Book Review Essay: HOW BUSH'S CONSERVATIVES WRECKED ...

Criminal Juistice Review Volume 29, Number 2, Autumn 2004

©2004 College of Health and Human Sciences Georgia State University

Book Review Essay: HOW BUSH'S CONSERVATIVES WRECKED THE ENVIRONMENT: CARL POPE AND ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. SPEAK OUT Michael J. Lynch Crime Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2004. Pp. 256)

Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress By Carl Pope and Paul Rauber (San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 2003. Pp. 288) This essay discusses the Bush administration's environmental policies, focusing particular attention on two recent books on the subject: Carl Pope and Paul Rauber's Strategic Ignorance and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Crimes Against Nature. This discussion will take us through the terrain of free market economic assumptions, the use of subsidies, and the President's responsibility to uphold law, protect public health, and abide by the principles of democracy and representative government. The works reviewed here contend that the G. W. Bush administration has compromised public health and undermined law and democracy in the process ofprotecting and expanding private corporate interests by weakening environmental regulations using secret processes that subvert science. Before these issues can be examined, it is necessary to take a brief historical excursion that will explore the origins, history, and traditions of protecting the public interest that formed the foundation for environmental regulation in the United States. IN THE BEGINNING...

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Theodore Roosevelt became the first U.S. President to take environmental issues seriously. Roosevelt, who had served 377

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on July 9, 2015

378

Michael J. Lynch

in the U.S. military and earned part of his reputation as a "Rough Rider," became an avid outdoorsman who believed in "rugged individualism." In his view, the taming of the American wilderness closed off opportunities for the kinds of outdoor activities and adventures that had shaped the American character. Roosevelt believed that it was necessary to preserve this dimension of American heritage. To do so, it would be necessary to protect the natural environment from the unfettered lust of big business for cheap natural resources, market consolidation, and unrestrained self-interest. Acting on these beliefs, Roosevelt became the first conservationist President, as well as the first President to recognize the need for laws that restrained corporations in ways that established a more balanced marketplace. As a conservationist, Roosevelt set aside large tracts of wilderness that became the basis of the U.S. National Park system (cf. the Federal Reclamation Act, 1902, the creation of the Bureau of Forestry Service, 1905, the Antiquities Act of 1906). Using federal law, he created 5 National Parks, 150 National Forests, nearly two dozen National Monuments, and more than 50 Bird Sanctuaries. When he instituted these projects, Roosevelt protected 230 million acres of land from development. He created this system not only to preserve the environment for future generations but also to protect America's cultural heritage and the public's health. In addition, he viewed preservation as serving the public good by ensuring public access to wilderness lands that were held in common by the American people through government functions. Roosevelt understood that, if unrestrained, industry's massive and collective economic power would be used to trample the rights of individual citizens, as evidenced in the history of the industrial revolution. Thus, not only did he create environmental laws; he helped create mechanisms for controlling corporate greed, such as the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. His diligence in protecting public health and individual rights through these and other mechanisms earned him the reputation as a trustbuster. Roosevelt understood the value ofthe natural environment, in itself and in its relationship to a healthy, thriving human population. He also understood that most people could not afford to buy their own piece of nature where they could refresh and renew the American spirit; acting on their behalf, however, the government could pool the resources of the public using a portion of the tax bill to create publicly accessible wilderness areas, which the government, as the representative of the average citizen, would preserve for the good of the nation. THE SPREAD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN Since Roosevelt, dozens of American Presidents have contributed to the conservation of America's natural and human environments. To be sure, some Presidents have been indifferent to preserving public and environmental health. Other administrations, however, have taken an active roll in the process.


