Dan Rather believes in global warming and usually relays only the opinions of scientists who believe there have been increases in temperatures around the world and that such changes are human-caused. The opinions of climate experts who question either one of these points are seldom relayed despite the fact that there seems to be no consensus among scientists on this issue.

"On the CBS Weather Watch, U.S. government climate experts tell CBS News they now believe global warming is real and underway. We have two reports for you tonight, in depth, to detail how these changes are and will be felt in the months and years to come."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, January 10, 2000.

"Still ahead on our live broadcast, our special broadcast about the environment, you will see and hear a dramatic warning on global warming." "Global warming may be, literally, the hottest issue facing the Earth, one that could dramatically affect our lives and the lives of our children. If, as some scientists believe, if pollution is turning up the temperature of the Earth, we could see an increase in skin cancer, the extinction of some plants and animals, and a big change in our climate."
--Dan Rather in a special program called Eye on the Earth, June 10, 1992.

"This video, fresh from Antarctica, shows deep cracks in the ice shelf. You can see how deep and how big at ground level. You can also see the melting that some environmentalists say is a danger sign of global warming."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 6, 1997.

"To hear some researchers here on the ground tell it tonight, the latest read on global warming is cause for concern now and for the future. So is Mother Earth really running a temperature? CBS's John Roberts has the latest on this heated dispute."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, April 22, 1998.

"[I]s global warming causing home run balls to fly out of stadiums at an unprecedented rate this season?"
--Dan Rather in an online preview of the Evening News, May 18, 2000.

"The heat is on. New evidence that the Earth is warming, with potentially devastating impact." "U. S. climate experts are saying tonight there are new and ominous signs that global warming is generating drastic and dangerous weather changes, short and long term."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, April 18, 2000.
Note: There is no consensus among scientists about global warming. Some say the combined data are inconclusive, others say it is happening while still others say it might be occurring but is the result of natural temperature cycles.

Industrial pollution and who is responsible for it are oftentimes hotly disputed. In the case of Big Bend National Park in southwest Texas, electricity plants in the U.S. and Mexico were blamed by environmentalists who wanted both governments to make the plants reduce emissions. They also blamed George W. Bush for not implementing their ideas faster when he was governor. This report from CBS's Maureen Maher focused almost exclusively on critics of the power plants or Bush and did not allow anyone from the power companies or Mexico to say the other side of the story. It also ends with Maher expressing frustration that no immediate action is being taken:

DAN RATHER: When people interested in protecting the environment create endangered lists, they're usually concerned with protecting a species from extinction. But whole parks can be endangered, too, like the magnificent Big Bend National Park in west Texas. There, as CBS's Maureen Maher reports in tonight's Eye on America, the once crystal-clear air is no more.
MAUREEN MAHER: Three hundred miles from the nearest city, Big Bend National Park is a remote slice of paradise nestled along the Texas-Mexican border.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We're more bird watchers.
MAHER: Its 800,000 acres are full of wildlife, but the park is best known for its unobstructed panoramic views.
FRANK DECKERT (Superintendent, Big Bend National Park): On a clear day, you can see those mountains, and--and off to the--the right, you can see the Sierra Del Carmon Mountains way down into Mexico.
MAHER: Park superintendent Frank Deckert says clear days are now few and far between. Visibility at the park, once more than 200 miles at its best, has dropped to nine miles at its worst, proof to many that pollution-belching power plants on both sides of the Rio Grande are having a measurable impact. Park air technician John Forsythe.
JOHN FORSYTHE (Air Technician, Big Bend National Park): You know, you can see this filter is pretty snow white still, but this filter is brown.
MAHER: Should I be thinking that's on my lungs?
FORSYTHE: If you could hold your breath, it would probably be a good idea.
MAHER: The situation is so severe that Big Bend has just been named one of the 10 most endangered parks in the nation, a move environmentalists hope will generate public concern and, more importantly, motivate political action. In Texas, the political finger of blame has long pointed at George W. Bush for not closing a loophole that exempts older plants from complying with newer, tougher EPA standards. Instead, then-Governor Bush pushed through a voluntary clean-up program. Of 768 plants, less than 4 percent have complied.
DAVID SIMON (National Parks Conservation Association): It's kind of like asking all the pigs in the barnyard to get in line for a bath. I mean, there's a lot of squealing that goes on, but not a whole lot of cleaning.
MAHER: Critics are concerned President Bush is continuing to stall initiatives to protect the environment, like scrapping his campaign promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But in an interview with the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, today Christie Whitman pawned off recent decisions as a necessary evil to solving the energy crisis.
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN (EPA Administrator): This is part of the problem that people don't recognize. Because we didn't have an energy plan, it's not just impacting energy, it's also impacting the environment.
MAHER: Whitman also tells CBS News that the president plans to issue new haze regulations for cleaner air within the next month, which can't come soon enough for Big Bend. Preliminary results from a recent EPA study--
FORSYTHE: The rain water is captured.
MAHER: --show Texas plants are contributing to Big Bend's pollution.
DECKERT: My children got to see views down here that my grandchild, who's here today, cannot see.
MAHER: What's happening to Big Bend is being called paralysis by analysis. While politicians and scientists sift through possible solutions, pollution is progressively consuming one of the nation's most magnificent vistas. In Big Bend National Park, I'm Maureen Maher, for Eye on America.
--Dan Rather and Maureen Maher on the CBS Evening News, May 30, 2001.

