PRESIDENT BUSH has curried favour among his backers by squatting on
environmental regulations that were in the pipeline. And he had them jumping for
joy when he backed away (though 鈥渓eapt鈥� might be a more appropriate verb) from
the Kyoto Protocol.
You might think that business is happy with Bush鈥檚 tactics. But a certain
amount of grumbling is surfacing, because these postponements are only creating
uncertainty. Consider the rules that limit the amount of arsenic allowed in
drinking water. Water companies around the country need to drill for new
supplies. But how much the companies invest in water-purifying hangs on the
level of arsenic Bush eventually permits.
Electrical power and industrial groups are worried that too much delay in
taking at least some action on climate change runs the risk of Draconian
measures a decade or so from now. All of this puts these Republican-leaning
groups in the uncomfortable position of pushing for environmental action, while
not attacking the boss.
Advertisement
THE new White House energy policy, despite having been crafted by former
oilmen Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, hints that it may be time to reconsider
that long-taboo subject: nuclear energy. And while the proposal hasn鈥檛 been
accompanied by a groundswell of support, many in Washington think it鈥檚 possible
that nuclear power will provide a major part of the country鈥檚 energy.
However, new nuclear plants will only make a major problem worse: what to do
with the high-level radioactive waste produced by existing nuclear plants. Later
this summer, the Department of Energy is scheduled to make a recommendation to
President Bush on whether to go forward with building a dump for long-term waste
under Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The DOE is likely to recommend giving the
go-ahead, since there are no other sites being considered. And the President is
likely to accept the recommendation for the same reason.
Then the fun really begins. Under federal law, Nevada can decline the honour
of being host to the country鈥檚 only long-term high-level store of waste. And it
is pretty inevitable that the state will reject the waste store. The US Congress
can override Nevada鈥檚 veto, but that may be impossible, as Nevada鈥檚 Harry Reid
is now assistant majority leader in the Senate, and his boss, the leader of the
Senate鈥檚 democrat majority, has promised that the Yucca Mountain plans are dead.
That will send the country back to square one on the waste-disposal
question.
President Bush may discover it鈥檚 fine to be pro-nuclear when you鈥檙e solving
an energy crisis, but not so simple when you鈥檙e facing a waste-disposal
crisis.
WASHINGTON DC is full of monuments and buildings named in honour of
illustrious figures from this country鈥檚 relatively short history. Think of the
Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Kennedy Center and, more
recently, the Ronald Reagan National Airport. Whether you like them or not,
these are famous men.
But at the National Institutes of Health, the requirements for getting a
building named after you are slightly lower. Quite a bit lower, in fact. The NIH
does not name its buildings after famous American medical researchers or famous
American doctors. Instead it gives its edifices names like the Natcher Building,
the Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, or the Claude Pepper Building. Never
heard of Natcher or Magnuson or Pepper? Don鈥檛 worry. All three were members of
Congress who worked hard to increase federal spending on biomedical
research鈥攏early all of which went to the NIH. With a lot of buildings now
going up on the NIH Bethesda campus, more Congressional benefactors are being
acknowledged. This month the NIH dedicates the Louis Stokes building (Stokes was
a representative from Ohio) and Paul G. Rogers Plaza (Rogers was a
representative from Florida). As Congress seems intent on boosting the budget
even further, the NIH will soon have to build a lot more buildings or start a
waiting list of names.