TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/020392/0203330.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 10.1 KB | 200 lines

                                                                                ENVIRONMENT, Page 50

Gunning for the Greens


The sour economy has made it more fashionable to save jobs than
trees -- and fueled a backlash led by loggers, ranchers and
developers

By CHARLES P. ALEXANDER -- Reported by Andrea Dorfman/New York,
J. Madeleine Nash/Chicago and Dick Thompson/Washington


    Who cares about a few spotted owls when loggers' jobs are
at stake? Why worry about caribou when America needs more of
Alaska's oil? Who can afford to think about the environment when
the economy is the pits?

    When times get tough, the questions facing
environmentalists get even tougher. And these days, economic
anxieties and shifting political winds are threatening to
produce a green-out effect that could make tree huggers feel as
endangered as the California condor. Epochal events such as the
gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union have pushed most
domestic ecological concerns off the front pages. The recession
has prompted many people to question the costs of
environmentalism and made it harder for preservation groups to
raise money and boost membership. In the presidential campaign,
saving the planet has become an orphaned issue. No savvy
candidate would dwell on ozone depletion and the need for
biodiversity when voters are worrying about whether they'll have
a job next year or be able to pay their medical bills.

    Environmental groups claim that their members are as
committed as ever, but recruits are getting harder to find. For
every organization that is still growing -- membership in the
Nature Conservancy jumped 15% last year, to 620,000 -- another
one seems to have hit a plateau. After expanding in 1990, the
Sierra Club stayed level at about 620,000 members last year and
fell short of its goal of boosting contributions 10%. The
National Wildlife Federation had to trim its work force 8% in
1991, and the Wilderness Society laid off 10 of 136 staffers.
Says David Gardiner, who heads the Sierra Club's Washington
office: "There's no question that 1991 was a disappointing year
for protecting the environment. We are marking time when we
should be moving forward."

    But there is no marking time in the opposition camp, which
is more organized than ever before. Scores of interest groups
-- including ranchers, miners, loggers, developers and
manufacturers -- have become allies in a "wise-use movement" to
fight what they see as the extremism of those who put wilderness
protection and the rights of endangered animals before the
welfare of humans. "There seems to be a coalescing of different
economic interests to fight the green devils," observes
environmentalist Thomas Lovejoy of the Smithsonian Institution.

    This antigreen brigade advocates economic development in
wilderness areas, arguing that land can be used wisely for human
benefit without destroying Mother Nature. The timing of the
campaign is excellent, since two landmark pieces of
environmental legislation are up for renewal in Congress this
year: the Endangered Species Act, which prohibits development
that drives a species to extinction; and the Clean Water Act,
which contains a provision protecting wetlands from uncontrolled
exploitation. The wise-users are pressuring Congress to weaken
those laws as a way to spur economic growth. Another goal is to
block proposed reforms of the federal mining law that would make
it harder for companies to open mines on public land. "Anytime
anyone gets as much power as the environmental movement has
achieved, a backlash can be expected," says Oregon logger Tom
Hirons.

    In dealing with these issues, Congress is likely to be
sharply divided, just as public sentiment is. In a poll
conducted this month for TIME and CNN, 58% of the people
surveyed expressed concern that the quality of the U.S.
environment was "becoming worse," but only 50% thought the
country should "go full speed ahead in spending money to clean
up the environment." Another 45% said it would be better to "go
slow." And 51% agreed that environmentalists "go too far in
their demands on business and government."

    Hoping to encourage a public and political backlash, the
wise-use movement has been adopting many of the tactics long
used by environmentalists. Last September timber interests from
the Pacific Northwest invited other antigreen groups to join in a
five-day lobbying campaign in Washington dubbed the "Fly-In for
Freedom." In all, some 370 people from 25 states showed up to
stage rallies and urge Congress to roll back environmental
regulations. Two months later, many of the same activists met in
St. Louis to form the Alliance for America, a potentially
powerful umbrella organization that boasts more than 125 member
groups. They range from Louisiana shrimpers, who resent federal
rules designed to keep them from accidentally snaring sea
turtles in their nets, to off-road-vehicle enthusiasts who want
to see more trails built in national parks and wilderness areas.

