Officials have fanned out across the country, pumping up a series of eco-friendly grants, policies and habitat restoration projects.
Critics say that's a thinly veiled effort to rewrite three years of dismal environmental policies.
“It's not uncommon. I think if there's a special reason for the Bush administration to do so, it's because the environmental policies have come under attack, not just from environmental groups but from scientists,” said Michael Kraft, a professor of political science and environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. “Maybe they view themselves as a little bit vulnerable there and it's a close election.”
The Greening of Bush has been particularly notable in states where the outcome on Nov. 2 is still in doubt - places like Oregon, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, Florida and Colorado.
Consider the flurry of activity in the last week alone:
Interior Secretary Gale Norton was in Maine and Minnesota announcing wetlands preservation grants and agreements for a new wildlife refuge. A top deputy was in Montana announcing a hold on new oil and gas drilling in part of the state.
The department also announced an agreement to settle a water war over the Klamath River in Oregon.
James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was in Florida alongside Gov. Jeb Bush announcing a new Everglades restoration program. Earlier, he was in Oregon inspecting a new wildfire prevention project.
Outright campaigning by government officials is against the law, but each of the trips was made in conjunction with an official event and therefore were paid for by taxpayers.
Interior Department spokesman Dan DuBray said Norton has traveled frequently throughout her tenure, and that it's not a newfound environmentalism.
“I think we have a strong record to talk about in all 50 states and particularly the secretary is making a strong case in states where sometimes the administration record has been misrepresented,” he said.
At the federal Environmental Protection Agency, administrator Mike Leavitt is promoting a forthcoming anti-pollution regulation called the Clean Air Interstate Rule that will, "with the stroke of the pen . . . mandate a 9 million-ton reduction in emissions from coal-fired power plants."
The statement came in response to criticism from EPA's inspector general for lax efforts to reduce pollution such plants.
Thus far in the campaign, environmental policy has been almost an afterthought. In polls, voters rank it far below the economy, terrorism, war in Iraq, and health care on the list of their priorities.
Environmental groups, which do believe it is important, see stark contrast between the recent frenzy and Bush's first 45 months, when he rolled back wilderness protection and roadless policies, departed from the protections in the Clean Air Act, and pushed hard to expand oil and gas drilling - including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
“You really have to look at the record as a whole,” said Sharon Buccino, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (RNDC). “I'm not going to dispute the positive aspects of these recent announcements, but they really pale in comparison to the real damage on the ground that the sum of their actions has had.”
Bush by no means is the first to spruce up his environmental credentials leading up to an election. Perhaps the most blatant of election-year stunts was President Clinton's establishment of the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in September 1996.
In an Aug. 14, 1996, memo, obtained during a House Resources Committee investigation, Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Kathleen McGinty laid out the political calculation for the president.
"The political purpose of the Utah event is to show distinctly your willingness to use the office of the president to protect the environment,” she wrote. “Designation of the new monument would create a compelling reason for persons who are now disaffected to come around and enthusiastically support the administration."
gehrke@sltrib.com
