Obama Vs Bush in Two Points

Just under five months into the Obama Administration and we're already seeing differences in approaches and policy. The Department of the Interior administers the National Parks, Natural Resources, etc of the United States. My purpose today is to illustrate two of the major differences between Obama and Georgie Dubya Bushie.

During the Bush years, it was a cowardly, but common practice to make announcements regarding both small and sweeping environmental policy changes either in the middle of the night, or during long holiday weekends. This afforded the Administration the ability to basically minimize the impact of changes because when these announcements were made, there were few (if any) reporters at the West Wing.

By the time it was better known, other news stories, having more precedence in the media, would break, and the policy changes would get swept away unnoticed. By the time anyone did notice, it was too late for any outcry, thus allowing the changes to move forward—usually without Congressional or Public comment.

So far, the Obama Administration is strongly avoiding this practice by conducting high-profile announcements in the middle of the day such as Sec. Salazar’s recent announcement (at Red Rocks Natl. Conservation area) regarding “$305 million [that] will fund more than 650 Bureau of Land Management projects across the country under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The investments will restore landscapes and habitat; spur renewable energy development on public lands, and create jobs.” (Dept of Int. website) The method of announcement was clearly, loudly a departure from Bush Administration tactics.

Next, the coal industry has had a financial hey-day the last eight years due to loosened regulations regarding recovery of coal from the Appalachian Mountains. Historically, tunnels were dug spider web fashion to extricate the maximum amount of coal possible.

However, “Topping” has become a faster, less costly method. Instead of digging tunnels, the tops of mountains are literally blown away, and crews can dig open pits to access the coal easier, and with less danger.

The drawbacks? All waste is generally dumped into valleys adjacent to the mine, and the coal companies have not been made responsible for the environmental and aesthetic damage caused by this method of mining. Streams are polluted, aquifers and watersheds damaged, and gigantic holes are left where mountains once stood.

The caveat in this whole thing was the accelerated approval process for such mining which reduced or eliminated environmental review for each application. The last I read, more than 1200 mountains had been topped, with applications pending for some 1500 more.

As soon as the Obama Administration began, the permitting process slowed to a crawl, and a review ordered of past issuances in Topping permits. While the practice continues (based on issued permits), the future of this type of mining is in doubt as actual environmental reviews proceed, and the long-term impacts are determined.

So, the question comes to this—Is the Obama Administration differing its approach to the running of the Dept of the Interior from that of the GW Bush Administration? The answer is a simple, “Yes.” The GW Bush Administration was secretive and covert in its approach to environmental policy; often executing critical changes to laws/regulations that legally required public comment. It allowed the acceleration of permitting for Mt. Topping in the Appalachians while blatantly ignoring the devastating environmental impacts it would create.

Meanwhile, President Barak Obama seems to be fulfilling his promise of a more open government though very public announcements, and by actually reviewing the permitting processes used by the former Administration in regards to coal mining. He is showing the American people that he cares about the damage caused by the former leadership. These two men (and their methods) couldn’t be more diametrically opposed.