Record at Odds With Campaign Statements : Bush Environment Policy Topic of Guessing Game

On a campaign swing through the Pacific Northwest last May, an exuberant Vice President George Bush spent three hours fishing for salmon and praising the beauties of the great outdoors. Then, he uttered four words that raised eyebrows from coast to coast.

“I am an environmentalist,” Bush declared.

As the campaign wore on, the vice president surprised many by promising action on a host of traditionally Democratic issues, including clean air, acid rain, offshore oil drilling in California and national parks protection. Meanwhile, Bush aide C. Boyden Gray spent six weeks soliciting advice from environmental groups.

At the very least, this signaled that the new Administration did not want to engage in early confrontations with such groups over environmental concerns, according to a leading Sierra Club activist.

But now that Bush is President-elect, the great guessing game has begun: How much of a commitment will he show to the environment, given his record and the stranglehold of the $155-billion budget deficit over new spending initiatives?

Indeed, a detailed environmental report prepared for Bush by a bipartisan group of experts observed that “the next Administra tion should not be deceived into believing that environmental protection can be achieved without incurring significant costs.”

Nonetheless, some observers expect Bush to launch a variety of new environmental programs.

“I think we’ll definitely see more action on the issue under this (Bush) Administration, certainly on issues like clean air,” said William D. Ruckelshaus, Bush’s top environmental adviser. “Much of it is because of the growing public concern over these problems. That’s obviously a driving force.”

Others are more cautious. Tim Mahoney, a Washington representative for the Sierra Club, said that he believes Bush will do more for the environment than President Reagan, but how much is another question.

Not All-Out Warfare

“I think it will be more like it was under the (Gerald R.) Ford and (Richard M.) Nixon administrations,” he said. “They weren’t friendly to us necessarily, but it certainly wasn’t the all-out warfare we had with the Reagan Administration.”

Both skeptics and supporters believe that Bush will be under public pressure to take action on some environmental issues. They all agree that the first test of his response will be the appointments he makes to head the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, the two most influential environmental posts in the federal bureaucracy.

“These are the key things to watch in the beginning,” said Russell Train, a former EPA administrator and Bush adviser on environmental issues. “You’ll get a good inkling of his real priorities by these appointments.”

Beyond that, many observers believe history will judge the Bush Administration’s environmental record by its efforts to forge a national energy policy. Such a blueprint, linking the need for energy development with environmental concerns, could have far-reaching impact on issues ranging from the “greenhouse effect” and alternative automobile fuels to Arctic wildlife and air pollution in American cities.

Sees Cooperation

In Congress, many members are eager to see how Bush proceeds. “I’m not getting my hopes up,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who cited the vice president’s past efforts to weaken some clean air regulations. “But in the beginning, at least, Congress will work with the new President and the new people that he appoints.”

As resumes pour into Bush’s transition offices, speculation is growing about his key environmental appointments, neither of which is expected until sometime next month.

Michael R. Deland, who had headed the EPA’s New England office for five years, is widely believed to have the inside track for the agency job. A tough advocate for the environment, he has strong support among environmentalists and has been endorsed by Sen. Robert T. Stafford (R-Vt.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.) who will assume the top Republican rank on the panel when Stafford retires.

Other candidates reported by transition sources to be in the running are John Quarles, a lawyer and former deputy EPA administrator; Frank Blake, a Washington attorney who was a general counsel for the EPA in the Reagan Administration, and F. Henry Habicht, a former assistant attorney general who headed the agency’s land and natural resources division.

No front-runner has emerged for secretary of the Interior, but a leading candidate appears to be Sen. Daniel J. Evans (R-Wash.), who is leaving office. Environmentalists would be “delighted” with Evans’ appointment, according to a leading activist, but some office holders, including Sen. James A. McClure (R-Ida.), have registered concerns about his strong beliefs on wilderness and national park issues, the source said.

Other Names Mentioned

Another candidate is believed to be Nathaniel Reed, a Florida environmental activist and former assistant secretary for fish and wildlife in the department. Other names mentioned by officials close to the transition team include former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, who directed a blue-ribbon study on national parks, Rep. Claudine Schneider (R-R.I.) and Train.

For environmentalists, the mandate Bush gives to these agencies is just as important as the people he chooses to head them. Under the Reagan Administration, for example, environmental initiatives mounted by the EPA were frequently overridden by the Office of Management and Budget.

