An uncontrolled flare at the Huntsman Corporation’s petrochemical plant in Odessa, Texas, spewed a black cloud of toxic smoke over the city for three weeks in 1998. Together with the neighboring town of Midland, Odessa is in the heart of the Permian Basin on the high plains of west Texas, one of several oil-rich regions of the Lone Star state. Refineries have sprung up to process the oil into gasoline, motor oil and other derivative products, including plastics.

Air pollution is nothing new to the people in Odessa. But this raging burn at the Huntsman plant was too much. Complaints of asthma attacks, coughing, sore throats and skin rashes piled up at local hospital emergency rooms. One victim nearly died.

The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), the state agency responsible to enforce the feeble air pollution laws in Texas, did nothing.

The Odessa NAACP stepped into the breach. Gene Collins, president of the branch, drew up a complaint form. "In one day, I collected 3,100 complaints from people," he told the World in a phone interview. "Each form had space for the victims to describe their symptoms. There was also space at the bottom for witnesses to sign. This was not just a petition; it was like individual legal affidavits."

One man reacted so severely to the toxic plume that he actually stopped breathing on two separate occasions and had to be rushed to the hospital, Collins said. "He finally moved away from Odessa to Denver, Colorado to recuperate. We submitted these complaints to the local TNRCC office in Midland."

TNRCC stalled for months and finally imposed a $7,500 fine on Huntsman Corporation. "When we heard about this slap-on-the-wrist, last March, we took busloads of Odessa citizens to Austin to protest in front of the TNRCC offices," Collins continued. "The TNRCC was so embarrassed by our protests that they backed off from the $7,500 fine. Now we’re waiting to see what they do next."

The protesters marched on the Governor’s mansion that same day. "We got absolutely no response from Governor George W. Bush," Collins said.

The do-nothing attitude of the governor and the rest of the Texas government was so arrogant that the Odessa NAACP formed a joint project with the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) to fight the chronic air pollution. It afflicts all sectors of the population but the Black and Latino community suffer the worst, Collins said, a case of corporate environmental racism.

"Since December of 1998," said Collins, "there have been over 200 days of flaring from the petrochemical plants in Odessa. We have very high rates of asthma among children and seniors. Many are on asthma inhalers and oxygen. We need some leadership in Austin and Washington that understands the gravity of the problem and is not unduly influenced by the Big Business polluters. Big Business can buy the people right out of the TNRCC."

I asked Collins what he would expect from a Bush-Cheney Administration if the Republicans win the Nov. 7 election. "I think it would be a disaster as far as protection of the environment. Bush is from this area of Texas. He is a former oil company owner. He has given the oil and petrochemical companies carte blanche to do what they wanted to do."

If Bush becomes President, "the smog level will just skyrocket. He has already made clear in Texas that he intends to let the corporations make profits at the expense of the people."

Huntsman Corporation Co. owner, Peter Huntsman, is one of scores of oil, gas, and chemical corporation owners who have bankrolled Bush’s political career. But truth be told, it did not cost much to "buy" George Dubya. A report "The Governor’s Gusher" by Austin-based Texans for Public Justice (TPJ) lists Peter Huntsman as contributing $5,000 to Bush’s gubernatorial campaign, a pittance. Yet oil, gas, and petrochemical contributors bundled together so much cash that they gave a huge percentage of the record-breaking $41 million in Bush’s two campaigns for Texas governor.

These same oil and gas executives are pouring an ocean of oil money into the Bush-Cheney presidential election drive. TPJ reports that Bush "has raised more money than any other political candidate in history, twice as much as any presidential candidate before him." At least 24 percent of the $90 million in "hard money" that Bush has raised so far came through a clique of corporate executives, lawyers and lobbyists called the "Bush Pioneers" each of whom has raised at least $100,000.

So far, 212 of these "pioneers" have been publicly identified but more than 200 others have made pledges that they will raise the requisite $100,000. At least 28 of these wealthy donors fall in the category of "energy and natural resources" mostly oil and gas owners and executives.

TPJ released a report

last year titled "Toxic Exposure: How Texas Chemical Council Members Pollute State Politics and the Environment." The report cites data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that Texas has the worst pollution of any state in the nation. It led the U.S. in the release of known and suspected carcinogens Huntsman Corporation’s Port Arthur, Texas Plant, for example, is the nation’s number one source of benzene emissions, a potent carcinogen. The state ranks first in air, water, and soil contamination, EPA data proves.

The report charged that members of the Texas Chemical Council (TCC) released an astounding 187 million pounds of toxic chemicals to the Texas environment in 1996 or 74 percent of all toxic chemical emissions released in the state.

