Jim Gibbons Republican candidate for governor has defended his record on the environment

Last year, Rep. Jim Gibbons co-authored a report asserting that mercury isn't as bad as many people think.

That's one of the major reasons Democrats and environmental groups are decrying his record on the environment, which also includes consistent support of the mining industry, where Gibbons once worked, and a failed attempt to restructure the federal Endangered Species Act.

"Gibbons' record on the environment is a train wreck that never seems to end," Dan Geary, Nevada representative for the National Environmental Trust, said of the Nevada Republican who is mounting a run for governor. Geary's group, along with Great Basin Mine Watch and the Nevada Conservation League, nicknamed Gibbons' voting record in Congress "Crimes Against Nature."

Gibbons defends his record and the report, which he said "was to separate fact versus fiction about mercury."

"I'm not anti-environment. I just want to make sure sound science wins the day," he said.

But Gibbons' critics say he's put science second to political considerations.

"This is a man who put his name on a report that said mercury isn't harmful because it's 'naturally occurring,' " Geary said. Plenty of naturally occurring substances, from poisons to plutonium, are harmful, he pointed out. "Among environmentalists ... he's widely known as having one of the worst records in Congress on public lands and the environment."

On the occasion of Earth Day April 22, Democratic gubernatorial candidates Dina Titus and Jim Gibson took a break from bashing each other and came together to criticize Gibbons.

"Scientists have said for years that mercury exposure can be harmful to people, so why is Gibbons trying to sell us a bill of goods instead of fighting for our safety?" Henderson Mayor Gibson said in a statement.

Titus, a state senator, said in a separate statement, "If Gibbons sees a tree, he wants to chop it down. He has even tried to make one of the most toxic substances on earth seem harmless."

The report in question, "Mercury in Perspective," was co-authored by Gibbons and Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif. Pombo chairs the House Resources Committee, while Gibbons chairs the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee.

Since the report's publication in February 2005, it has been widely criticized by environmentalists and scientists, who say the authors cherry-picked evidence that supported their pro-industry line while ignoring a larger body of scientific research that didn't comport with their views.

Gibbons defended the report as necessary "to overcome the emotional misunderstanding (surrounding mercury) and put a factual basis out there, to put science into the debate."

The report maintains the danger of mercury has been overblown given that U.S. power plants account for less than 1 percent of global mercury emissions, that emissions in the United States have significantly decreased since 1990, and there's no peer-reviewed scientific studies that show a link between U.S. power plants and mercury levels in fish.

Gibbons, a former geologist and natural resources lawyer, said it frustrates him "when people misuse science for political purposes."

But Gibbons and Pombo are accused of doing as much with the report, which states, "As a result of the well-funded effort to push their political agenda, environmentalists have caused American citizens to become unnecessarily concerned about possible adverse health effects from exposure to trace amounts of mercury."

The report warns that people could face even more serious health consequences if mercury hysteria causes them to stop eating fish because of its health benefits. "Scaring people away from consuming fish is creating a public health crisis in its own right," the report states.

The report's fish stance has been cheered not only by the energy and mining industries, but also by the Tuna Foundation.

Meanwhile, groups such as the Sierra Club have decried the report, and Chris Mooney, author of "The Republican War on Science," wrote in the magazine The American Prospect it was "a misleading contrarian pamphlet aimed at convincing Americans that despite everything they may have heard, mercury levels in fish aren't dangerous and U.S.-based mercury emitters aren't a significant part of the problem."

Mooney noted that many of the references footnoted in the report were industry-funded groups rather than independent scientific sources.

Airborne mercury is released into the atmosphere largely by coal-fired power plants, although in Nevada, the "roasting" process that extracts gold ore from bedrock also releases airborne mercury. The metal molecules then sink to the ground; when they sink into rivers and streams, they are absorbed by fish, scientists say.

Mercury builds up in some fish and shellfish. The fish then transfer the mercury up the food chain to carnivores such as bears and people, which in turn accumulate mercury over their lifetimes. Eventually, scientists say, the amount of mercury can reach levels that could harm fetal development; for this reason, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends that women who are or may become pregnant limit their consumption of certain fish.

Gibbons said he doesn't deny that this process occurs or that mercury can be a toxic substance. "Certainly mercury is harmful if taken in any amount in excess of what is tolerable by the human body," he said.

But he said it's important not to pin all the blame on American industry. Much of the world's airborne mercury comes from power plants in China and other developing countries, he said.

"It remains in the air and can travel great distances," Gibbons said. As for the United States, he said, "We are doing our part" to limit mercury emissions.

The environment is seen as a potential issue in this year's political campaigns. University of Nevada, Las Vegas political scientist David Damore said national polls increasingly show voters are concerned about the environment, especially as the increasing occurrence of natural disasters drives home the effects of global warming.

The question, Damore said, is whether politicians of either party are willing to embrace environmentalism when both sides rely on campaign contributions from industry.

"It's a winner of an issue for the Democrats, but I think they're concerned it might hurt them in the pocketbook," Damore said. "If you look at the public opinion polls, it resonates, but there's not much national leadership on the issue."

The environmentalists also have criticized Gibbons for a provision he added to a budget bill that would make some public lands available for purchase, and another bill that would retool the Endangered Species Act. Both measures failed.

Gibbons embraces other initiatives decried by environmentalists, including drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and temporarily relaxing environmental regulations on oil refining to lower gasoline prices. He also has supported billions of dollars in subsidies for the oil and gas industries.

Because of such positions, Gibbons got a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters in its 2005 scorecard, as did his fellow Republican in the Nevada delegation, Rep. Jon Porter. Eighty-eight members of the House of Representatives -- about 20 percent -- received a zero score from that group, as did 10 percent of senators.

"He is viewed among his colleagues as someone who is very closely aligned with a few specific interests, and he has ignored very strong sentiment among the public," said Elyssa Rosen of Great Basin Mine Watch. "He has really eroded his credibility."

Gibbons defended his stances, saying, "I am absolutely an advocate for responsible environmental development of our abundant natural resources."

The Endangered Species Act is clearly "not working," he said, because fewer than 1 percent of the species listed have ever been removed from the list. He said that proved that the law wasn't proving effective in reversing the decline of endangered species.

"They're entitled to their opinion," Gibbons said of his critics, but they shouldn't pretend to have a monopoly on scientific truth.

The criticisms of his record amount to "emotional attacks for political purposes," he said.