"House Republicans voted to water down another environmental protection law. They approved expanded compensation to land owners affected by environmental legislation. Opponents say this makes protecting endangered animals and the environment too costly, and would mostly benefit big land-holding companies."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 3, 1995.
Note: What did proponents say?

"Climate scientists have taken thousands of ice core samples from these massive ice sheets and they say that, any way you cut it, the earth is getting warmer."
--Dan Rather in an online preview of the night's Evening News, March 29, 2000.

"CBS News has dug out new and exclusive information about just how seriously the U. S. government now regards global warming. Sources tell Jim Axelrod that President Clinton will soon commit more money to understand it and fight it. This follows Axelrod's report Monday disclosing that U.S. climate experts now believe global warning indeed is real and underway. Axelrod has fresh scientific evidence of it tonight on the CBS Weather Watch." "Some of the world's top ocean life experts are now meeting in Alabama about one possible impact of global warming: It's a global explosion of jellyfish ruining tourism, stinging swimmers, and a possible sign of coming climate changes that could have even more impact on people. CBS's Maureen Maher has the hard facts on a squishy problem."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, January 12, 2000.

"Tonight we'll take a hard look at global warming, with even former naysayers coming to recognize this phenomenon as reality, are we prepared for the rising sea-levels and extreme weather that will accompany it?"
--Dan Rather in an online preview of the night's Evening News, March 27, 2000.

President Bush announced the United States would not support the "Kyoto Protocol" emissions treaty. Then-president Clinton had supported it but the Senate voted beforehand 95-0 not to support it, unless it restricted less-developed countries as well as developed nations, leading the London Telegaph to call it a "dead duck":
"President Bush is ordering another rollback, another reversal in U.S. environmental policy. This time it amounts to abandoning support for an international treaty designed to reduce emissions linked to global warming."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 28, 2001.

"Still ahead on tonight's CBS Evening News, signs of global outrage over the Bush pullout from the global-warming treaty.
[Other stories]
"President Bush also defended his string of rollbacks on environmental protection policy. He argues the United States economy can't afford them right now. He told reporters this includes pulling out of the international treaty aimed at reducing industrial emissions linked to global warming."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 29, 2001.

"Is recent extreme weather in the Old World a result of new global warming trends?"
--Dan Rather in an online preview of the night's Evening News, March 30, 2000.

"With Exxon shareholders expected today to reject proposals to search for alternative energy sources and to investigate the damage caused by Alaska drilling, Jim Axelrod will take a look at the energy company that isn't afraid not to be green..."
--Dan Rather in an online preview of the night's Evening News, May 31, 2000.

RATHER: "On the subject of global warming, U.S. climate experts now believe it is real and it is underway. And President Clinton says he will seek funding to fight it."
JOHN ROBERTS: "Spurred on by the strongest evidence yet that the Earth is getting hotter, the Clinton administration will seek a fifty percent increase in funding, $1.6 billion to combat global warming." "An international treaty which would cut greenhouse gas emissions to pre-1990 levels has not been ratified by Congress." "[S]enior administration officials admit they expect a tough fight with Congress."
--Dan Rather and John Roberts on the CBS Evening News, January 13, 2000.

