Ecologists Retreat as War Marches On

For nearly five years, the Environmental Protection Agency complained that Air Force F-16s flying reconnaissance missions over Iraq and Kosovo were venting a gas that was punching holes in the Earth’s ozone layer and posing a long-term threat to public health.

The agency tried to persuade the Pentagon to eliminate the gas by changing the fire suppressant in the fighter jets’ fuel tanks. But when the Pentagon stepped up its missions over Iraq and dispatched F-16s to defend the skies over Washington and New York after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, EPA officials dropped their objections and closed the case. With the country at war in Afghanistan and battling anthrax terrorism at home, “It’s not an issue worth worrying about,” a senior EPA official said.

Now, much of the nation’s environmental agenda has succumbed to the war effort: From global warming and power-plant pollution to energy production and forest management, issues have been put on hold or transformed from concerns about the environment to concerns about national security.

Environmental groups that earlier this year waged million-dollar ad campaigns against President Bush’s energy policies and efforts to roll back environmental regulations have muted their criticism for fear of appearing churlish or unpatriotic. Although such groups were once convinced that Bush’s environmental policies were costing him support among swing voters, they are far more cautious in picking fights with him now that his job-approval rating is near 90%.

“In the short term, we’ve shifted from trying to win high-profile defensive battles to basically deferring most of those battles,” said Greg Wetstone of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We will continue to fight, but we’ll do it in the right way.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) says she was concerned that some conservatives were using the war on terrorism as an excuse to silence critics and push through environmentally damaging proposals, including the administration’s plan to explore for oil and gas in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). “I want to make sure we don’t lose our freedom and democracy here, and part of that is being able to question and challenge the administration if we think they’re off base on a number of issues,” Boxer said.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers and analysts say it is too soon to tell whether the nation’s focus on war and homeland security will have a lasting impact on public attitudes toward environmental protection. But many agree that environmentalists will have much more trouble blocking oil and gas exploration in environmentally sensitive areas, including ANWR, as Bush stresses the dangers of U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

The House in August approved drilling in ANWR as part of a large energy production package sought by Bush, but many assumed the drilling proposal would founder in the Senate, where there is strong pro-environment sentiment among Democratic leaders and moderate Republicans. But, in the wake of the attacks, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) halted committee deliberations after Democrats concluded that there were enough votes on the panel--and perhaps on the Senate floor--to approve the drilling plan.

Although much of the House support for the plan stemmed from the desire of lawmakers and organized labor to create new jobs during an economic downturn, Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) and other Senate advocates have picked up support by arguing that the Alaskan project is essential to the nation’s long-term energy security, even though, as opponents note, it wouldn’t begin to produce oil for nearly a decade.

“The less dependent we are on foreign sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home,” Bush declared.

Environmentalists and European and Asian leaders roundly criticized the president in March when he disavowed an international global-warming treaty, but they have said little about it since Sept. 11. Bush promised that his administration would offer alternatives to the treaty in time for a November meeting of international negotiators in Marrakesh, Morocco, but that pledge has been largely forgotten as White House policymakers have shifted their focus to anti-terrorism efforts.

The administration is also at least two months behind schedule for producing a promised plan for reducing power-plant emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has drafted a plan, but he and others are reluctant to forge ahead before the administration announces its approach.

Still, some environmentalists contend that the nation’s mounting security concerns may work to their advantage by sparking interest in conservation measures to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

They also say that as Bush tries to hold together an international coalition in his war on terrorism, he cannot afford to act unilaterally on other issues, as he did in rejecting the global warming treaty. Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said it was highly significant that British Prime Minister Tony Blair raised concerns about U.S. opposition to the treaty in a speech after his visit to Washington last month to confer with Bush on terrorism.

“I don’t have any indication at this point the administration is spending considerable time assessing its global-warming position,” Clapp said. “But it’s clear that issue was raised at a critical time by a critical U.S. ally.”

It is also clear that environmentalists are carefully recalibrating their policies and actions to avoid any appearance of detracting from the war effort. The controversy over the F-16 is a case in point.

At issue was the Air Force’s use of Halon 1301, a chemical once widely used as a fire suppressant before the United States and other countries signed a 1994 pact to ban its production.

According to an EPA study, the release of large amounts of Halon breaks down the ozone layer.

The Air Force suspended its use of Halon 1301 in peacetime operations in 1994 but continued to use it for combat missions and dangerous reconnaissance. The EPA and Defense Department scientists repeatedly urged the Air Force to replace Halon 1301 with another chemical, but the Air Force refused, challenging their research.

The controversy evaporated after Sept. 11. As part of new homeland defense policies, the Pentagon ordered F-16 combat patrols over Washington, New York and nearly a dozen other major cities.

Paul Stolpman, director of EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs, says: “The EPA fully supports the military in its ongoing use of Halon 1301 to safeguard our pilots, crews, aircraft and ships.”