Bob Schieffer blew it. OK, he kept the conversation moving during the final presidential debate. But he ignored the issue on which President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry may disagree most – protecting the environment.

As a result, many Americans may not appreciate the stark choice facing them on this issue in November.

True, both candidates offer similar rhetoric when it comes to the environment. President Bush says that “Good stewardship of the environment is not just a personal responsibility, it is a public value.”

Sen. Kerry says “a healthy environment is fundamental to our quality of life and our nation’s economic success.”

But their policies could not be more different.

Consider mercury pollution. In the past few years, President Bush has moved aggressively to reduce costs that many power plant owners were expecting to incur to control mercury. His EPA declared that mercury emissions from power plants should not be treated as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Kerry, in contrast, appears more focused on addressing health impacts from mercury. He has raised concerns about widespread fish advisories for mercury and calls on utilities to install the latest mercury control technology.

This topic affects the lives of millions of Americans. There are arguments to be made on each side. Too bad we won’t hear the candidates making them.

Or consider toxic waste cleanup. President Bush opposes reinstating a tax on oil and chemical companies that funded cleanup of Superfund sites during the Reagan, Bush I and Clinton administrations. As a result, cleanups are now being paid for by taxpayers from general revenues. Kerry supports reinstating the tax on oil and chemical companies.

Another area of disagreement – global warming. President Bush opposes legislation to limit heat-trapping gases, such as the bill proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. Kerry supports such legislation. President Bush has been suspicious of the conclusions of many scientists concerning global warming, dismissing one report by government scientists as a “report put out by the bureaucracy.” Kerry says he accepts these conclusions.

Finally, consider public lands policy. President Bush has moved decisively over the past four years to change federal management of our public lands, emphasizing opportunities for timber production and oil and gas development. Kerry has been sharply critical of these changes, proposing a new “Conservation Covenant” under which the federal government would “tread lightly on our public lands.”

The views of interest groups reflect these differences. The League of Conservation Voters declared Sen. John Kerry a “True Environmental Hero” and gave President Bush an “F” on environmental issues. Industry lobby groups tend to back President Bush on these issues.

For most Americans, environmental issues rank low on their list of priorities at election time. National security and the economy always take top billing, especially when the nation is at war.

But the consequences of presidential decisions on the environment are far-reaching and long-lasting. During the next four years, the president will make critical decisions concerning urban air quality, pollution in lakes and streams, oil and gas development on public lands, and solutions to global warming.

Furthermore, environmental issues often offer a window into a candidate’s values. Understanding a candidate’s views on the environment can help voters round out a picture of the man who would be president for the next four years.

This year the differences between the presidential candidates views on the environment are especially stark. Too bad Bob Schieffer didn’t ask about this topic.

David B. Sandalow is an environment scholar at The Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Readers may write to the author at: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Web site: www.brook.edu.

Copy the Story Link