Criminal Justice Review

379

Roosevelt's cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and William Clinton all supervised presidential administrations that took environmental issues seriously. In doing so, each of these Presidents recognized that environmental preservation and protection was necessary to both ecological and human health. By the late 1 960s, a number ofserious environmental problems had emerged, and it became evident that rules for preserving ecological and public health needed expansion. Clearly, environmental and public health were not protected by free market mechanisms, as corporations used their economic might to pursue selfinterest and ignored the rights of individuals and the public with respect to a number of issues, including exposure to pollutants, work conditions, and product safety (Bums & Lynch, 2004; Lynch, Michalowski, & Groves, 2000). American citizens supported efforts to preserve and protect the environment and public health. The first step in this process was the creation of tlhe national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (discussed below). National preservation and environmental quality measures were instituted when Richard Nixon, acting through executive powers, solved a social dilemma by creating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 to preserve public health by establishing pollution standards (see, e.g., Bums & Lynch, 2004). Despite some setbacks, over the past 30 years the EPA has been instrumental in establishing environmental regulations that have aided in eliminating toxins from the environment. To accomplish this necessary public goal, the EPA's staff has had to take on the task of fighting against the unbridled interests of large industries, especially in the energy, chemical, and automotive fields. Over the past three decades, these industries have spent billions of dollars to protect their interests over those of the public. These billions of dollars in corporate expenditures also pose a significant tax burden to the public, as tax dollars have been expended to defend the public's interests, to deal with lobby groups and special interests, and to police corporations that refuse to abide by environmental laws. Moreover, the success of corporately organized efforts to defeat, constrain, and delay environmental regulations has cost the public and the government billions in associated health care costs. To be sure, these wasted billions of dollars could have been employed to address other social and economic problems confronting Americans. BIG BUSINESS BLOCKS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS

During the 1 970s and early 1 980s, significant progress was made in protecting public health through environmental legislation. During much of the 1980s, however, the EPA's ability to protect public health was impeded by the Reagan administration. Supported by corporate resources, Reagan's administration ushered in the idea that big government was bad government because it acted as a free market constraint. For corporate leaders, a free market is not regarded as one in


380

Michael J. Lynch

which the interests of competing parties are defined, or where there is fair competition from all involved parties, including businesses large and small, workers and their representatives (unions), consumers, and the public and its representatives (government). Rather, from a corporate perspective, a free market is one in which the corporation is free to act in its own self-interest without interference, untouched by regulation, employing its economic might to influence the market in the desired direction. For all other actors, however, an unregulated corporate marketplace is constrained-constrained by the economic power of corporations that are capable of overpowering the interests of other parties in the marketplace. As noted earlier, this market model has never successfully protected the environment or public health (Burns & Lynch, 2004). In their attack on the environment, the Reagan administration relied on antienvironmental appointees, illegal or unethical actions by some of its officials, a level of secrecy, and the use of cost-benefit models to demonstrate that environmental regulations' costs exceeded the economic value of the benefits that they created (see Burns & Lynch, 2004). For example, the heavy-handed James Watt, who eventually proved to be a liability to the Reagan administration, was appointed head of the Department ofthe Interior, where he began to open national forests to logging. As an example of illegal activities, Anne Buford, director ofthe EPA, was investigated by Congress for violations of office (Burns & Lynch, 2004). Cost-benefit models that exaggerated corporate compliance costs and either underestimated or entirely omitted the benefits of environmental regulation (e.g., health care costs, the cost of a human life, costs associated with species loss and the snowballing ecological effect that extinction has on other species and the environment, etc.) were used to defend anti-regulatory policies on economic grounds. The Reagan administration's damaging environmental legacy stands out among Presidents ofthe twentieth century. The environmentally destructive record of the Reagan administration, however, has been eclipsed by that of the G. W. Bush administration. Numerous works have commented on this record of achievement, or, rather, record of failure marked by progressive backward steps. Recently, two comprehensive books, one written by Carl Pope and Paul Rauber and another by Robert Kennedy, Jr., have undertaken broad analyses of G. W. Bush administration environmental policies and found them lacking. Taken together, Pope and Kennedy have written truthful books that are highly damaging to the image of the Bush administration. Both books provide extensive details on how Bush and his corporate cronies, many of whom serve in important policy and advisory positions related to the environment, have led an assault on the environment, America's public health, and the free market. Before continuing further, it should be noted that it is difficult to review Pope's and Kennedy's books because of the sheer volume of information that each presents. There is overlap between the two books, but there is also much that is



