Just ran into a Seattle Dinocrat in the neighborhood grocery store. We're talking about a voter in "Baghdad Jim" McDermott's congressional district here. A neighbor and friend - real estate agent and former hi-tech guy, like myself a married father of two. Unlike me, he voted for Kerry for President, and, like me, the apparently victorious (pending the recount) R-Dino Rossi for WA Gov. Says he believes 20 years of D Guvs in WA have helped create an unfriendly business climate, and a change was needed.
He IS concerned about environmental trade-offs, and mentioned a third way, a pro-business, pro-environment mindset. Says he's been reading a book by the founder of Cliff Bars (the first energy bar that really tasted good, by the way), which explores the imperative of "green marketing."
I replied that that stuff can sometimes be more a PR facade than anything else, but agreed we can't afford to be totally cynical. Balancing pro-growth policies with the environment in an (echh, I hate this phrase) "win-win" way is a huge, and important area to get into. Everything doesn't have to be a zero sum game. That's the kind of thinking that has poisoned many a public policy debate. With folks on both sides (pick any issue, practically) to blame.
See how you'd answer these questions.
For Democrats: If an "environmental protection" initiative is advanced by a Republican, or Republicans, can it actually be beneficial? Can you think of any? Can you think of any instances when allegations that pro-business policies would hurt the environment proved false? Are there any myths or even serious uncertainties you have identified about air or water quality, global warming, open spaces or endangered species? If so, what? Which species, if any, should be allowed to be sacrificed for progress (regardless of what the law says, what is your opinion?). When have Ds gone overboard in protecting the environment? Ever?
For Republicans: are there any ways in which current environmental protections are falling short? Are salmon threatened in the Northwest and West? If not, please explain. Doesn't urban air pollution, especially from motor vehicles, really make you sick? Or do not enough of you live in cities to care? How can you fail to understand the need for more and better urban and suburban mass transit? Should a paper mill be allowed to monitor itself for pollutant emissions, and then report the results to the state?
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 18, 2004 09:45 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/584
My eyes were opened by reading The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. I am very wary of the environmentalism-as-religion types, for whom any environmental movement, legislation or cause is by definition worthwhile, helpful or even necessary (and opposition to same, is by definition "anti-environment"). Lomborg gets into cost/benefit analysis issues which are so often ignored by the fanatics for whom no price is ever too high for whatever minimal gain is achieved.
I enjoy the work of Jonathan Adler (NRO contributor and environmental law professor at Case here in Cleveland) on free-market environmentalism. He and other good folks (like Iain Murray) blog at The Commons:
http://www.commonsblog.org/
Posted by: dan at November 19, 2004 01:18 PMLomborg's book sounds like an important read. Thanks for the excellent tip, Dan. I'm adding it to my holiday list.
Posted by: Matt R. at November 19, 2004 01:21 PM