Here's a piece I thought might be of interest to ECOFEMers. It's
from another csf list; I apologize for any cross-posts.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The following article from the Competitive Enterprise Intitute appeared
on the list ecol-econ. It may be of interest to consbio readers who want
to know how the other side thinks.
(Forward)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The GOP Vs. The Environment?"
by Jonathan Adler, CEI's Director of Environmental Studies
appeared in *Investor's Business Daily's Editorial Page, A2
November 6, 1995.
The Republican drive to reform environmental law looks to be stalled.
Last week, for example, the House backed off 17 proposed limits on the
Environmental Protection Agency. Other reforms face similar trouble.
The problem, in the words of Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., is that "The
Republican party is quickly becoming known as the anti- environment
party." So long as the GOP seems to just want to roll back environmental
protection, Boehlert and his allies in both parties can make a powerful
case.
But Boehlert's answer- dropping reform efforts- is wrong. Instead, the
new Republican majority should do what's done on issues from welfare to
Medicare: Present a clear alternative to the status quo.
Reformers should articulate their own long range vision for environmental
protection. They must demonstrate a positive desire to use GOP principles
to achieve these goals. They can show how free markets and limited
government will work better than the sprawling bureaucracies now in place.
The need for dramatic change should be clear. Policies that effectively
curbed pollution in the '70s are too rigid and clumsy to deal with the
concerns of the '90s. The haystack environmental problems of yesteryear
have been eliminated, while the needle-in-a-haystack environmental
problems remain. new problems require new responses.
Conventional command-and-control environmental policies are no longer
worth their costs. This year Americans will spend well over $150 billion
to comply with pollution control measures. Yet many such rules no longer
do much for the environment.
In some cases, these laws actually harm the environment. Hazardous-waste
and species protection measures, for instance, can actually encourage
increased waste production and destruction of habitat. Removing such
perverse incentives is not anti- environment.
More broadly, reformers should aim to eliminate destructive subsidies and
encourage markets to address environmental concerns.
Most environmental problems are not caused by market failures but by a
failure to have markets. Republicans know that sound stewardship begins
with private property. Their pro-environment agenda should thus include
protecting property rights.
Regulatory approaches may sill be called for. But these should focus more
on preventing harm to people and their properties, and less on
prescriptive bureaucratic edicts. There is nothing pro- environment about
generating paperwork or letting the federal government micromanage
industry decisions.
This agenda should also move decisions out of Washington to the people who
will bear the costs - and reap the benefits - of the policy decision. It
makes no sense for Washington to set environmental priorities for every
community in the nation.
Voters are ready to hear this message.
A January 1995 Time/CNN poll shows that 68% of Americans believe
environmental regulations should be "subject to an analysis to determine
whether eliminating that risk justifies the economic cost." A May 1995
Roper Starch poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe landowners
should be compensated when laws protecting wetlands or endangered species
devalue their land.
Both policies are key to the GOP regulatory reform agenda.
Voters also sympathize with the drive to return many environmental
decisions to the state and local level. President Clinton's pollster,
Stanley Greenberg, conducted a series of focus groups for
environmentalists. He concluded that "For ordinary citizens, devolution
is a way of making the environmental regime more responsive, more flexible
and sensible."
This is a message Congress' reformers should push in the environmental
debate.
Polls consistently show that Americans call themselves environmentalists.
We believe in environmental protection. But Roper Starch found that the
share of Americans who believe such measures "have gone not far enough"
has dropped by nearly a third since 1992, from 63% to 43%. And the number
who believe they "have gone too far" has more than doubled, from 10% to
22%.
Americans are ready for a pro-environment, anti-regulatory message. The
GOP's reformers just have to start sending it.
------------
_______ ________ __________
/ | |
| |_______ |
| | |
\ _______ |_______ __________
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
1001 Connecticut Ave. NW #1250
Washington, DC 20036
202-331-1010, fax 202-331-0640
Permission to reprint must be obtained from the publishing journal listed
above. Permission to copy granted as long as these lines are left intact.
To subscribe to the cei list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The
Virtual Hand: CEI's free-market guide to the information superhighway" is
available for $5. CEI's monthly newsletter, "CEI UpDate," is free to
contributors of $25.