3 81

unique and requires some commentary. In any event, the remainder of this review addresses some of the major issues that each author discusses, avoiding complex details and the data that each presents. It is unlikely that this review will do justice

to the complex, detailed argument that each author has laid out in these highly readable books. A BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS WORTH MORE THAN A BIRD: THE FREE MARKET AND ENERGY SUBSIDIES

A basic argument that underlies Kennedy's assessment of Bush's environmental policies involves a critique of the free market. Unfortunately, Kennedy does not reveal this position until the last chapter. Nevertheless, I agree with Kennedy, though my own critique would come from a different direction. Bush's challenge to environmental regulation rests on his assumptions about what the term "free market" means. As noted earlier, in theory, a free market is one in which the interests of various groups have the ability to compete equally. The role of government is to help create conditions under which such free competition can occur. One of the primary ways in which Bush's government limits the free market is through subsidies, especially subsidies to the energy industry. These subsidies drive down costs, creating an artificial market value for energy that limits the ability of market actors to participate in a market that is driven by unrestrained mechanisms. In other words, the free market is thrown into disarray by the introduction of subsidies that benefit companies. The resources companies would normally invest in efficient technology would minimize costs or would produce products using less polluting alternatives. In this way, subsidies remove the influence of consumers from the market, erasing one of the balancing market forces. Subsidies also keep the price of energy produced by fossil fuels below market value. By suppressing prices, subsidies also impact the ability of consumers to act as a market force. If subsidies were withheld, and the price of energy derived from fossil fuels were allowed to rise to reflect a nonsubsidized state, the costs of alternative energy sources would become more competitive. Consumers might opt to invest in technologies that have the potential to take them off the power grid, which would provide additional market forces acting on energy producers to invest in alternative energy technology. It would not be hard to imagine an alternative to the current fossil fuel energy subsidy program, endorsed by the Bush administration, that would promote fuel efficiency, encourage alternative energy technology, and, at the same time, reduce the United States' reliance on foreign sources of oil (which account for more than 60 percent of the oil used in the U.S.). One option is the simple suspension of fuel sector subsidies. This would cause fossil fuel prices to rise and to become relatively more expensive compared to alternative energy prices, and it would open the market to a shift in demand away from fossil fuels toward energy alternatives. It should be


382

Michael J. Lynch

recognized that this option might have negative impacts on the poor. Thus, it would make sense to shift fossil fuel subsidies to energy tax credits and allocations for the poor. To address the reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuel and the high level of fossil fuel consumption in the U.S., a portion of the rescinded subsidies could be converted into no-cost loans to homeowners who invest in non-fossil fuel, off-grid power sources, and hybrid automobiles. These subsidies would help promote the growth of the alternative energy sector and would create employment. These, and many other options, would promote socially responsible energy consumption and alternative energy investment, stimulate the economy, reduce levels of air pollution and associated illnesses, diseases, and deaths, which would lower health care and insurance costs, and reduce fossil fuel consumption and the release of greenhouse gases. None of these alternatives, however, are in the interest of the fossil fuel industry, which has provided large sums in support of the Bush administration. Aside from subsidies, one mechanism for achieving these ends that does address market imbalance involves government creation and enforcement of environmental rules that encourage efficiency by regulating environmental pollution. These regulations accomplish two ends. First, they increase costs to corporations, much as if subsidies had not existed in the first place, returning some balance to the marketplace. Second, they ensure that corporations become more technologically advanced and efficient and that pollution levels are lowered (hopefully through the development of alternative energy technology). Under the Bush administration, however, enforcement of environmental laws has been minimized, environmental regulations have been set back and subverted through other mechanisms, while subsidies to the energy industry (as well as the chemical industry) have been extended. In other words, the Bush administration has followed energy policies that are not in the best interest of the American public, but are in the best interest of the fossil fuel sector of the economy. The situation is so extreme that Kennedy stated, "You show me a polluter, and I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and load his costs onto the backs of the public" (p. 190). Theoretically, subsidies could serve the purpose of protecting public health if they were qualified-that is, if the subsidy funds could only be spent on new technologies that reduce pollution. This type of subsidy has been avoided by the Bush administration. Rather, the Bush administration has used subsidies to create very favorable conditions for profit-taking by reducing costs to corporations while hiding the costs of subsidies in the record national debt that the Bush administration has produced. By forcing subsidy costs into the national debt rather than current tax liabilities, subsidy costs are increased through the interest that will accrue. In effect, by creating favorable market conditions for large businesses through subsidies, Bush' s administration creates very unfavorable conditions for the public, which is exposed not only to higher levels of pollution, because pollution reductions



