The Bush administration, the environment and public health—warnings from the first 100 days

As this commentary was being written, George W Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, had just entered into the second 100 days of his administration. Most readers of the International Journal of Epidemiology are likely to be familiar with the extraordinary story of the disputed US presidential election, which left Bush gaining the Presidency without having a majority of the popular vote. The campaign rhetoric was stereotyped, pitting continuation of a Democratic administration and tradition against the ‘compassionate conservatism’ that Bush promised. With regard to the public’s health and the environment, the tobacco industry and global warming were among the more prominent issues, but received little emphasis nor serious discussion in the debates. Gore, a previously vigorous champion of environmental protection and global stewardship, backed away from the aggressive stance of his 1993 book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. 1 This retreat may have ultimately cost him the Presidency, shifting at least some of the environmentalist vote towards Green Party nominee Ralph Nader. For those concerned with national and global public health, the campaign provided limited insights into the approach that the next administration might take to environmental protection, regardless of the winner. The candidates’ passivity on the environment contrasted sharply with the Clinton Administration, which did support control of greenhouse gas emissions. Carol Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the full 8 years of the Clinton presidency, had an active public health agenda that included an emphasis on children’s health, improving food safety, and the controversial and legally challenged 1997 promulgation of new and more stringent standards for tropospheric ozone and particulate matter. As Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, David Kessler aggressively pursued regulation of cigarettes because of the addicting nature of nicotine. To environmentalists, the first 100 days of the Bush administration have raised serious concerns about the Administration’s commitment to environmental health and the influence of industry on its environmental agenda. The indications have come quickly: refusal to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a reversal of the Clinton administration’s standard for arsenic concentration in drinking water. The electric power crisis in California and the recognition that power shortages and outages may soon occur elsewhere in the US have led to enunciation of an Administration policy favouring increased exploration for fossil fuels and rapid construction of new power plants rather than conservation and sustainable power generation. The warnings extend to public health more generally, as shown by the examples of the cancelling of the ergonomic rule put forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and uncertainty as to the continuation of the government’s lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Bush’s appointments of senior officials have drawn mixed reviews from the environmental community. As former Governor of the State of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman’s appointment as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was viewed favourably. She comes from a state with a legacy of environmental problems and is understanding of the need for environmental protection, enforcement and remediation. However, already the Administration overrode her stated support for control of greenhouse gas emissions. Bush’s appointment of Gale Norton as Interior Secretary was soundly opposed by environmentalists concerned about the impact of her pro-business views on natural resource policies. Another