Political commentators call it "the greening of American politics." Polls indicate that voters are placing increasing significance on candidates' environmental positions.

Visions that balance preservation of this country's natural resources and scenic areas with a productive, well-run economy could certainly woo voters who find it difficult to decide between the candidates on other issues. And this time around, the choice for president based on environmental concerns is as clear as a smog-free November day.

To discuss the differences in positions between the Republican and Democratic tickets on environmental issues, it almost makes more sense to frame the comparison in Quayle-Gore terms rather than Bush-Clinton. Both presidential contenders have used their running mates to present their environmental policy positions to the electorate: Quayle explains why a choice must be made between jobs and the environment; Gore shows how a balance can be struck.

But certainly the presidential candidates themselves display differences in attitude and practice relating to environmental concerns. And Bush's record is particularly clear.

On May 16, 1988, then-Vice President Bush stood in Seattle and vowed to become the "environmental president." Like many of his campaign pledges of four years ago, this Bush vow has gone the way of "no new taxes." He and Quayle have repeatedly struck down environmental legislation they originally proposed or have fought the positions of other members of their administration.

Perhaps this was shown most clearly by Bush's performance at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development last June. As Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator William K. Reilly sought to formulate a version of the international treaty to curb carbon dioxide emissions that would be agreeable to Bush, the president criticized Reilly for suggesting support for binding limits.

Bush's lack of leadership was astounding and embarrassing for American representatives at the Rio conference. His administration remains the biggest obstacle to an international agreement to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

Continuing his trend of backtracking on promises, the Bush administration reneged on a Bush campaign pledge in 1988 to ensure "no net loss" of wetlands. In order to satisfy developers in search of open land, Bush has proposed a change in definition for wetlands that would greatly restrict the amount of protected acreage. For example, scientists have determined that almost half of the Florida Everglades would no longer be "wetlands," and thus no longer protected, under Bush's new definition.

In addition, Bush is poised, if reelected, to emasculate the Endangered Species Act. The precedent-setting legislation, passed by Congress in 1974, is viewed by environmentalists as nature's bill of rights. If Bush has his way, the consequences for America's areas of natural beauty and recreation would be devastating.

The president wants to override the Endangered Species Act in order to allow logging in previously protected areas of the Pacific Northwest's virgin forest. A federal court has temporarily blocked the action, since it would lead to the extinction of the spotted owl and thus violate the act.

Bush's stance on the spotted owl issue reveals his political desperation. In an attempt to woo Oregon and Washington voters, many of whom are connected to the logging industry and have lost their jobs during the last 10 years, the president reverted to scapegoating tactics and blamed the owl for the industry's economic woes.

Speaking only a few miles from the spot where he had announced four years earlier that he would be the "environmental president," Bush said, "It's time to put people ahead of owls." The president has sacrificed his commitments to environmental protection in favor of economic benefits that he feels lie in relaxing environmental restrictions.

While Bush supporters point to the administration's Clean Air Act of 1990 as evidence of the president's commitment to the environment, Quayle's Council on Competitiveness has done its best to gut the act and delay enforcement of its regulatory provisions. In fact, the act represents one of many environmental initiatives that Quayle's council has sought to undermine. Bush has consistently used his vice president, who chairs the council (which was created in 1990 to combat business regulations), to defend business interests in opposition to environmental proposals.

For example, Quayle and the council overruled the EPA when it rejected a proposal that would have required municipal waste incinerators to recycle 25 percent of their garbage. EPA studies showed that the requirement would have saved money and energy as well as cut toxic pollution, but the council rejected the measure, claiming that mandated recycling created too much federal regulation.

In addition, the council discarded a proposed EPA ban on lead-acid automobile battery incineration, even though Health and Human Services Secretary Louis H. Sullivan said that lead is "the number one environmental threat to the health of children in the United States."

Quayle's council has also fought an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards which would raise fuel efficiency standards 20 percent by 1996 and a further 20 percent by the year 2001. Such regulations would, according to energy experts, save two million barrels of oil per day and eliminate 300 million tons of carbon dioxide by the year 2008. However, Quayle and his council rejected the proposal, arguing that it would force the automobile industry to produce lighter and smaller cars that would result in greater traffic fatalities.

Quayle's position as unofficial administration spokesperson for environmental policy says much of Bush's commitment to the environment. The vice president is far from an expert on the topic. When asked to define wetlands, Quayle said, "How about if we say, when it's wet, it's wet." Since a biosphere is only seasonally "wet," Quayle's statement is, by definition, completely inane.

President Bush and his running mate offer a backward-looking view to the nation's (and the world's) environmental problems. By demagogically striking a contradiction between environmental protection and economic advance, Bush and Quayle have sacrificed precious time the country could have used to begin solving its environmental problems.

Friday: Why Clinton and Gore offer a better plan for the environment.