383

are not appended as conditions of the subsidies, but also to the likelihood of high tax bills in the future-after Bush has left office. In effect, the subsidy policy followed by the Bush administration is nearsighted and ignores the public health effecfs ofthe policy (as do other Bush administration environmental policies). As Kennedy points out, when the government abandons its obligations to protect its citizens by representing their collective well-being against special interests, free market mechanisms are destroyed. Indeed, under Bush, the free market has been destroyed by three forces: reduced public participation and representation in the law-making process, the withdrawal of government from its duty to protect the individual, and the privileging of one market force (especially energy corporations) over all other actors. The only way that each of these three forces can come into action is through an active effort to subvert governmental processes. Kennedy's position on this point is, one might argue, extreme: Our greatest political icons from Thomas Jefferson onward have warned Americans against allowing corporate power to dominate our political landscape. In his most famous speech, President Dwight Eisenhower cautioned Americans about the grave danger of. . . "the military-industrial complex." . . . Franklin Roosevelt [stated] . .. that "the liberty ofa democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth ofprivate power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism." (p. 193)

Kennedy furthers his point, referring to quotes from Benito Mussolini and Hermann Goering. In referring to these icons of fascism, Kennedy is reinforcing an idea that he discusses throughout his book: the Bush administration not only represents corporate power, but employs propaganda and closed-door processes when determining the fate of the environment and public health. Although Kennedy's reference to fascism could be debated, he uses this analogy to illustrate the point of a close alliance between government and corporations that is eroding individual rights, the public marketplace, and public health. Pope echoes this concern, though he does not go as far as labeling the actions as fascist. THE UN-AMERICAN, UN-DEMOCRATIC BUSH

Pope provides numerous examples of how the Bush administration has violated the principles of democracy when environmental regulations are at issue.' By 'Both Pope and Kennedy provide a clue concerning the actions of the Bush administration, which we can link back to the earlier discussion of Theodore Roosevelt. In contrast to the democratic version of rugged individualism that drove Roosevelt to protect the environment, Bush and his colleagues believe in economic elitism where only those with resources, those with purchasing power, can enjoy


3 84

Michael J Lynch

appointing corporate executives to key environmental policy positions, accepting millions ofdollars from industries impacted by environmental regulations, and both ignoring and changing scientific data (see, for example, the long list of antiscientific activities listed by The Union for Concerned Scientists on its web page, http://www.ucsusa.org), the policies of the Bush administration are a direct attack on democratic freedoms. Both Pope and Kennedy present extensive discussion of Bush administration approaches to scientific findings on environmental pollutants. This view is well summarized by Kennedy, who notes that "when the administration can not actually suppress scientific information, it simply issues a new set of facts"

(p. 85).

