The annual celebration of Earth Day usually passes with little fanfare; to many of us, it is nothing more than an excuse to enjoy the spring weather. But this year’s April 22 Earth Day “festivities”—featuring political rivals Al Gore ’69 and President Bush facing off over environmental policy—were refreshingly partisan and much needed. Even in more peaceful and prosperous times, we Americans tend to concern ourselves mainly with immediate concerns and not the long-term consequences of our actions. The environment is a prime example of a national policy issue that the Bush administration has sorely neglected, partly because it requires too much forward thinking. Gore and other environmental advocates should be commended for raising valid objections to the present course of our nation’s environmental policy. Only by exposing the current administration’s failures through focused debate can we make progress in protecting the environment.

In its short life, the Bush administration has had a dubious record on environmental and energy issues. Whether it was the ill-conceived drilling proposal that would have spoiled millions of acres of protected land in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve or the secret meetings with energy executives that led to a selfish policy to benefit oil and chemical company cronies at the expense of the environment, it is farcical for Bush to claim any high ground in the debate to protect America’s environmental future. But ironically, that is just what the president tried to do on Earth Day in the majestic rolling hills of upstate New York. With beautiful Saranac Lake cleverly used as a backdrop for his one-act play, Bush presented his “Clean Skies” program and pushed for conservation measures. The casual observer may have actually believed that the president was being serious when he talked of being committed to environmental issues.

But we should all know better. A cursory examination of Bush’s much-touted “Clean Skies” initiative confirms the suspicions one should rightly have about the environmental and energy policies of the Bush administration. For instance, many are unaware that the plan—which proudly boasts of a cap to noxious sulfur dioxide emissions—actually rolls back previous restrictions on coal-fired power plants. Moreover, the supposed cap is estimated by environmental groups to be too high to make any meaningful difference and acts instead as a smoke screen to protect heavy polluters. And if this meaningless cap were not enough to reject the “Clean Skies” initiative, there is also a clause in the bill that allows a system of “credits” so that older, pollution-heavy plants can purchase “pollution credits” from newer, low-emission plants. This proposal is, quite simply, conservative market capitalism gone horribly wrong. It would allow outdated (and in many cases, sorely inefficient) power plants to pollute more merely because they can afford to buy pollution “credits” from newer plants. Bush and his Big Energy buddies have made pollution a commodity, and unfortunately for the environment and human health, it is a commodity affordable for many heavy polluters.

As Gore and prominent environmental advocates argue, we should not continue to allow big industries to pollute in such a manner. Instead, the government should put its efforts into ending sulfur dioxide pollution by closing down outdated and dirty power plants. Newer, environment-friendly plants should not be an excuse to allow older plants to continue emitting harmful toxins; rather, low-polluting plants should be the only acceptable type. Government incentives should be given to encourage the construction of new plants and not, as Bush proposes, to act as life-support for obsolete behemoths.

Despite these grave problems with Bush’s initiative and the administration’s environmental policies in general, most Americans remain oblivious to the environment and are focused instead on other issues. It is appropriate that we be concerned with international matters and national security. However, we should not forget out of convenience or complacency that our nation’s environmental future hangs very much in the balance. To paraphrase one environmental advocate, it is certainly admirable that Bush plants a tree and speaks sincerely about the environment for one day every year; it is the other 364 days we have to worry about.

Americans should remain vigilant for the environment, even in times of national crisis. This fall, voters should hold the Republican party accountable for concocting the nation’s energy policy behind closed doors and for potentially selling out America’s environment. As Gore succinctly put it in his Earth Day speech, it is time for “real, forward-thinking leadership and a renewed focus on the environment.” Our nation’s future deserves no less.

Daniel E. Fernandez ’03, a government concentrator in Lowell House, is staff director of The Crimson. He is a member-at-large of the Harvard College Democrats.