"Good evening. A sudden severe and spreading cold blast in the Northeast could be a foretaste of what's coming a lot of places in this unusual winter. Namely, more frequent, more extreme, rapid-fire weather shifts up and down. U. S. climate experts say global warming and a sustained La Niña may be generating all this."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, January 18, 2000.

The following report contains almost twice as many words in opposition to President Bush's new EPA changes. 62 words were aired in favor and 115 words in opposition. Words opposed are blue and words in favor are red:
DAN RATHER: Tonight's headlines: President Bush orders new rules for rolling back the nation's air pollution controls. [Other headlines]
RATHER: Good evening. With President Bush overseas today talking up his Iraq policy, a major controversy broke out here at home over the president's domestic policy. President Bush has ordered new regulations--and they've just been put out by the Environmental Protection Agency--that would reduce clean air standards for old power plants, refineries and factories. CBS News correspondent Bob Orr has our report.
BOB ORR: The role back of clean air rules is a bonanza for hundreds of the nation's oldest and dirties power plants. Under the change, those plants will be allowed to pump out more power, and consequently more smoke stack emissions, without having to install costly anti-pollution equipment.
The Bush administration insists the move will encourage older power plants to invest in new equipment that ultimately will make them more efficient.
JEFF HOLMSTEAD (EPA): We will actually be making the environment cleaner with the regulatory improvements that we are making today.
ORR: But critics accuse the Bush administration of gutting the Clean Air Act with changes that threaten the environment and public health.
DR. JOHN BALBUS (Washington Hospital Center): We know that higher levels of particulates lead to higher rates of premature death, higher rates of heart disease, higher rates of stroke, and higher rates of lung cancer.
ORR: The greatest threat may be to the Northeast. Power plants throughout the Midwest and Southwest spew heavy emissions that are carried by prevailing winds over New England. Under the new rules, environmentalists warn, the fallout will only get worse.
PHILLIP CLAPP (National Environmental Trust): People have asthma attacks. Thousands of people suffer from respiratory disease and they will continue to do so.
ORR: The rule changes have been a top priority for the White House, though they were announced with President Bush overseas and EPA administrator Christie Whitman unavailable for comment. The President defended the clean air rollback last summer, rejecting critics' claims that it's a payback for millions in political contributions from the power industry.
GEORGE W. BUSH: They're absolutely wrong. This administration is committed to clean air . . .[Cuts off rest]
ORR: But the administration still faces a fight. Senator Joe Lieberman has called for EPA administrator Whitman to resign. And the attorneys general from Connecticut and New York say they're heading to court to stop the changes. Bob Orr, CBS News, Washington.
--Dan Rather and Bob Orr on the CBS Evening News, November 22, 2002.

"There was today an international conference on global warming, a meeting to discuss the potential for catastrophic changes in the world's climate because of pollution. President Bush was there but he announced no major initiative. He called instead for more study. One European delegate called it, and I quote, 'An excuse for worldwide inaction.'"
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, April 17, 1990

"The CBS Weather Watch includes an update tonight on the story CBS's Jim Axelrod broke in January, namely that the U. S. government climate experts do believe global warming is real, is under way, and that President Clinton would seek funds to fight it. Tonight CBS News has learned the President wants to earmark almost two and a half billion dollars over time to fight global warming."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 2, 2000.

Dan Rather added his comments to a relatively balanced John Roberts story on George W. Bush's decision to not put restrictions on the amount of carbon dixode power companies can emit, highlighting only liberals' view of global warming:
RATHER: President Bush insisted today that he was not caving in to big-money contributors, big-time lobbyists and overall industry pressure when he broke a campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But the air was thick today with accusations from people who believe that's exactly what happened. CBS's John Roberts has both sides of the story.
[Roberts reports a relatively balanced story, and then closes:]
ROBERTS: Growing pains or not, President Bush may find his reversal on carbon dioxide emissions difficult to move past, environmental groups vowing today it will haunt him for the rest of his term. Dan.
RATHER: John Roberts at the White House. The context of the debate on carbon dioxide emissions now includes this: Using satellite data, British researchers tonight reported the first what they call 'direct evidence' that greenhouse gases are building up in Earth's atmosphere and allowing less heat to escape into space.
--Dan Rather and John Roberts on the CBS Evening News, March 14, 2001.