A major issue, however, remains-democracy. As Pope points out, the vast majority of Americans (depending on the precise environmental issue, "vast majority" means more than 70 percent) favor all forms of environmental regulation. Indeed, the American public has never favored eliminating laws and regulations that protect the environment and public health (except where they are misled in surveys that provide inaccurate information). How is it, then, that Bush, who was elected to represent the American people, fails to do so and instead chooses to represent a small fraction of Americans represented by the leaders of gigantic energy and chemical industries? To answer this question, it is necessary to look toward the Bush-fossil fuel alliance and, more generally, to the ways in which corporations have infiltrated government functions under Bush. Speaking to this issue in the early 1 930s, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that "corporations . . . have become institutions, . . . sometimes able to dominate the State.... Such is the Frankenstein monster which States have created by their corporate laws." In other words, implementing and protecting the rule of corporations was not and is not the intended purpose of government, as one of the nature and protect themselves from environmental pollution. Pope spends significant energy discussing this issue, tying various members of Bush's administration to this view and discussing the role that egregiously misrepresented religion plays in the administration's actions. Because this is an important point, I would like to draw out this example with a further comparison of Roosevelt and Bush. On the one hand, we have Roosevelt, who was a sickly child who was determined to change the course of his life through rigorous exercise. He served in the military under harsh conditions, became a cowboy, ran a real ranch, and experienced the real wilderness when he explored wild areas in the U.S. and Africa. He spoke softly but carried a big stick with respect to unethical corporate leaders who should have been setting a positive example for Americans. On the other hand, we have Bush, who until a rather late age lived the life of an adolescent, whose wilderness experience is limited to his modern, (ironically) environmentally advanced Texas ranch, who, it appears, escaped any form of military service by not.showing up for his National Guard assignment, who masquerades as a rugged individual by wearing jeans and a cowboy hat while posing for photo opportunities clearing brush on his Texas ranch, who speaks double-speak, who carries a wet noodle with respect to such dnethical corporate leaders as his friend Kenneth Lay of Enron (who has served as a consultant to the President) and other energy executives who, acting without restrictions, have mismanaged America's oil reserve and have a penchant for violating numerous rules, from the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to Security and Exchange Commission regulations. Not surprisingly, these opposite personalities adopted diametrically opposed environmental policies.



385

framers of our Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, clearly noted when he stated that "the basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first obligation should be to keep that right." This sentiment was echoed years later by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wenfdell Holmes: "The first requirement of a sound body of law is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands ofthe community." In sum, it is fair to say that the secret meetings, the avoidance of public input, the privileged status given to corporate consultants when it comes to commenting on environmental policy and regulations, the blatant disregard for the opinions of the American public who have written millions of letters to the Bush administration protesting its environmental policies-each of these acts, which subvert the office of the President and the basis of government, are both undemocratic and un-American. The Bush administration's success in dismantling environmental protection has depended on secrecy, on suppressing scientific information and substituting fabricated study results in their stead, and on keeping the public uninformed. Pope and Rauber note that these policies ofdeceit have become a central feature of Bush administration environmental policy. For instance, the President's "Clear Skies" initiative actually increases allowable levels of air pollution. In reality, there is no scenario under which increased levels of air pollution will lead to clear skies. Also consider that the "Healthy Forest" plan is actually a means for increasing the access oftimber companies to federally protected lands. (A more appropriate name would be the "Healthy Profits" initiative.) The labels that the Bush administration has applied to its environmental policies are little more than advertising gimmicks, reflecting the practice of "green washing" that corporations invented to create environmentally conscious public images to sell their products (Lynch & Stretesky, 2003). The apparent turn to fascism, the attempt to exclude and mute public opinion, and the privileging of corporate interests are undemocratic and un-American, and they speak to the alliance between the Bush administration and corporate America, especially its most environmentally destructive segments. BUSH AND THE UNDUE INFLUENCE OF CORPORATE CRONIES

Kennedy notes that between 2000 and 2004, the Republican Party accepted more than $58 million in contributions from the energy industry. The price of these contributions is American democracy and public health. During the tenure of the Bush administration, for example, more than 300 environmental laws have been rolled back, allowing elevated levels of pollution and decreased oversight of corporations. To privilege corporate interests, millions of public comments directed against various Bush administration environmental policies have been ignored. As Pope and Rauber explain, a number of Bush administration officials are former corporate executives or leaders of corporate think tanks, lobbies, and


386

Michael J. Lynch

associations: "Time and again, top agency posts were filled with top lobbyists from the affected industries" (p. 48). Many of these officials are in positions where they are constantly faced with the opportunity to engage in behavior that represents a conflict of interest. Some continue to receive reimbursements from the industries that they regulate. As an example, take the case of J. Steven Griles, appointed Deputy Secretary of the Interior, who formerly served in Reagan's Interior Department under James Watt. Before returning to the Interior Department, Griles served as vice president of National Environmental Strategies, a coal, utility, and oil lobby. Upon his taking office, the Senate required that Griles sign a statement agreeing that he would avoid dealing with his former clients in his role as Interior Department Deputy Secretary. Kennedy notes that Griles has consistently violated this agreement (pp. 132-136). In fact, Griles' behavior has been so extreme that he was investigated for perjury and unethical conduct. Even though the investigation produced evidence supporting these charges, Griles was never disciplined because his boss, Gale Norton, ignored the investigation's findings. THE RULE OF THE LAWLESS

