil rights at home did not preclude America’s acceptance and support of some of the most brutal foreign regimes in our hemisphere and other regions, which blatantly violated the human rights of their own citizens. As a newly elected president, I announced that the protection of these rights would be the foundation of our country’s foreign policy, and I persistently took action to implement this commitment. It has been gratifying to observe a wave of democratization sweep across our hemisphere and in other regions, as the fundamental rights of freedom were respected.

During the past four years there have been dramatic changes in our nation’s policies toward protecting these rights. Many of our citizens have accepted these unprecedented policies because of the fear of terrorist attacks, but the damage to America’s reputation has been extensive.

I’ve always felt that supporting dictators abroad because merely because they opposed Communism or because they provided us with oils was morally reprehensible, unchristian, and short-sighted.

Unfortunately, the current administration seems to be returning to such policies:

Equally disturbing were reports that the United States government is in some cases contributing directly to an erosion of human rights protection by encouraging governments to adopt regressive counterterrorism policies that lead to the undermining of democratic principles and the rule of law, often going far beyond the U.S. Patriot Act.

I can’t be the only person shocked to learn that the United States sent a Canadian suspected of being an Al Queda member to SYRIA to be interrogated. Aren’t these the same Syrians we accused of harboring Sunnis from Iraq?

Carter points out that the Bush administration, supported by many conservative Republicans, is violating international principles that have been in effect since the close of World War II:

The prevalence of such abuse of captured servicemen and women during World War II induced the community of nations to come together to define quite precisely the basic guarantees of proper treatment for prisoners. These restraints are the result of an international conference held in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1949, and redefined and expanded what are known as the “Geneva Conventions.” The authenticity and universal applicability of these guarantees were never questioned by a democratic power until recently, and by America! Instead of honoring the historic restraints, our political leaders decided to violate them, using the excuse that we are at war against terrorism. It is obvious that the Geneva Conventions were designed specifically protect prisoners of war, not prisoners of peace.

The international outrage evoked by such treatment is much more dangerous in the long run than any immediate benefit that may be gained. If such tactics were effective, the Shaw of Iran would still be in power, not to mention several other dictators once supported by America.

It’s truly terrifying when America’s attorney general can argue that international law does not apply to our treatment of possible terrorists:

Again quoting America’s new attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, the policy “places a high premium on. . . the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.” He justifies an extension of the program permitting CIA agents to deal with suspects in foreign prison sites by claiming that the ban of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not apply to American interrogations of foreigners overseas. According to him, the prisoners can be held indefinitely without any legal process and without access by the International Red Cross, even though the United States has ratified international agreements that prohibit such treatment. The New York Times reports that a still secret directive authorizing this policy was issued by President Bush in 2001. He also announced that members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not entitled to prisoner of war status.

I was originally hopeful when McCain and a handful of Senators stood up to the Bush Administration on this issue, but unfortunately they seemed to lose enthusiasm when they saw their popularity fall among the traditional Republican base. It’s obvious we need to elect both republicans and democrats who oppose these policies, but it seems clear that we will see little change unless the Democratic Party controls either the house or the senate.