Republicans, Democrats diverge on environment

William Lowry, Ph.D. Associate professor of political science Arts & Sciences (314) 935-5821 office (314) 361-1128 home lowry@wuecon.wustl.edu http://artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci/lowry

Lowry has written extensively on the politics of the National Park System and other environmental policy issues. In a forthcoming research paper, Lowry documents stark differences between the two parties on environmental issues -- a divergence he attributes to regional realignments in the party's electoral bases.

"A generation ago, many Republicans supported environmental protection," Lowry said. "In fact, some, such as Nelson Rockefeller and John Chafee, were known for their staunch commitment. But as the party's base has shifted to the South -- and particularly since the rise of people like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay -- the party has been perceived as the party that will sacrifice environmental protection on the altar of big business -- and that's pretty accurate."

Based on his research, Lowry believes there are several proposals that the candidates should offer in order to appeal to environmentally conscious citizens.

First, candidates should support the continuation of President Clinton's current practice of setting aside key pieces of environmentally sensitive land as national parks and/or monuments. Candidates also should argue that some of the expected budget surplus be used to help maintain national parks, since raising user fees will not be sufficient.

Second, according to Lowry, they should work to reform the 1872 Mining Act, which allows companies engaged in mineral extraction to pay just pennies per acre to mine public lands. Similarly, they should raise grazing fees on public lands. These twin steps would foster habitat conservation, and also help raise money for other preservation programs.

Finally, Lowry says a committed candidate might propose the expanded use of market-based environmental initiatives, such as the use of "pollution permits" that affluent nations can purchase from developing countries. Early results, said Lowry, indicate that such market-based policies may be effective in reducing pollution.

Lowry contends that so far, Al Gore has made a far better case than George W. Bush on these issues.

"Gore's definitely not perfect, in the eyes of environmental activists," he said. "But he and Clinton are correct in arguing that the whole 'jobs vs. the environment' argument really IS a false choice. And they've done some important things in their two terms, although many environmentalists might have liked to see more."

Lowry contends that Bush has "squandered the opportunity to reclaim the Republicans' mantle as a party concerned about the environment. He notes that one of Bush's top advisers on environmental issues is a prominent advocate of privatizing national parks, a proposal that Lowry describes as a "giant mistake."

While Lowry has strong opinions on politics and the environment, he does not believe that environmental issues will be unusually salient in this fall's presidential election. "As always, only a very small portion of people will vote based on this issue," Lowry said. "And I'd guess that they'll be choosing not between Gore and Bush but between Gore and Nader."

Just how big of a threat is the Green Party candidate?

"Well, it looks like Nader's fading," Lowry said. "But if he approaches double digits in key states where environmental issues tend to be more salient -- such as California, Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico -- then Gore's toast. So Gore's advisers must be pleased that Nader won't be included in the debates, especially since Nader has consistently criticized Gore for abandoning his commitment to the environment. In a Gore-Bush debate, Gore -- having written a book exhorting people to help protect the environment -- should be able to talk circles around Bush on environmental issues."