Bush Administration Still Finds Environment a Bugaboo
By John Millrany - May 2, 2001While President Bush has enjoyed generally high approval marks during his first 100 days in office, there has emerged one thorny chink in his armor: his ostensible stand on environmental issues which—in a recent poll-based opinion of a majority of Americans—"ain’t much."
Much has made about a recent Los Angeles Times national poll to that effect. "The Bush administration’s problem with the environment may be that President Bush and his advisors just don’t know how much Americans care about their air, water and other natural resources," the paper said in its May 1 lead editorial.
Much of the criticism centers on health issues vs. economics. Regardless of how one lines up on the question, we in the insurance industry are always keeping an eye out on what environmental exigencies could translate into damage claims issues.
The paper’s survey "found strong sentiment that pollution is getting worse and that the President is on the wrong track on issues ranging from global warming to wilderness protection to allowable levels of arsenic in drinking water," said Times Political Writer Mark Z. Barabak.
Barabak noted that the survey found a "deep-seated suspicion of business and doubts that corporations can be trusted to take good care of the environment.
"In an era marked by distrust of government, by a margin of 2 to 1 Americans said they believe businesses will cut corners on environmental protection unless government reins them in."
The area of safe drinking water seems to be the most pressing concern, according to poll respondents. (The poll interviewed 813 adults nationwide between April 21-26 and had a national sample margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.)
The following was stated on the question of water:
Arsenic is a known cancer-causing agent that occurs in water either naturally or because of activities such as mining. Federal regulations set limits on the level of arsenic allowable in drinking water. Bush overturned a Clinton administration ruling that would have reduced that level by 80%. Bush said that Clinton’s rule would cost local water districts too much money and that this administration would find a less costly way to reduce arsenic levels. Do you support or oppose Bush’s action in overturning the regulations to reduce arsenic in drinking water?
The results showed that, nationally, Bush’s position was opposed by 56% of the respondents; 61% against in the East, 55% against in the Midwest, 54% in the South and 53% in the West.
Posing the question on what should take priority if environment vs. the economy conflicts, the poll showed 50% favoring the environment, 36% favoring the economy and 14% unsure. | 
__May11th2017.gif)
