TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 090390 / 0903105.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 6.0 KB | 134 lines

<text id=90TT2316> <title> Sep. 03, 1990: No Lack Of Initiatives </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990 Sep. 03, 1990 Are We Ready For This? </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> NATION, Page 52 No Lack of Initiatives </hdr> <body> California debates a thicket of environmental proposals As the television camera closes in on his solemn face, film director Oliver Stone instructs viewers to hold their breath. "Every instinct will start to shout and scream for air," says Stone, comparing the feeling to the "choking of the planet" from global-warming gases. "O.K., breathe," he commands seconds later. "Remember, you just ran out of air. And we're running out of time." Stone's is the first of 15 famous faces--interspersed with gripping footage of felled redwoods, fish deformed by ocean dumping and smokestacks belching black clouds of toxins--that appeared in a half-hour television ad seen this summer throughout California. The program was designed to build support for "Big Green," the most sweeping of four environmental initiatives that will go before state voters this November. By then they may be scratching their head trying to keep the proposals straight. Formally known as the Environmental Protection Act of 1990, Big Green is a virtual laundry list of environmental protection measures. It would phase out cancer-causing pesticides, limit emissions of greenhouse gases, halt the clear-cutting of giant redwoods, force oil companies to contribute to a $500 million fund for cleaning up oil spills, and create the office of an elected "environmental advocate" to enforce state environmental laws and regulations. Big Green was cobbled together by conservationists and consumer groups after the state legislature repeatedly failed to pass similar bills into law, many of which were opposed by powerful business lobbies. A number of these organizations are also backing another proposal, known as Forests Forever, that would forbid clear-cutting anywhere and authorize a $710 million bond issue to finance the purchase of ancient forests. Fearful of the possible impact on the economy--and profits--a coalition of business interests is waging an all-out effort to defeat both proposals. Agriculture and logging companies argue that the two initiatives would lead to higher taxes and cost an estimated 75,000 jobs in the timber industry alone. Big Green "could have deleterious impacts on California's ability to compete," says Don Schrack, a spokesman for chemical and other business interests fighting the initiative. "It's an all or nothing initiative that sets up unreasonable standards." As part of their strategy, foes of both proposals have introduced two ballot initiatives of their own. Food growers and agribusinesses are pushing a measure called CAREFUL, which they say would achieve the same level of food safety as Big Green through less drastic means. Dubbed Big Brown by its critics, the proposal would outlaw the transport of food in vehicles also used to carry hazardous substances and set up a $25 million research program to develop alternatives to pesticides. Big Green supporters charge that CAREFUL simply restates existing pesticide laws. At the same time, the timber industry has united behind the New Forestry Initiative, which it says would ban clear-cutting only in old-growth forests while reducing the practice 50% in all others. Conservationists complain that it would still allow wholesale razing as long as one tree an acre was left standing. They call the plan Big Stump. Big Green's critics are also trying to demonize its best-known proponent: state assemblyman Tom Hayden, co-founder of the 1960s New Left organization Students for a Democratic Society, who they claim wants to be the first elected to the powerful job of environmental advocate. One group of Big Green opponents is airing radio spots in which a woman sarcastically intones, "Hey, call it what it really is: the Hayden initiative. You know--Tom Hayden." The forces arrayed against Big Green say their funding comes from California agricultural, chemical and business sources. But the proposal's supporters charge that pesticide companies are trying to mask their contributions behind ambiguously named front groups. Last week Los Angeles city attorney James Hahn filed suit against one anti-Big Green group, alleging that it violated a new law requiring disclosure of funding sources in political ads. The polls show that Big Green is favored by 46% of voters and opposed by 38%. But public opinion could change after the media campaigns go into full swing. In what critics charge is an attempt to mislead the electorate, Big Green's enemies have given their alternative proposals environmentally conscious-sounding names. The lumber industry's plan, for example, is officially titled the Global Warming and Clear-Cutting Reduction, Wildlife Protection and Reforestation Act of 1990. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dianne Feinstein has endorsed Big Green. Her opponent, Senator Pete Wilson, opposes it. If voters approve two conflicting measures, the one that gets the larger vote takes precedence. With four apparently similar proposals before them when they get to the voting booth, Californians had better read the fine print. By Richard Lacayo. Reported by Jeanne McDowell/Los Angeles. CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROPOSALS BIG GREEN: Would phase out cancer-causing pesticides, tax oil companies for a $500 million spill-cleanup fund. CAREFUL: Would increase produce testing, fund research for pesticide alternatives. FORESTS FOREVER: Would ban clear-cutting, buy $710 million worth of ancient forest land. NEW FORESTRY: Would reduce clear-cutting 50%, ban it in old-growth forests. </body> </article> </text>