“The important thing is that he allow these positions to have strong autonomy,” said Ruckelshaus, who has headed the EPA twice--once under Nixon, once under Reagan. “On the EPA appointment, for example, that person can often run afoul with other members of the Cabinet, getting into their jurisdictions. The President has to make it clear that he backs up EPA so they can do their job.”

One of the agency’s most important tasks will be the enforcement of clean air regulations. And what Bush does--or fails to do--to help bring about an agreement on a revised Clean Air Act is important not only in determining how quickly blue skies return to America’s smoggiest cities, but as an early test of the new Administration’s commitment to strong environmental action.

Formidable Obstacles

There are formidable obstacles. Nowhere has the confluence of competing political, economic and environmental interests been more pronounced than during the failed negotiations of the last Congress over a new Clean Air Act. The measure, carried by Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), died last October.

A major thrust of the new legislation was to enact new, more realistic deadlines for reducing urban smog, as well as taking steps to limit emissions contributing to acid rain. But the broad scope of the bill guaranteed a clash between interests ranging from Detroit auto makers to West Virginia coal miners.

Throughout the protracted negotiations, the Reagan Administration was virtually silent. The Administration did register its opposition to specific proposals in the measure. But at no time did it attempt to put its imprimatur on a compromise.

In the 101st Congress, many will be looking to the White House for leadership.

“In the first place, he (Bush) can just put something on the table,” said an obviously frustrated James M. Lents, executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, whose job it is to bring the nation’s smoggiest urban area into compliance with clean air standards.

Possible Scenario

Michael Fischer, executive director of the 480,000-member Sierra Club, added: “If Bush simply said in his first 100 days: ‘I want to see a good, tough, balanced Clean Air Act on my desk this Congress,’ that would be great. And if he went further and said it should have three elements--acid rain, urban smog and airborne toxics--that would be a notch better.”

Beyond clean air, environmentalists and scientists believe that there is one overriding issue crying out for leadership by the new Administration--the interrelationship between energy needs and environmental protection.

Critics charge that without greater emphasis on energy efficiency, the nation’s dependence on fossil fuel will not only grow, thereby making the United States more dependent on foreign sources, but the environment will be jeopardized on a number of fronts.

“I think the big question is energy policy,” said one conservationist. “ . . . Everywhere you look, you find environmental trade-offs forced upon us only by the fact that we have a stupid energy policy.”

Although there is little likelihood that the Bush Administration will soon pull back on the Reagan Administration’s push to develop domestic oil and gas reserves, Bush could delay or even prohibit oil and gas drilling in certain areas deemed environmentally sensitive, such as those off the coast of California, and lend support to alternative energy sources like wind and solar power.

During the campaign, environmentalists watching for clues to Bush’s intentions took heart from his statement that he would provide U.S. leadership in reducing greenhouse gases suspected of causing gradual global warming, a phenomenon that has triggered growing alarm worldwide.

Give Pause to Some

But his actions as a member of the Reagan Administration give pause to some. Bush was chairman of the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief, which environmentalists charge set the tone for what they call the Administration’s anti-environmental stance.

That task force called for a rollback in energy efficiency standards for new buildings and fuel efficiency standards for new cars. Last month, the Reagan Administration reduced fuel economy standards for 1989 cars under pressure from General Motors and Ford.

“George Bush has repeatedly promoted energy production over energy conservation,” according to an analysis of Bush’s environmental record by the League of Conservation Voters.

On the other hand, activists note, Bush was one of the voices within the Reagan Administration that pushed hard for an international protocol to cut emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, which scientists say are destroying the Earth’s upper atmospheric shield against harmful solar radiation.

Whatever the case, few believe that Bush can or will avoid confronting environmental issues. Despite the problems posed by the federal deficit and competing interests, there are major items on the environmental agenda that do not necessarily require increased federal spending.

The cost of tougher air pollution regulations, for example, would be borne by polluters. By contrast, a program to increase protections for national parks could cost billions of dollars.

“We’re pretty much waiting to see what he (Bush) comes up with,” said a Senate Democratic policy aide. “But we know that he will be under pressure to do something. Bush spent too much time talking about these things in the campaign to back off now.”