"[L]onger and stronger tornado seasons generated by la Niña and global warming."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 15, 2000.

"Hot times on planet Earth: The government says El Niño has made global warming worse and issues an El Niño-related weather forecast for the months to come."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, June 8, 1998

"Amid talk of earlier, longer, and stronger tornado seasons--caused by among other things, global warming and La Niña--this twister was the earliest of the season ever to hit Milwaukee."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 9, 2000.

Dan Rather and Byron Pitts relay only the opinions of those scientists who are proponents of the global warming theory, none of the scientists who are skeptical:
RATHER: The forecast from hell. Why America may see more killer tornadoes and floods, hurricanes and wildfires in the years ahead....
[Introduction of other stories]
There are new and dire predictions tonight about the future of our planet. Around the world, glaciers are in full retreat. Some, like the ancient ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa, could be gone in a decade or two. It's a dramatic symptom of the warming of the Earth, detailed in a new 1,000 page United Nations report, Climate Change 2001. It predicts the new century will bring, and I quote, "large-scale and possibly irreversible changes affecting every last person on Earth." Correspondent Byron Pitts has more on the CBS WeatherWatch.
BYRON PITTS: Imagine a Texas type heat wave in Toledo, Ohio; wildfires year round in California; that 500-year flood that devastated Grand Forks, North Dakota occurring every five years. It is a doomsday scenario detailed in a report sponsored by the United Nations and researched by 700 of the world's leading experts on global warming.
JAMES McCARTHY (Study Co-Author): We believe that the rate at which climate is projected to change now is unlikely to be enough affected by mitigated efforts.
PITTS: Simply put, weather phenomenons, like those killer tornadoes last year or the severe flooding in Chile over the weekend, all occurring in this century more often with more devastating results. And all man can do now is slow it down.
RAFE POMERANGE (On Screen: Climate Expert): What we have to do is get very busy so we don't have catastrophic change.
PITTS: This is punishment, say scientists, for sins of the past, the end result of years of pollution. The world is now dependent on fossil fuels that produce carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases that stay in the atmosphere 100 years after they're released. The result: the worldwide temperature is expected to increase by 2 to 10 degrees in the next century. And there will be serious consequences in the United States. In the Southeast, severe coastal flooding, water-borne illnesses like malaria, wildfires in the Everglades. Similar problems out West, along with a massive influx of refugees from Mexico and Latin America. In the Midwest, deadly heat waves and severe droughts. And in the Northeast, what is now precious waterside property could one day be underwater. Scientist say it's no longer a matter of if, but when. Byron Pitts, CBS News, New York.
--Dan Rather and Byron Pitts on the CBS Evening News, February 19, 2001

"Global warming now seems a matter of fact. Over the past 100 years, the mean global temperature has increased about a degree Fahrenheit. Going back to the late 1800s, seven of the 10 hottest years on record came in the 1990s. Ocean temperatures are rising. And it seems as if hardly a month or season or year passes without setting another temperature record."

"There is, however, a building scientific consensus that the greenhouse effect -- the trapping of heat in the atmosphere by certain gases, especially carbon dioxide -- is for real and is in fact at the root of the problem. In addition, more and more scientists are coming around to the view, already widely held, that industrialization is driving the greenhouse effect, or at least making it worse."

"The new report reflects this consensus and projects temperature increases in America of 5 to 10 degrees by the end of the next century."

"Will this future be ours? One would like to say no, that the United States and the world will surely come together to meet this potentially catastrophic threat. That's what you'd like to say, but the early signs are not encouraging.

"In 1997, the United Nations held an international meeting in Kyoto, Japan, to discuss global warming and how best to combat it. The agreement that came out of this summit, the Kyoto Protocol, has been signed by dozens of nations, including the United States.

