Conservation, Comfort Are Often at Odds

California drivers consume more fossil fuel than those in any other state, though many oppose oil drilling off their coastline even as they call for less dependence on foreign oil.

The state’s largest city, Los Angeles, has its own mountain ranges. But the Santa Monica Bay -- which is considerably cleaner than it was two decades ago -- remains so badly polluted that some beaches regularly post signs warning of dangerously high bacteria levels.

As Democratic presidential candidates John F. Kerry and John Edwards seek support in Tuesday’s California primary, they must address the confounding, often conflicting concerns of an environmentally conscious electorate that also is fond of gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles.

And they must do so in a state where residents strive to preserve natural wonders even as population growth and development exacerbate California’s infamous sprawl.

Both candidates have benefited from opposition among many environmental groups to President Bush’s record on issues important to them. “Any of the Democratic candidates would be better than George Bush,” League of Conservation Voters Vice President Betsy Loyless said Tuesday.

There are some differences, however, between Kerry and Edwards on environmental and energy policies that may be especially important to voters in the nation’s most populous state.

The key distinction may be simply the intensity of their focus on such issues.

Kerry, the race’s front-runner, speaks more directly about environmental issues than Edwards.

That is one reason the conservation league endorsed him on Jan. 24, the earliest it has ever backed a candidate in a presidential contest.

Addressing the nation’s reliance on foreign oil, the Massachusetts senator says: “The United States of America can’t drill its way out of this predicament; we have to invent our way out of this predicament. I intend to create the greatest [environmental] crusade that we’ve had in this nation in years.”

Edwards, in contrast, typically ties his comments on environmental issues to the economy and job losses. He insists that preservation and industry are not incompatible.

Because of this, the North Carolina senator often comes across as the jobs-first candidate, with other topics taking a back seat. And he has occasionally knocked heads with environmentalists over regulations that would affect his largely rural state, including some farm bills.

For years, Kerry has helped lead the fight in the Senate to raise the minimum fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles.

He coauthored unsuccessful legislation that would have increased the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standard for cars from the current 27.5 mpg to 36 mpg by 2015.

Such an increase would reduce not only emissions that cause smog and ozone pollution, but also cut the nation’s oil consumption, by about 2 million barrels of oil per day, according to Kerry’s campaign -- nearly as much as the U.S. currently imports from the Persian Gulf.

Edwards in 2002 voted for a proposal that would have raised the fuel standards by a more modest amount.

As a candidate, he has not proposed a specific goal to be met by a given date.

The auto industry has long insisted that increased fuel standards come with a cost, both in terms of sticker prices and jobs.

As with most presidential hopefuls, Kerry and Edwards’ quest for the nomination began in Iowa, one of the nation’s largest producers of corn and, therefore, the most prominent state supporting the increased use of corn-produced ethanol as a gasoline additive.

Both support the increased use of ethanol, which is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency to oxygenate gasoline but also is so expensive that many lawmakers, including California Sen. Diane Feinstein, strongly oppose its wider use. Feinstein has contended that requiring the use of ethanol would amount to a “hidden gas tax.”

Feinstein and others also argue that neither ethanol nor the other common oxygenate, MTBE, is needed in gasoline to meet air-quality standards. California banned MTBEs on Jan. 1 because it can contaminate groundwater.

Both hopefuls also support increasing regulations to limit air pollution.

Edwards, who is viewed as having become increasingly sensitive to environmental issues during his five years in the Senate, was one of the key opponents of Bush’s rollbacks of some provisions of the Clean Air Act -- a fight he narrowly lost.

Kerry and Edwards opposed Bush’s push for oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And in November, both helped defeat the administration’s sweeping energy bill.

Both support increased funding for renewable energy, including solar and wind power.

Both want the U.S. to agree to a clean-air treaty similar to the Kyoto accord, which Bush opted out of.

Edwards has supported some proposals to benefit farmers that conservationists have criticized as damaging to the environment.

One senior advisor to Edwards said that “people of North Carolina would have been the losers” if the senators had opposed the proposals.

Kerry, in part because of his lengthier legislative record on environmental issues, has secured more extensive backing within the California environmentalist

community than Edwards.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Kerry and Edwards on the environment

Democratic presidential candidates John F. Kerry and John Edwards face an environmentally conscious electorate in next Tuesday’s California primary. Here are some of their positions on environmental policies:

*

Automobile Fuel Efficiency Standards

Kerry: Favors raising the minimum standard for cars from 27.5 miles per gallon to 36 miles per gallon by 2015.

Edwards: Favors ‘substantial increases’ in the minimum standard, but has not set a specific timeline.

*

Drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge

Kerry: Opposes

Edwards: Opposes

*

President Bush’s rollbacks of some provisions of the Clean Air Act

Kerry: Opposes

Edwards: Opposes

*

Increased use of ethanol and research into it as a gasoline additive, which many California lawmakers oppose

Kerry: Supports

Edwards: Supports

*

Source: L.A. Times research

Times staff writer Maria L. La Ganga contributed to this report.