The Other Environmentalists
The poll results are in and they show conclusively that we Americans are in favor of a
clean, healthy environment - in much the same way that we are in favor of good schools,
good jobs, and nice homes. So why is it that the nation's so-called environmentalists want
us to make a choice between the environment and the other trappings of the good life?
For almost three decades our country has labored under a mistaken belief that to be an
environmentalist one must always be aligned with traditional left-wing groups. Those are
clearly the liberal environmentalists. But there is another category and that group
represents mainstream America. These are conservative environmentalists.
There are core differences in the approach between the two. Liberals fall into the Al
Gore wing, accusing anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with them of favoring policies
that kill people. Left-wing environmentalists favor strong federal control over states.
They are predisposed to an anti-industry, anti-technology, anti-development bias. Liberals
have traditionally put the rights of property owners low on the priority list. They
frequently embark on environmental crusades that are upon mere theories.
Conservatives favor more state and local management of environmental concerns. We
believe that environmental protection and economic development are not mutually exclusive
activities. We require sound science as the basis for serious policy changes. And
conservatives understand that confiscation of private property is a poor way to conserve
natural resources.
To date, the debate over how to protect the environment has been almost exclusively
been framed by liberal environmentalists and their non-profit organizations. The
conservative point of view has not been well represented. In fact, conservative
environmental philosophy has been defined, not by its proponents, but by those on the
left. That is now changing as conservatives are beginning to come to grips with how to
develop and implement an environmentalism grounded in the standards of liberty and free
enterprise.
Conservative environmental groups are springing up to unite those of like mind on this
issue. On the national level, Rob Gordon and Ben Patton (grandson of General George
Patton) formed the National Wilderness Institute in 1989. Their mission has been to foster
a scientifically driven form of environmentalism, one based on stewardship of our natural
resources and our principles of a free society, such as property rights and respect for
the Constitution. Gordon says that part of the mission, for example, is to explain to the
public at large that the Endangered Species Act and property rights are not mutually
exclusive things, but are fundamentally intertwined.
A similar effort is underway in Florida. In January 1998, after a year of
behind-the-scenes preparation, the Republican Party of Florida announced the formation of
the Theodore Roosevelt Society, a think tank centered on an idea best summarized in one
word: balance. The Theodore Roosevelt Society (TRS) is based in Tallahassee and
chaired by former Gov. Bob Martinez. Its goal is simple: to reconcile the necessity to
develop good quality, high paying jobs in Florida with the need to protect our state's
fragile environment and the rights of property owners. Input will be received from board
members comprised of water experts, landowners, developers, farming interests, elected
officials, and legal experts.
The mission statement of TRS states that it will "present ideas, including
free-market concepts, that benefit all living things. ... The Society will provide a
source for media interface, ensuring that the positions of all sides will be heard. Most
importantly, it will advance policies that will unite those with common concerns for their
environment."
A key component of the statement above is the inclusion of all living things.
Too many times radical liberals concern themselves exclusively with flora, marine life,
and animals, no matter the cost to human beings. The Theodore Roosevelt Society seeks to
involve human concerns in these debates without excluding the legitimate concerns of other
living things. Doing otherwise is morally and intellectually indefensible.
What is the potential impact of the injection of conservative environmentalism into the
overall discussion? Liberals bow at the altar of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). It is safe to say that many business owners, small and large, have tangled with
EPA. In the past, EPA has unfairly branded businesses as polluters, ordered companies to
clean up sites they did not contaminate, or used dubious reasoning to fight a company's
expansion or relocation to a particular site.
While businesses have run-ins with the state Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), there is at least some satisfaction gained in the realization that they are dealing
with an entity that is approachable and closer to the concerns of private and public
interests. Yes, permitting can be interminably slow. Yes, there are plenty of businesses
that have spent two years trying to get a permit from DEP, then were told they could not
expand or relocate their operations because of ecological concerns.
There are hopeful signs that streamlining of the permitting process at the state level
is working. We should also note that DEP has made some effort to balance the concerns of
economic growth and environmental protection. Proof of that is the criticism the agency is
receiving at the hands of liberal environmentalists and some editorial boards.
