“Kerry's Convoluted Approach to the Environment "

(As Published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, October 21, 2004)

Senator John Kerry has a reputation for complex thinking and trying to “have it both ways.” His environmental policy fits this mold, which I will illustrate with his approaches to the Superfund program, biotech crops, and global warming.

Let’s start with Superfund, where Senator Kerry has proposed a big tax on selected businesses to help fund this hazardous waste cleanup program. For starters, most of this tax would not be used for Superfund sites, but for energy programs.

The Kerry Superfund tax would fall primarily on the oil and gas industries, since he inaccurately believes that these businesses caused most of the hazardous waste sites. There are many arguments against such a narrowly-focused tax, but that’s another story. Let’s just struggle through his tax plan.

It starts with Senator Kerry’s proposal to raise about $18 billion over ten years by taxing oil and chemical feedstocks. But now watch the sleight-of-hand.

Some $14 billion of this Superfund tax would actually be used to help fund Kerry’s $30 billion “energy independence plan,” not for site cleanups. The other $16 billion of his energy plan is not funded, but relies on “energy conservation” by government agencies. Kind of like the old political trick of funding programs by “increasing government efficiency.” Kerry’s plan is even more dubious, since no money is provided to fund the services and equipment needed to actually conserve any energy. 

It gets better, or least more convoluted. Since the $14 billion from the Superfund tax and the $16 billion from hoped-for energy conservation are only potential revenue sources, Kerry needs some way to borrow $30 billion to capitalize his energy plan. He does this by “borrowing” oil and gas royalties that usually fund other environmental programs.

Senator Kerry completes his “rob Peter to pay Paul” scheme by using Superfund taxes and energy conservation savings to eventually repay the oil and gas royalties.

To recap the above mish-mash, Kerry would tax two unfavored industries to help fund Superfund, but most of the revenues would actually go to his energy plan, via a complex interaction with oil and gas revenues and other environmental activities

Let’s now look at another aspect of Senator Kerry’s environmental thinking, his trendy liberal and Eurocentric philosophies. A good example has to do with biotech crops.

Such crops are a smash hit with American farmers because pest-resistant seeds greatly reduce the need for chemical insecticides, while herbicide-tolerant crops can be an important part of a no-till soil conservation program.

Biotech crops will soon reach their ten-year anniversary in America, with about 86 percent of all U. S. soybeans now biotech, along with some 46 percent of corn and 76 percent of cotton.

So, where does Senator Kerry come down on all this? A good indicator is his recent statement to Missouri organic farmers that “if your crop gets polluted by a GMO crop, poof, you’re gone.” Not only is such “pollution” highly unlikely, national organic farming regulations indicate that “unintentional presence of products of excluded methods should not affect the status of an organic product or operation.”

Senator Kerry’s disparaging reference to mainstream American agriculture as “pollution” is unfortunate. His remarks sound more like those of a European green party type, not someone interested in promoting American high-tech agriculture.

Finally, Mr. Kerry has waxed eloquently on global warming and the Kyoto protocols, which also reinforces his Eurocentric side. First, Senator Kerry knows full well that President Clinton did not even send the Kyoto protocols to the Senate for approval since that body had already voted earlier 95-0 against their implementation.

The Senate, like President Bush today, knows that the Kyoto agreement excludes such countries as China and India from their very expensive requirements.

Talk about a massive job transfer – with a Kyoto-type system we would incur huge costs to reduce greenhouse gases, while our major economic competition does not. Of course, this doesn’t bother Senator Kerry who would just continue to criticize Mr. Bush for “outsourcing” of jobs.

Global climate change is a very complex subject, and we have much to learn about it, which has been why the President has allocated large amounts to research. Keep in mind that 25 years ago many of those now alarmed about global warming were then concerned about a new ice age.

It seems that Senator Kerry’s environmental policies fit his model of pursuing expensive, complex approaches with an eye always on approval of liberal environmentalists and, of course, the Europeans.

---

Dr. Porter is president of the Waste Policy Center, an evnironmental consulting and communications organizations based in Leesburg, VA. From 1985 to 1989, he was the EPA assistant administrator with responsibility for Superfund and other waste programs.