THE PUBLIC MIND: SIERRA CLUB ENDORSES CLINTON AND GORE TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURE OF AMERICA

Dear Editor:

The 1988 presidential candidate George Bush claimed "I am an environmentalist." He also committed himself to "no net loss" of wetlands, and early in his presidency he supported the Clean Air Act. But things have changed. To win this campaign, George Bush now says "I can do better in emphasizing jobs over environmental concerns." And so President Bush tries to gut the Clean Air Act and redefine wetlands out of existence. While claiming that we can have environmental protection AND jobs, Dan Quayle has identified the issue as "owls versus jobs." George Bush, meanwhile, refers to those with environmental concerns as "the spotted owl crowd," and labels Vice-presidential candidate Al Gore as "Mr. Ozone." No conservationists, these folks! They don't see that the real issue is not "owls versus jobs," it is "owls and jobs VERSUS no owls and no jobs."

While the early months of the Bush/Quayle administration saw some environmental promise, both the later years and the present campaign reveal that these candidates have now taken a firm stand against environmental protection. At best they argue that environmental problems are minor inconveniences that should be dealt with later, at worst they seem to argue that no problems exist. The current Bush/Quayle anti-environmental position stands in opposition to the views of most Americans and most nations around the world. At the recent Brazilian conference on development and the environment, this position resulted in the United States standing as a roadblock to global attempts to cooperate in addressing international environmental concerns.

Throughout the world, peoples and governmental leaders have realized that continued global economic development cannot occur unless it is undertaken in an environmentally sound and sustainable fashion. If we exploit resources and ecosystems for short term economic gain rather than develop economic programs that promote sustainable systems, both the environment and long term economic growth will suffer.

By styling the conflict in the Pacific northwest as "owls versus jobs," the Bush/Quayle campaign is siding with short term exploitation rather than long term management (and is also, incidentally, ignoring the contribution of management decisions such as raw timber export and automation to recent job losses). If timber harvest is continued at the rate the logging industry currently wishes, there will be no old-growth timber left within 15 years - and no jobs. Forests are perfect examples of systems that can, if managed wisely, provide a long term and sustainable habitat for wildlife, as well as a source of enjoyment and economic benefit.

However, as long as economic pressure to maximize short term gain holds the day, and only exploiting special interests have the ear of the administration, sustainable management will not occur, common sense will not prevail, and conservation is doomed. On issues such as this, we constantly find the Bush/Quayle position defying logic and reason as it promotes short term economic gain at the expense of environmentally sensitive and long term sustainable economic development.

We live in a nation of federal and state laws, penalties, taxes, tax credits and tax incentives. These are developed to promote activities that are considered favorable to society, and discourage those that are considered harmful. The question is not whether we will have laws, or whether we will have taxes; the question is what activities will be promoted and what discouraged.

Currently, far too many incentives serve to promote unwise economic directions, and far too few serve to encourage environmentally wise directions. Currently, harvesting raw timber is promoted over recycling wood and paper products. Currently, western ranchers who graze cattle on public lands (at one quarter the going rate on private land) are subsidized by the taxpayer. Currently, insufficient incentive exists to promote energy efficiency as opposed to mining or drilling new reserves, and insufficient support is provided for population control through family planning assistance.

When proposals are made that will alter the balance in favor of environmentally sound programs or developments, we find plenty of rich special interests ready to stand in the way of progress, and too few to argue for them. And we have an administration that only hears one side of the argument.

It is time for a change. It is time to catch up with the rest of the world. It is time to join other industrial nations in recognizing that economic development is possible through wise resource and ecosystem management, through pollution control, through recycling, and through energy efficiency. These are the directions that a Clinton presidency promises, directions that the Bush presidency rejects.

Environmentally sensitive and sustainable economic development is not the enemy of our lifestyle. Without it, in the long term, both we and our children will pay the price, as will the billions of others, born and yet to be born, who are destined to share this planet. It is the growth area of the future, and we need to be part of it.

Because of the environmental damage that has resulted from the Reagan/Bu~~sh/Quayle years, and because of the policies and promise of the Clinton/G~ore candidacies, the Sierra Club has endorsed Bill Clinton and Al Gore. There really is no choice.

Alan Journet

Conservation chair

Trail of Tears Group

of the Sierra Club