    The Alliance for America will be joining forces with two
well-established coalitions, the National Inholders Association
and the Multiple-Use Land Alliance. (Inholders own or use
parcels of land within national parks or other
government-controlled areas.) Led by a relentless organizer
named Charles Cushman, the groups have a total of 16,000 members
and a mailing list with 1.4 million names, including everyone
in the country with a permit to graze cattle. "I view my role
as a tank commander," Cushman says, "to get the troops focused,
to get them the tools and money so they can fight effectively."
To protest a World of Audubon TV special that attacked the
cattle industry, Cushman's groups besieged General Electric, the
show's sponsor, with letters and phone calls. GE later announced
it would stop sponsoring Audubon specials when its contract to
do so expires in 1993; a spokesperson said the decision was
based only on budget constraints.

    If Cushman is a tank commander in the wise-use movement,
its ideologues are Ron Arnold, a former Sierra Clubber who did
a philosophical backflip, and Alan Gottlieb, a longtime fund
raiser for conservative causes. The pair set up seminars to show
wise-use groups how to rake in contributions. At their Center
for the Defense of Free Enterprise in Bellevue, Wash., they have
put together a "wise-use agenda" listing 25 goals for the
future. Among them: opening up the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for oil drilling and requiring the U.S. government to
attach an "economic-impact statement" to proposed environmental
regulations. Says Arnold: "We think 1992 is going to be our
year, and for the decade after, we're going to run the
environmentalists out of business."

    Green activists have long used lawsuits to tie up
development projects; now wise-users are turning the tables.
"When the environmental movement tells lies that hurt you,"
Arnold tells his followers, "sue the bastards." Apple growers
have in fact sued the Natural Resources Defense Council, which
sounded an alarm three years ago that Alar, a ripening agent
sprayed on the fruit, could cause cancer in children. The
growers charge that the warning was unjustified and caused them
to suffer severe financial losses.

    An even more serious challenge to environmentalism comes
from lawsuits that seek to compensate landowners who cannot
develop their property because of conservation laws. Last year
the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower-court decision that
required the U.S. government to pay $150 million to a coal
company in Wyoming that was barred from mining in a protected
area. If such payouts became routine, they could undermine
environmental laws by making the government more reluctant to
control development.

    While George Bush is much greener than his predecessor and
can point to several accomplishments, such as his tree-planting
program and the passage of a strengthened Clean Air Act in
1990, economic woes seem to be threatening his commitment to be
the "environment President." White House officials say he is
considering a 90-day moratorium on new government regulations
and a thorough re-examination of federal rules that put economic
burdens on businesses. Since many of the regulations needed to
implement the Clean Air Act have yet to be written,
environmentalists fear that the Administration will try to
weaken the law in the rulemaking process.

    That could set off a conflict in Congress, as could
efforts by antigreen lobbyists to tamper with the Endangered
Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Though wise-users are on
the offensive at the moment, the environmental cause still has
strong support in Congress. When the President put forward his
energy plan last year, the Senate tabled it because it included
a provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
drilling.

    The wise-use movement hopes to gain the upper hand by
presenting itself as the voice of moderation in difficult
economic times. The only way for environmentalists to counter
that strategy is to show more flexibility and demonstrate that
conservation is not incompatible with economic growth. Many
preservation groups are already moving in that direction, and
a consensus is emerging that government regulators should set
firm antipollution goals but give business the latitude to find
the most efficient way to meet those goals.

    To remain a political force in the 1990s,
environmentalists will need to be more adept at touting
long-term economic benefits of conservation. They can point out
that buying energy-efficient equipment ultimately saves money,
that antipollution technologies can create as many jobs as they
destroy and that preserving a forest may rescue an overlooked
plant that could yield a cure for AIDS or cancer. Greens and
wise-users disagree on many issues, but they agree on one
inescapable fact: unless society does a better job of
reconciling economic growth with the conservation of natural
resources, future generations will have neither a healthy
environment nor a healthy economy.