Prime Time Replay:
Dale Curtis of Greenwire
on Environmental Politics
MsgId: *infinities(1)
Date: Sun Oct 20 22:25:16 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
Welcom to Infinities. This is Allen Salzberg your monthly host on environmental issues. Tonight's guest is Dale Curtis, Publisher of Greenwire, one of the top daily wire news services on environmental issues, which is also now availalbe on the net. Its wesbsite for future reference is http://www.apn.com/Greenwirehome.Besides being the publisher of Greenwire for 3 1/2 years, Dale Curtis also worked for the Bush White House on Env. issues for 3 years and for Congressman Boehlert, a republican who the League of Conservation Voters this year gave a 100% voting record score.
Are you ready Mr. Curtis?
MsgId: *infinities(9)
Date: Sun Oct 20 22:35:37 EDT 1996
From: dale_curtis At: 199.171.108.52
Ready.
MsgId: *infinities(10)
Date: Sun Oct 20 22:37:42 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
First a litle history lesson may be in order. The Clinton Env. record started off well the first two months of his administration. BTU tax, range reform, etc. Then it was so forgotten that people like David Brower of the Sierra Club refused to vote for him despite the worse consequences of Congress. What happened?
MsgId: *infinities(11)
Date: Sun Oct 20 22:40:42 EDT 1996
From: dale_curtis At: 199.171.108.52
Well, it's important to note that Clinton was just endorsed by the Sierra Club and he is generally supported by the "mainstream" enviro groups. But I think there is an element of the environmental movement that would never be satisfied by any conventional politician; too many compromises for the purists.
MsgId: *infinities(13)
Date: Sun Oct 20 22:44:48 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
Taking the devil's advocate role, but when you are talking about life and death issues such as the future of entire species and ecosystems, can a master politiican like Clinton ever win these people? Or to be cynical, are these people just playing a political role of the worst case to bring people towards a more left center?
MsgId: *infinities(14)
Date: Sun Oct 20 22:47:23 EDT 1996
From: dale_curtis At: 199.171.108.52
That's exactly right. If your view is that humankind faces ecological catastrophe within the next few generations, then no compromises are acceptable. And Clinton has made several compromises that have driven both mainstream and "extreme" enviros up the wall. The first actually came in his first month on the job, when he proposed increasing the fees ranchers pay for grazing on public lands (the current level is way below market rates). When a handful of Western senators protested, Clinton immediately backpedaled, setting the precedent that Clinton frequently talks big and then backs off quickly.The other major compromise was on logging in the Northwest. Clinton deserves credit for bringing all the parties in the NW together to craft a compromise on logging in old-growth forests. The final policy cut logging on federal lands by about 3/4 compared to the level in the 1980s. But then in 1995 -- when the Republicans in Congress passed a law to spur "salvage logging" of dead or diseased timber (including a little-noticed provision to release some green old-growth areas), Clinton first threatened to veto it, then signed the bill because the GOPers gave him what he wanted on an unrelated provision. So the salvage logging program has driven the tree-huggers nuts. There have been lots of protests in OR and WA.
MsgId: *infinities(18)
Date: Sun Oct 20 22:55:41 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
With that sort of track record, I feel I have to insert a question from BOB RAR@aol.com who asks how can we trust Clinton to not just reverse his positions again?
MsgId: *infinities(19)
Date: Sun Oct 20 22:58:39 EDT 1996
From: dale_curtis At: 199.171.108.52
Well, some politicians you trust to keep their word and some you don't. Clinton is the kind of guy who tries to make everybody happy, so there are going to be times when he compromises to get something done and move on. I think it's also worth noting that Clinton has been more concerned overall about the economy and business than about the liberal agenda, so he's been careful not to offend business too much on enviro issues. And I can't help but note that his record in Arkansas was, he just didn't care until election time.
MsgId: *infinities(21)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:02:53 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
Which means that a lot of this recent pro-eco stuff isn't potentially lasting if a big economical/jobs issue is at stake? Which brings us to an issue Gore always brings up, the issue of can we seperate ever people from the env. and how?
MsgId: *infinities(22)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:05:08 EDT 1996
From: dale_curtis At: 199.171.108.52
I think that even Clinton-Gore will side with the economy over the environment, although their rhetoric -- like Bush's -- is that we must take care of both at the same time. Obviously, we must, although most people tell the pollsters they would side with the environment over the economy.While you're typing a message to me, I'm going to elaborate on the economy-environment thing and Al Gore. Recall that in his 1992 book, EARTH IN THE BALANCE, he called for imposing a federal automobile fuel-efficiency standard of 45 mpg (it's now 27 mpg). When was the last time you heard of that idea out of Al Gore??