"In the years since, however, precious little has been done to meet the accord's goals of effecting a 5 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from their 1990 levels by the year 2012. The nations of the European Union, aside from France, have shown scant political will to enact the sort of policies that would cut industrial and automobile emissions. In the United States, which releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than any other country, the Kyoto accord has not even been submitted to the Senate for ratification.

"The reason? The Republican majority there has made it clear that the treaty as presently constructed would be dead on arrival. Their view is that compliance with Kyoto would unfairly hurt American industry, while large, developing nations such as India and China would be given a free pass. The rest of the world would understandably like to see the United States take some sort of lead on the issue but also realize that any action is unlikely until after this year's elections.

"Senate concerns about sharing this global burden fairly might be warranted, but it also seems evident that some action needs to be taken by someone, somewhere, and the sooner the better. Economic considerations are of course important, but common sense dictates that you don't spend too much time considering the furniture while the house is on fire.

"Meanwhile, we have been shown what might be our future. It's warm, and getting warmer."
--Dan Rather in his syndicated column, June 20, 2000.

President Bush introduced a plan to deal with the nation's energy crises, created by a Cheney-led task force that had been working on it for five months. On the day Bush announced the proposals, Bob McNamara filed a report that included five statements denouncing Bush's plan and only one statement in support of it; pro-Bush statements are in red and anti-Bush statements are in blue:
DAN RATHER: As part of his sales campaign today, the president visited an environmentally friendly power plant that uses renewable sources of energy. But as CBS's Bob McNamara reports, critics say this photo op presented a distorted picture of what the Bush energy plan is really about.
PROTESTORS: Clean energy now!
BOB McNAMARA: Sore that the president wants to step up oil and gas drilling, environmental critics said his tour of a power plant that will someday burn wood chips was a smoke screen.
BRETT HULSEY (Sierra Club): All he's doing here is talking the talk, and it's just lipstick on a pig.
McNAMARA: From the 600,000 tons of wood waste the St. Paul-Minneapolis area produces each year, managers of St. Paul's energy district energy power plant say wood chips will be lighting and heating 20,000 homes in two years. The irony is it's the kind of renewable energy use program whose funding could be drastically cut under the president's proposed budget. And St. Paul Congresswoman Betty McCollum thinks Mr. Bush is wrong.
Rep. BETTY McCOLLUM (D-Min.): If we don't move forward to do that, we're going to be trapped in the 19th century. You know, burn, dig, burn, dig.
McNAMARA: Still, the president has energy policy defenders here.
Rep. JIM RAMSTAD (R-Min.): Forty-two of the 105 proposals that he came forward with this morning relate specifically to conservation and renewable energy sources. I think that's very important to have a balanced energy approach.
McNAMARA: Here, near the end of the pipeline, where gas prices and home heating costs are sky high, and where life is often more about chills than it is about thrills, Minnesota is on the cutting edges of renewable energy.
--Dan Rather and Bob McNamara on the CBS Evening News, May 21, 2001.

