With the shooting war in Iraq over, President Bush has resumed his war on the environment.

People in Maine fish. They want to be able to eat what they catch. Mercury levels in New England lakes are still rising and will rise even more rapidly under the Bush administration’s policy changes.

Meanwhile, Maine is trying to curb mercury pollution by controlling the way VDTs, light switches and automobiles are disposed of.

Bush and his environmental chiefs are working against us.

The president’s Clean Skies Initiative has already relaxed rules on mercury emissions and the administration is proposing to further relax the rules and to extend the deadline for compliance a decade beyond the 2008 date required by the Clean Air Act.

Mercury is a toxic metal that builds up over time in the fish we eat and in our own bodies. The more we consume, the greater the likelihood that our nervous systems, vision and memories sustain irreversible damage. Mercury is especially harmful for very young children.

This is not new information. Scientists have issued warnings for years.

Even so, the Food and Drug Administration has stopped monitoring tuna and other seafood for mercury even though federal regulations require that examination and the food is being sold to consumers without warning.

That permissiveness, along with new environmental rules that would permit the trading of mercury credits among power plants, is not responsible practice or policy.

Environmentalists predict the Bush air pollution plan “would allow three times more mercury pollution from power plants than the existing Clean Air Act.” The added mercury will eventually find its way into each of us.

That’s not just irresponsible public policy, it’s dangerous.


Out of order


Tweaking the Constitution is so important that it must be done thoughtfully and carefully, not part of some horse trade.

Proposed legislation to amend the Constitution to forever protect the Fund for a Healthy Maine has earned widespread public, legislative and executive support because safeguarding tobacco settlement funds intended to help battle the effects of tobacco use is the right thing to do.

The idea enjoys such tremendous support that the Republican caucus, through Rep. Kevin Glynn, announced Monday that it was not inclined to support protecting tobacco funds through a constitutional amendment unless the party also got a constitutional amendment for a budget stabilization fund.

Whoa, there.

A budget stabilization fund is a good idea, too, but creating that fund and protecting the Fund for a Healthy Maine are completely separate issues. Constitutional amendments must be considered on merit, not negotiated into existence or extermination.

An overwhelming number of Republicans have already spoken in favor of protecting the Fund for a Healthy Maine and adding a conditional second constitutional amendment muddies the legislative waters.

Constitutional amendments must stand separately, from a procedural standpoint anyway, so this not-so-veiled arm-twisting by the Republican caucus is out of order.
[email protected]