What they've done instead is fund a collaborative research effort with the automakers that should produce good results someday -- but it's a good example of the admin. taking a more conservative approach than you might have expected.
MsgId: *infinities(23)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:08:32 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
I wonder about those polls. People told polls that they will pay extra for green goods up to 10-20% back in 1990, and green companies priced their stuff accordingly to bankruptcy. Push comes to shove it's still the economy stupid? As in my immmediate self-interest?
MsgId: *infinities(26)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:13:01 EDT 1996
From: dale_curtis At: 199.171.108.52
Yeah, when the pollsters ask people, OK, would you be willing to pay higher prices or taxes to protect the environment, they say, "Yeah..." But when the pollsters ask, are you willing to pay $500 more per car? or $500 more in taxes? the "yes" answer goes down. This is why I think the feds must seek policies that accomplish both objectives at once, and while Clinton may earn demerits on the "trust" issue for appearing to be easy-going on the environment, they've tried harder than any previous admin. to strike a balance.P.S. Usually, when politicians say we need to "strike a balance," it means "hold on there! you need to think about the economy!"
MsgId: *infinities(27)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:13:51 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
To switch topic a little, what about the trickle down effect, the League of Conservation Voters for the first time has spent a lot of money to unseat a dirty dozen, and they have taken claims for a senator seat victory in oregon. Are they right? Will they get a greener Congress that may spur Clinton to be less of a comprimiser?
MsgId: *infinities(29)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:17:09 EDT 1996
From: dale_curtis At: 199.171.108.52
I think there will be more "green" members of Congress next year, as a result of these elections. But whichever party wins control of Congress, the margin is likely to be small, which means it will be difficult to get anything through, from either side. It will only take a few defecting members from one party or the other to stop a bill. It's always easier in gov't to stop or delay something than to get it through.We've done an analysis of congressional races in which the envt is a key factor, and we found that is so in 17 Senate races and about 45 House races. In most of those races, environment may not be THE major factor. But if it is THE issue for a hard-core of voters who turn out on election day, that can make the difference.
FYI, the Senate races where the env't is a significant issue are in Arkansas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon and South Dakota. A few states where the outcome could have significant consequences for enviro policy are AK, IA, ID, LA, NE, NC, SC, and WY.
MsgId: *infinities(31)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:20:52 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
Taking all the polls into consideration that Clinton will win, what for the env. will this mean for the next 4 years? Will Gore have a bigger say, will there be fnally an Endangered Species Act? And on a new front will the state dept. start talking to countries like China, Vietnam , Taiwan about environment issues like fuel efficiency and wildlife issues??
MsgId: *infinities(33)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:24:27 EDT 1996
From: dale_curtis At: 199.171.108.52
Well, like I said before, I think the next two years will be semi-gridlock. The major issues in Congress will be toxic waste sites (nobody likes the "Superfund" law and they'll try again to fix it); clean air (the EPA's about to tighten some key standards and that may produce a conservative backlash); the Endangered Species Act (although that one's so sensitive it may take several years before they come up with a middle ground approach everyone likes); and the same goes for the Clean Water Act. The budget will continue to be tight, I think. Gore will be preparing to run for president, which may mean more prominence for enviro issues -- or, if he's afraid of appearing to be "Ozone Man" (e.g. too "liberal"), he may play down the tough issues and go for the photo op approach.
MsgId: *infinities(36)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:27:50 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
Let's be the true devil's advocate, what happens to the env. if Dole pulls a Truman? And is that in any way possible at this late a date?
MsgId: *infinities(37)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:31:08 EDT 1996
From: dale_curtis At: 199.171.108.52
I don't think it's possible, but if it happens, you'd see an approach to the right of that taken by Bush. (Nobody knows about all of the pro-environment things Bush did, there were more than a few ...). But Dole is pretty committed to the more conservative approach: cut regulations, return more power to the states (who would be free to roll back protections in a competition for job creation), don't bother landowners, don't work with the UN, etc. I don't think that would sell very well, so after a few years of gridlock, he would probably try to move back to the center via the photo op approach.
MsgId: *infinities(38)
Date: Sun Oct 20 23:34:59 EDT 1996
From: allen_salzberg At: 206.80.165.10
Well time is up and I'd like to thank Mr. Curtis for his time. especially since he just flew in from St. Louis and stopped on the way home to his office to do what I hope will be an anuual pre-election view. If you have anymore questions or comments please feel free to send them to me and I will forward them on to Mr. CurtisThanks for the chat and for watching us type.
Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI ToonsQuestions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.
Copyright (C) 1997 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.