There is growing friction between the state environmental agencies and the EPA. New
York Law School Professor David Schoenbrod, writing in The Wall Street Journal,
draws the conclusion, shared by many, that EPA believes "that the states would
despoil the environment." Thus an on-going regulatory power grab has ensued. This
confiscation has intensified under EPA administrator Carol Browner, Florida's former
environmental chief.
At last year's meeting of the state environmental commissioners, T-shirts were
distributed bearing the message: "The states are not branches of the federal
government." As conservatives know, the federal government does have a prescribed
role in environmental regulation. The EPA is there to solve problems on interstate
pollution not adequately controlled by states or interstate compacts, protect the great
national parks, and regulate nationally marketed goods. Schoenbrod writes that "it
can also offer the states and the public information on local pollution levels and draft
model pollution laws, but let [the states] decide."
The most recent uses of junk science on the part of liberals comes in the furor over
the EPA's crusade for new clean air standards, billed as "clearing the urban skies of
smog and soot," and the Kyoto conference on global warming. Just as many communities
were coming into compliance with current clean air standards, EPA has moved the goalposts
further back. The big losers: those holding jobs that are threatened by the new standards
and the companies that will be forced to expend current resources to either fight the new
standards, or implement them, or both. Many Democrats and Republicans alike are in
opposition to this federal power play.
The Kyoto treaty, negotiated by Vice President Al Gore, will have significant economic
side effects on American industry if implemented. There is yet to arise any clear
scientific proof that global warming is moving beyond mere theory and into an actual
phenomenon. Even so, the vice president warns that scientists skeptical of the global
warming theories, "should not be given equal weight with the consensus now emerging
in the scientific community about the gravity of the danger we face." The consensus
Gore cites as the reason to chill scientific inquiry does not actually exist in the
scientific community, however; the consensus is among some scientists, some politicians,
and the environmental advocacy groups. It is liberal environmentalism at its worst.
The rights of property owners have traditionally received short shrift in the debates
on environmental issues. People have had their property taken away by bureaucratic fiat,
or have lost the use of their land without compensation. In Florida those rights were
taken into consideration with passage of the land-buying program, Preservation 2000.
Through this program, begun in 1990 under the guidance of then-Gov. Bob Martinez, pristine
areas have been preserved and landowners have been compensated. It represents a merging of
competing interests into workable public policy that meets with overwhelming approval from
the citizens. It is for that overriding reason - balance - that the Theodore Roosevelt
Society advocates the continuation of Preservation 2000.
This issue may progress to a greater degree of cooperation and the balancing of diverse
interests. In some cases cooperation is made impossible, however, by the decidedly
partisan biases of some groups that bill themselves as non-partisan. For instance, each
year, the League of Conservation Voters, under the guise of environmental advocacy,
publishes a scorecard that deliberately includes certain votes while excluding others in
order to create artificially low environmental scores for Republicans and high scores for
Democrats.
However, the Theodore Roosevelt Society has held helpful and promising discussions with
The Nature Conservancy and the Florida Audubon Society in recent weeks. The outreach to
both groups has been met with a similar response, welcoming initiatives that combine
environmentalism with economic development. It is in this atmosphere that the needs of
industry can be communicated to these environmentalists, and to end the false segregation
of conservatism from environmentalism.
The search for balance between environmentalism and economic development is just one of
the unique political events occurring this year. Florida and the nation will be much
better off with a quiet, reasoned approach to conservation of natural resources. Tourism
is a vitally important segment of our economy. A vibrant environment fosters a vibrant
tourism industry. On the other hand, business development can be done in such a way and in
the right areas to create jobs within pristine surroundings.
We need to strongly advocate common sense environmentalism. Common sense equals
business cents that is appealing to the senses.
Dale Patchett, president of R. Dale Patchett Management,
Inc., is an AIF lobbyist and former legislator and top-ranking official of state
environmental agencies.
July/August 1998 -- Florida Business Insight, 501 N. Adams St., Tallahassee,
Fla. 32302
(850)224-7173, insight@aif.com