Not only has the Bush administration privileged corporate interest over public interest, and corporate profit over public health, but it has done so in disregard of existing laws and regulations. Where environmental rules cannot be changed, they are simply ignored, leading Kennedy to state, "They talk about law and order while encouraging corporate polluters to violate the law" (p. 195). As an example, consider that the Bush administration has regularly ignored and tried to dismember the National Environmental Policy Act, which was passed in 1969. Section 101 of the NEPA "declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans." The six principles of NEPA are set out under 101(b) as follows. The federal government must: 1.

2. 3. 4.

fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; assure forall Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;


Criminal Justice Review 5. 6.

387

achieve a balan'ce between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Clearly, the conditions set forth under NEPA conflict with the interests of the Bush administration's allies. But there is more to this issue. Under section 102(c), the following requirements are spelled out. The government must: include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official onthe environmental impact of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

(i) (ii)

The Act further stipulates that all agencies of the federal government must comply with NEPA. Citizens have the right to determine whether the federal government is meeting its responsibilities under NEPA by filing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which would open up the secrets that the Bush administration hopes to maintain behind closed doors. Employing presidential powers enacted after September 11, 2001, however, the Bush administration has met this challenge by ignoring FOIA requests related to environmental issues as threats to national security. At first, the Bush administration tried to restrict application of NEPA. Its challenge was dismissed in court. Once this legal challenged failed, the Bush administration simply began to ignore the requirements of NEPA. For example, in violation ofNEPA, public lands have been surrendered for gas and oil development. As Pope and Rauber note, "Indeed, Bush's record on NEPA cases strongly suggests an administration determined to ignore, not enforce, the law. In Bush's first two years, his administration was sued 94 times for short-circuiting NEPA. The administration lost 73 cases . . . even though federal judges generally give great deference to the White House in such cases. Federal judges ruled that the administration employed 'bait and switch tactics' and 'mystical prestidigitation' to 'eviscerate' the law" (p. 173).

CONCLUSION As an American, I am angered that the Bush administration has decided to gamble with the ecological and public health of America, that it has done this without consulting the majority ofAmericans, that the only issues that matter to this


3 88

Michael J. Lynch

administration are corporate issues, and that this program has been justified by ignoring and altering scientific studies. Summarizing the personal dimensions of this problem, Robert Kennedy, who has discovered elevated levels of pollution in his own body and has watched his children suffer from environmentally induced asthma attacks, writes, "No one has the right to put these chemicals into my body-or to steal the air from my children's lungs-no matter how much they may profit by doing so" (pp. 61-62). To be sure, no one has the right to do this to an entire nation either. From a personal perspective, I grew up in the shadows of Theodore Roosevelt's home in Oyster Bay, Long Island. Roosevelt's home was the destination of many field trips during my childhood and teenage years, from elementary school trips to family outings, bicycle trips, and environmental club meetings. As President, Roosevelt cast a ray of hope over our nation-a hope of preservation and renewal. By establishing the National Park system and preserving hundreds of millions of acres, Roosevelt began a new American cultural tradition of protecting the ecological and public health of Americans. Unfortunately, this tradition has been attacked by the current presidential administration. Today, our children grow up in the dark shadows of the Bush administration's destructive environmental policies, enacted against the public's will behind closed doors by a secret Washington bureaucracy funded by polluting industries. Along with Kennedy and Pope and Rauber, I fear the effects of this administration's environmental policies on our children's futures, as well as the path toward totalitarianism that the Bush regime has clear-cut through the American political landscape.

REFERENCES Bums, R. G., & Lynch, M. J. (2004). Environmental crime: A sourcebook. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishers. Lynch, M. J., Michalowski, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (2000). The new primer in radical criminology. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Lynch, M. J., & Stretesky, P. B. (2003). The meaning of green: Contrasting criminological perspectives. Theoretical Criminology, 7(2), 217-238.
