Environment, economic Reality Clash in Gore's Plan
 |
Kenneth W. Chilton, Ph.D. Environmental Policy and Regulation/Regulatory
Burdens/Costs |
Kenneth Chilton, Ph.D., has been following the two major party's presidential candidates' recent attention to environmental issues, and sees important differences between the two candidates.
Chilton addressed Gore's assertion that the development of new technologies to decrease pollution will benefit both the environment AND the American economy. "Gore's got the 'Field of Dreams' vision of economics and the environment: 'If you build it, they will come,'" said Chilton. "In his eyes, no amount of environmental regulation is too burdensome, because American companies will produce new technologies that can, in turn, be marketed around the globe. Unfortunately, there are some problems with this idealistic viewpoint -- namely, that other nations, especially developing countries -- often need less sophisticated, and less expensive, solutions to their environmental problems."
Chilton recognized Gore's extensive awareness of environmental issues, but he questioned the Vice President's understanding of economic realities surrounding these issues. "The economy is the horse pulling the cart of environmental consciousness and protection," said Chilton. "But it seems that Gore has put the cart before the horse -- such as when he pronounced in his book, 'Earth in the Balance' that preservation of the earth should be human civilization's 'new organizing principle.' "Gore has said some pretty extreme things in his book," continued Chilton. "For instance, he isn't the least bit reticent about giving the UN or other international organizations power to enact global environmental restraints. I don't think most Americans are in favor of that."
If most Americans oppose some of Gore's positions, then why isn't George Bush calling more attention to them? According to Chilton, "Republicans are too afraid to make it an issue; they are terrified of being branded as 'anti-environment.'"
Chilton did find merit in some of Gore's positions, however. "For example, the Vice President is in favor of removing subsidies for activities that carry with them environmental harms. In 'Earth in the Balance,' Gore cites price supports for sugar cane growers in Florida as causing harm to the Everglades. The question, however, is whether members of Congress are willing to abandon the time-honored practice of 'log rolling' and eliminate subsidies that assist important constituencies."
Chilton suggested that federalism may provide better answers to many U.S. environmental concerns, a position closer to Bush's than to Gore's. "Many environmental protection issues have been unnecessarily moved to the federal level and many people -- especially heads of state-level environmental offices -- think more responsibility and authority should be returned to the states," noted Chilton. "It's the fundamental principle of federalism: the government entity closest to the problem likely will solve it best."
Kenneth Chilton, Ph.D., manages environmental research programs at the Center for the Study of American Business (CSAB), a "think tank" based at Washington University in St. Louis. He has published a wide range of research offering an economic perspective on environmental issues such as: sustainable development, children's environmental health, air and water pollution and recycling.
