Gregg Easterbrook titles his recent critique -- of my own critique of a recent New Republic editorial -- "Dim Prospect." He may be right about my brain wattage: I've read his article several times and I'm still a little confused. But in the interests of differentiating The American Prospect from both TNR and Cornel West's publicist (by the way, "Cornell" is the school), I'd like to respond to the latest chapter in TNR's Pollyanna narrative about the environment.
Easterbrook characterizes the original TNR editorial as claiming that "Democrats have given in to the enviros' fundraising-based doomsday rhetoric, presenting George W. Bush's environmental record as far worse than it actually is." Easterbrook's latest piece enlarges on this theme of Dems being so wedded to green interests that they can't see the rosy picture painted by environmental indicators.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that while Democrats tend to be somewhat more sympathetic to environmentalist causes than Republicans, most Democratic lawmakers owe at least as much allegiance to other, less green special interests in industry, corporate business, and sometimes (although less frequently these days, thanks to a burgeoning blue-green coalition) labor. As I pointed out before, greens squawked just as loudly when the Democratic Senate ignored their push for increased fuel-efficiency standards as they did when the GOP House passed an energy bill that rained money on big business and energy interests. And when Bill Clinton was president, environmentalists sang hail to the chief when, for example, he passed the low-sulfur diesel rule, but dinged him when they felt he was bowing to industry pressure on pesticides.
Easterbrook seems so convinced that the Democratic-green alliance believes Bush is evil -- and that Dems can do no wrong -- that he uses a kind of "Clinton did that, too" argument to defend Bush's undermining of environmental laws like Superfund and the Endangered Species Act. Actually, environmentalists didn't like it when Clinton made unwise environmental moves, and they don't like it any more or less when Bush makes them. Easterbrook wants to prove that the Democrats and the greens are too tight with each other to engage in a coolly scientific debate, yet he argues his case by presupposing that very party loyalty.
Furthermore, some aspects of his own analysis directly undercut this point. For example, Easterbrook criticizes the National Environmental Trust (NET) for going after both parties, writing, "Had Al Gore won, the NET would be bashing him as enthusiastically as it bashes W." My point exactly. The NET would indeed criticize Gore if Gore's policies ran counter to what they view as smart and green. So which enviro groups are the Democrats marching in lockstep with again? Well, all of them unless they're not, seems to be the tautological answer.
Is Easterbrook's complaint instead that Democrats aren't hanging with a cool enough crowd? That if they spend too much time with mopey greens everyone will think they're a drag and vote for the shiny, happy GOP ticket? Despite the fact that I feel comfortable, as Easterbrook does not, with a Democrat-green alliance (such as it is), there may be a grain of truth in this. Democrats and environmentalists alike need to think creatively about how to galvanize regular folks into caring about environmental issues and voting accordingly. Because whatever Easterbrook may say about scaremongering, the facts do not square, as he says they do, with his interpretation. For example, check out this report on children's deaths and pollution from the World Health Organization. Orthis recent article in The Washington Post. Or this fact sheet from the American Lung Association. I could cite much more, but the point is this: an upward trend in any environmental indicator is good news, but it says nothing about whether the change is happening fast enough. Nor does it mean all indicators are positive; they are not. Easterbrook's dismissive attitude and his assumption that we still have plenty of sand left in the hourglass reflect a tolerance for present suffering and a willingness to gamble with the future that I cannot adopt.
And speaking of facts, if Easterbrook insists on giving more credit to Bush for his environmental record, he should at least be accurate. Easterbrook claims that "the reason there exists an Ozone Transport Commission is that the Clinton administration fell years behind in compelling states to implement smog rules." I don't see how that can be, as the commission was set up under a Clean Air Act provision in 1990, when Bill Clinton was no more than a twinkle in the Democratic National Committee's eye.
Easterbrook also claims that Clear Skies is the only Bush plan I was able to cite that threatens the environment. And he admits that the Clear Skies initiative would slow pollution reduction under the Clean Air Act. But, he says, because the Clean Air Act has never been enforced on schedule we should instead enact a law that's easier for industry to obey. One might similarly claim that because hard-to-catch criminals still evade the police we should legalize more of what they do.
And Clear Skies is hardly the only example of the administration's cavalier stance on ecology. To name another, the Department of Defense (DOD) will soon be exempt from numerous laws, including the Clean Air Act, Superfund, and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). To cite a non-doomsday source, the state attorneys general in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Washington sent a letter to four Senate committees last week pointing out that past Defense Department exemptions resulted in 129 military installations becoming Superfund sites. The attorneys general say the proposed amendments are "much more far reaching than the DOD asserts" and would allow the department to ignore cleanup of unexploded ordnance and other contaminants at former military bases.
For more examples of Bush administration environmental rollbacks, try the Union of Concerned Scientists but then, I can't win. I'm doing it again. "Who does Hunter turn to for proof? Doomsday environmentalists!" Easterbrook says. Trying to discredit me for turning to environmental groups for information is an ad hominem argument and deflates real dialogue. Does Easterbrook think any organization billed as pro-environment simply makes up facts and lies to people? Or that I don't follow up on what I'm told? The Natural Resources Defense Council, which I cited, is one of the most respected groups in Washington on issues of environmental protection; it got that way by drawing its information from government data and National Academy of Sciences studies. And as I took care to mention in my previous article, the National Environmental Trust report is based an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report. Is the EPA just another doomsday enviro group?
Easterbrook claims that if Americans knew how bright the future looks for the environment, "confidence in government might rise again: People would see that government really can improve lives, as government's intervention in protecting the environment has been triumphant." If he were simply arguing that too much talk of looming environmental catastrophe threatens to drive people into depression and inaction, then that point would be well taken. In that case, I'm not sure what the answer is. I certainly don't think it's what Easterbrook proposes, i.e. that we should blindly trust Bush et al. -- or any administration for that matter -- to keep our best interests in mind. Too many of our nation's leaders are far too beholden to other powerful, moneyed interests for whom environmental protection is simply not a priority. Most environmental indicators that have improved over the past 30 years have done so as a result of prolonged battles between environmentalists and polluters, in which the government was reluctantly strong-armed into doing the right thing.
The way to stop the spiral of voter cynicism is not to misrepresent the administration as nature's champion. Nor does it help to intone warnings that the end is near (even if it is), as some greens are wont to do. We will take a crucial step toward solving the riddle of global survival when we discover how to use sound science to reveal the grave danger we face while inspiring hope that we, as citizens, possess the power to rescue ourselves.