I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people.”

So pontificated George W. Bush at the Republican National Convention, reiterating the central theme of his reelection campaign: that he, not John Kerry, is best suited to keeping Americans safe in the post-Sept. 11 world. To underscore the need for the president to, above all, act as protector in chief, Bush’s RNC speech incessantly reminded us of the ever-present danger of terrorism — the speech included 16 utterances of “terror.”

Conspicuously absent from the speech was any mention of the environment. The closest Bush came to the subject was when he promised to “make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.” Bush didn’t explain how he would accomplish energy independence, but I suspect his plan involves drills in Alaska, not wind farms in California.

Perhaps Bush’s aversion to environmental talk should come as no surprise; this is the same man who, during the 2000 presidential campaign, pledged to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, then flip-flopped on the issue two months after moving into the White House.

Bush, a flip-flopper? Affirmative, captain. If you don’t believe me, you can read all the gory details by going online and Googling “Bush and CO2 and about-face.”

It would seem rational that a president, especially one who describes the task of protecting Americans as a “solemn duty,” would act swiftly and aggressively to minimize the release of lethal toxins from power plants. After all, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that air pollution from power plants contributes to 30,000 premature deaths each year — more than 10 times the number of Americans killed by terrorists on Sept. 11. But then Bush has never been one to act rationally on environmental issues. Instead, he has routinely exhibited a knee-jerk opposition to environmental regulations of any kind, even when those regulations serve to protect society’s most vulnerable individuals from extremely harmful pollutants such as mercury.

Power plants account for roughly 40 percent of the man-made mercury emissions in the United States. Mercury emissions fall to the earth when it rains, then become highly toxic upon exposure to bacteria in lakes, rivers and streams. Humans ingest the dangerous toxin when they eat mercury-contaminated fish. Pregnant women and their fetuses are most susceptible to the ill effects of mercury, which can cause, among a variety of abnormalities, severe brain and kidney damage, nervous disorders, memory loss and seizures. The EPA reports that 630,000 infants are born each year with unsafe blood mercury levels.

The problem is particularly acute in Indiana, where the Department of Health has placed all of the state’s rivers and streams under a mercury advisory. Moreover, the EPA identified a 22-square-mile area north of Fort Wayne as the most mercury-contaminated spot in the nation.

The situation is far from hopeless. Modern technologies are capable of controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 99 percent. But bottom-line focused utility companies have been reluctant to spend money to upgrade their facilities with the latest technologies.

In 2000, the Clinton Administration submitted a plan requiring power plants to cut mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2008. The Bush Administration threw out the Clinton plan, replacing it with a much more lenient proposal, one that gives power plants until 2018 to reduce mercury emissions by 70 percent. Bush’s plan has been sharply criticized by Democratic leaders in Congress, as well as a few notable Republicans, including Arizona Sen. John McCain.

George W. Bush is the same man who, during his RNC speech, appeared sincere when he said, “Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child.” If he truly believes this, why has he acted so passively in protecting fetuses from exposure to mercury? Has he decided to rigidly oppose everything that Clinton favored? Has he been influenced by the millions of dollars contributed to his campaign coffers by electric utility executives? Is he too cowardly to act against the wishes of our nation’s short-tempered svengali, Dick Cheney?

Whatever the case may be, Bush’s environmental record strongly suggests that his pledge to protect Americans is empty campaign rhetoric. By continuing to put business interests ahead of human interests, he exhibits a shameful disregard for the health and well-being of all Americans, including unborn children.