John Roberts also filed a report. It did not relay the opinion of anyone who was in favor of Bush's proposals, while relaying the anti-Bush opinions of a Democratic congressman and environmental activists; statements in favor of Bush's energy plan are in red and statements against it are in blue:
DAN RATHER: It's not a pretty picture. Americans are paying record prices for gasoline, residents of the most populous state in the nation don't have enough electricity and there are dire predictions of summer blackouts from one coast to the other. Today, in the Midwest, President Bush officially put out his plan for dealing with all this. It includes opening portions of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling, encouragement for the coal industry, building more nuclear power plants and some tax credits to encourage conservation.
There are no what Mr. Bush calls quick fixes, but the plan did draw fast criticism from, among others, Democrats in Congress and environmentalists. They call it too little too late and a sell-out to business and industry at the expense of consumers and true conservationists. CBS's John Roberts begins tonight's coverage of the energy crunch.
JOHN ROBERTS: Protesters gave the president a lump of coal for his energy plan today--five tons actually, dropped right on the vice president's doorstep, along with oil drums and mock nuclear waste. It was just a glimpse of the challenge ahead for President Bush as he kicked off the hard sell for his new national energy policy.
GEORGE W. BUSH: To protect the environment, to meet our growing energy needs, to improve our quality of life, America needs an energy plan that faces up to our energy challenges and meets them.
ROBERTS: Much of the plan is already known, but in the fine-print release today, there are new proposals to review standards for clean-burning fuels with an eye to simplifying the complex patchwork of formulas for lower-polluting gasoline. Mr. Bush would create a national electrical grid similar to the interstate highway system to quickly move electricity to areas of high demand. And under the nuclear power banner, a controversial proposal to consider reprocessing nuclear fuel, banned for 25 years over fears the material could be used to make bombs.
Mr. Bush had barely finished speaking before environmental groups fired the first shot in a political and public relations war against the plan.
GENE KARPINSKI (U.S. Public Interest Research Group): It's a recipe for more drilling, more spilling, more nuclear waist, more asthma attacks and more global warming.
ROBERTS: The president threw a bone to the environmentalists today, promising to use money from oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to fund renewable resources and alternative fuels. They bit back with a first in a series of new attack ads.
AUCTIONEER IN COMMERCIAL: Sold! Drilling rights in the Arctic Refuge going to the gentlemen from big oil.
ROBERTS: On Capitol Hill, Democrats, who the White House accuses of doing nothing in the past eight years to address a looming energy crisis, happily joined the fray, promising a fight that would make the tax-cut battle look like a Sunday walk.
RICHARD GEPHARDT (House Minority Leader, D-Mo.): The president's energy plan is out. It is slick. It looks like the annual report of ExxonMobil. And maybe that's about what it is.
ROBERTS: President Bush today appealed to his critics to put aside the suspicion and the rancor and to work together to secure America's energy future. 'We've yelled at each other enough,' the president said today, but it would appear the yelling has just begun. Dan.
RATHER: John Roberts in Iowa.
--Dan Rather and John Roberts on the CBS Evening News, May 17, 2001.

After speaking ominously about the state of America's energy, CBS suddenly reversed course and reported that maybe there really wasn't an energy problem at all. The day after President Bush released his plan to deal with the energy crises, reporters Dan Rather and Bill Plante wondered if there really wasn't a crises after all:
DAN RATHER: As for the Bush energy plan, the president today began implementing some of it, at least those parts that do not need the approval of Congress. But there are some serious questions tonight about whether any of his plan is really necessary at least for consumers. For the energy industry, critics say, it's like striking a gusher, as CBS's Bill Plante reports.
BILL PLANTE: Drilling for oil, building new pipelines and power plant construction all became easier today. With the swipe of a pen, the president tipped the official balance in favor of new energy projects with an order requiring federal agencies to consider the impact of any new regulation on energy supply not only on the environment.
GEORGE W. BUSH: It is a yellow light that says, "Pause and think before you make decisions that squeeze consumers' pocketbooks."
PLANTE: The president's order reverses the government's long-standing position that environmental issues necessarily take precedence. He insists it's possible to have both.
BUSH: ...that economic growth and a good environmental policy do not have to be zero sum. It doesn't have to be either/or.
PLANTE: Mr. Bush's emphasis on getting new energy supplies gives the energy industries a green light for the kinds of projects largely denied them by the last White House.
JERRY TAYLOR (Natural Resources Analyst) The Bush plan gives a sack of money to about everybody with an energy lobbyist in this town.
PLANTE: The irony, in the view of Taylor and other economists, is that the president's energy policy isn't really necessary because the market is already solving the supply crisis in gas and electricity. In fact, a study conducted for the Department of Energy projects that even without the administration's energy plan, prices for oil will drop 35 percent in the next two years. Prices for natural gas and electricity are also projected to decline.
Mr. TAYLOR: I know that most consumers don't like to hear things like, 'Investment will take care of this. There is no crisis. It's a passing summer thunderstorm, and there's no reason to hit the panic button,' but that's the reality of the situation.
PLANTE: That may be one reality, but there's also political reality. Consumers and environmentalists are both upset, so Mr. Bush continues to walk a fine line, talking both of conservation and of new energy sources. Bill Plante, CBS News, the White House.
--Dan Rather and Bill Plante on the CBS Evening News, May 18, 2001. print_file('footer'); ?>