Environment and Election

Vice President George Bush’s promises to clean up the environment sound good, and he should be commended for them. But he cannot blithely divorce himself from the wretched environmental record of the Reagan Administration with a simple wave of a hand and ask voters to trust him to do better.

In his environmental address on the shore of Lake Erie, the vice president generally said the right things about issues like acid rain, ocean dumping, the global greenhouse effect and punishment for polluters. He promised “zero tolerance” of polluters. But Bush was vague on details, repeatedly noting that the quest for environmental excellence has to be balanced against cost, jobs and the economy.

Bush said that nuclear power is one answer to the greenhouse problem and that public health benefits should be weighed against the cost to farmers in the regulation of pesticides. That is not zero tolerance; it sounds suspiciously like the phony “balance” talk that came from Interior Secretaries James G. Watt and Donald P. Hodel.

The environmental record of Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis is not perfect, either, as Bush pointed out Thursday during a ferry tour of Boston Harbor where he lambasted Dukakis for failing to clean up the estuary and halt the disposal of poorly treated sewage into the water. The Boston Harbor situation was a mark against Dukakis from the League of Environmental Voters in giving the governor a “B” grade on the environment. In general, the league said that Dukakis “made good appointments, had a constructive budget and got out front to work on the issues.”

The league assessed Bush a “D,” based largely on his role in Reagan Administration policies. In particular, Executive Director Jim Maddy called Bush a zealous supporter of efforts to weaken Environmental Protection Agency rules when he was in charge of the Administration’s task force on regulatory reform. In fact, delays by EPA under the Reagan Administration contributed to the Boston Harbor pollution problem.

In California, the environmental litmus test this year is federal leasing of offshore regions for oil and gas exploration, which has embroiled California officials in an eight-year battle with the Reagan Administration. Bush earlier this year urged Hodel to postpone a pending lease sale off the unspoiled California north coast until the environmental effects could be studied more carefully. But he has not been more specific on an offshore oil policy.

In Texas last week Bush said, “My opponent opposes offshore drilling and I support it.” In Baton Rouge, La., running mate Dan Quayle said, “George Bush and I vigorously disagree with the man from Massachusetts when he suggests that we cease offshore oil exploration.” Dukakis has said that critical environmental areas should be protected from drilling but that he does not support a total ban on offshore leasing. He has endorsed legislation that would give states a stronger role in reviewing federal lease sales and has opposed federal leasing in the Georges Bank, a popular commercial fishing area off the Massachusetts coast.

It is encouraging that the environment has emerged as a major presidential election issue. Ideally, the candidates would devote an entire debate to the subject, but that will not happen. For Californians, however, the two could be put to one simple test: Given the amount of oil that is available and considering the wilderness nature of the area, would either candidate permit drilling off the Humboldt-Mendocino county coast during the next four years?