DuPont led TCC members in total toxic pollution releasing more than 40 million pounds of toxins into the water, land and air. BASF Corporation, formerly I.G. Farben, the Nazi-connected German chemical giant, ranked second, releasing 17 million pounds of toxins. Other top-ranked polluters in the "dirty dozen" list were Hoechst Celanese, Huntsman Corp., British Petroleum, Mobil Corp. and Sterling each with more than 10 million pounds of toxic emissions.

The report charged that the TCC member corporations buy immunity from enforcement of environmental laws through lavish contributions to Texas politicians. "Governor Bush received the most TCC-affiliated PAC money, $115,871," the report states. "TCC members hired 222 lobbyists in 1999 alone, paying them up to $8.7 million. Leading polluter, DuPont led the lobbying cavalcade by hiring 21 lobbyists at a cost of up to $1.2 million."

Craig McDonald, executive director of TPJ said, "Pollution and political clout are closely linked in Texas. The TCC is a prime example of how a special-interest group harnesses big money in order to dump on average Texas citizens. Cleaning up state politics is the first step towards cleaning up the air we breathe and the water we drink."

TPJ has just released a

new report, "The State of the Lone Star State" which found Texas at the bottom or near the bottom in a dozen different categories compared with the other 49 states, including the environment.

The report’s chapter on the environment charges:

"A hub of energy and chemical industries, Texas is No. 1 in toxic emissions, hazardous waste and spills, animal manure and environmental civil rights complaints. No other state consumes as much energy or emits as much global –warming carbon dioxide."

Andrew Wheat, the group’s

research director told the World by phone, that the "state of the Lone Star State" has been deplorable for many years. "It is not new. But what is new is that we have had an unprecedented opportunity to remedy these problems in the last five years because of unprecedented state budget surpluses. So what did Gov. Bush and the legislature do with the surpluses? We could have spent it for public education and health care for uninsured children or to clean up the environment. But no, Bush decided the oil and gas industry needed a tax break. This was a question of misguided priorities and missed opportunities."

Sierra Club backs Gore

The 600,000 member Sierra Club polled its chapters and voted overwhelmingly to endorse Al Gore. In a press release last July, the environmental group, largest in the country, explained that 39 chapters had supported a Gore endorsement and one chapter supported an endorsement of Green Party presidential nominee, Ralph Nader. Dr. Robert Cox, Sierra Club’s volunteer president said, "The Sierra Club endorses Vice President Gore because he is committed to cutting air and water pollution and protecting our nation’s treasured forests and wildlands. As Vice President, Al Gore helped strengthen clean air health standards, sped clean up of Superfund toxic waste sites, reduced automobile tailpipe pollution, and protected America’s spectacular landscapes …

"Governor Bush on the other hand has said that if he’s elected, he will weaken toxic-waste clean up standards, allow oil drilling in the Arctic refuge, and increase logging in National Forests. When it comes to protecting our environment, Al Gore is by far our best shot at a President committed to a sustainable future …"

The Audubon Society featured in the Sept.-Oct. edition of Audubon magazine, Bush and Gore’s answers to a series of questions on protecting the environment. Gore gave detailed, specific answers, reflecting his substantial knowledge of the subject. He wrote a best-seller book, Earth in the Balance. Bush by contrast confined his one paragraph, sometimes even one sentence answers to bland generalities. Repeatedly, Bush said the key to a safe, clean, environment was "partnership" between government and "private landowners."

By contrast, Gore’s answer to the same question stressed enforcement of environmental laws. He offered detailed proposals for reducing greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. He referred to the growing problem of respiratory illness, mentioning asthma and bronchitis caused by air pollution.

Asked about drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), Bush replied, "I believe we can explore ANWR in an environmentally safe way." It is necessary to expand domestic oil production to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil, he added.

Gore replied, "I strongly oppose drilling in the ANWR … As President, I will continue to fight those who would threaten the precious natural habitat of the ANWR with oil drilling."

Audubon asked the candidate’s their views of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five percent, compared to 1990 levels, to curb global warming.

Said Bush, "I oppose the Kyoto Protocol. It is ineffective, inadequate, and unfair to America."

Gore replied, "I have worked throughout my career on the issue of global climate change … In addition, I am proud of my role in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, a historic first step in the effort the world must undertake to curb the tremendous threat to our way of life that climate change represents. I will strongly advocate the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol."

There are many issues where the differences between Gore-Lieberman and Bush-Cheney are stark, but none sharper than on the issue of saving the environment. The political "reason-for-being" of Bush and Cheney is to serve the profit interests of the giant oil, gas, and chemical corporations. Certainly, Gore too has ties to these same interests. Occidental is often mentioned. But a powerful democratic coalition has united behind Gore and he has responded by promising to fight these corporate interests. The challenge is to defeat Bush-Cheney, end Republican majority control of the House and Senate and then hold Gore to his promises.