Article 4808 of alt.politics.clinton: Path: bilver!tous!peora!masscomp!usenet.coe.montana.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u45301 Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton Subject: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: EARTH DAY! (DREXEL UNIVERSITY) Supersedes: <92231.235838U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Date: Wednesday, 19 Aug 1992 11:55:56 CDT From: Mary Jacobs Message-ID: <92232.115556U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> Lines: 461 SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM (This information is posted for public education purposes. It does not necessarily represent the views of The University.) ======================================================================== REMARKS OF GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON Drexel University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Earth Day -- April 22, 1992 Twenty-two years ago today, thousands of Americans marched and met and spoke out across the country to raise a new concern onto our nation's agenda: the protection of America's environment. That first Earth Day in 1970 awakened our nation to the ticking of a different kind of biological clock -- a clock that measured the careless degradation of America's air, water, land and natural resources. Many of you here were not even born yet. And it's worth recalling the whirlwind of change and progress that followed that day. Within two years, our nation created the Environmental Protection Agency, passed the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts, and banned DDT. For my generation, it was a heady, hopeful experience. Two decades later, all those efforts seem dwarfed by the enormity of old and new threats to our communities, our resources, and our planet. We restricted open dumping into our rivers, but now we see used hypodermic needles washing up on our beaches. We banished lead from our gas tanks, but still find it concentrated where the children of our cities live and play. We pinpointed the nation's toxic waste dumps, but have only cleaned up a handful. We confronted the acid rain killing our trees, but not the rush of development that is wiping out wetlands at home and rainforests abroad. We stopped building nuclear power plants, but now see our addiction to fossil fuels wrapping the earth in a deadly shroud of greenhouse gasses. We opened our eyes to the threats posed by oil-soaked beaches, smoggy skies, and burning rivers; yet we still struggle to comprehend less apparent dangers, such as an invisible hole in a distant ozone layer that allows unseen rays to plant the microscopic seeds of cancer. The question that falls to your generation is this: will the march that began 22 years ago move forward, or will we stand in place? Over the past generation, much has changed in our thinking. Children now teach their parents to sort their garbage. Colleges like Drexel train young people in environmental engineering. A Big Mac at McDonald's comes in a recyclable cardboard container in a recycled paper bag. Yet while the thinking of most Americans has changed, the thinking of our recent leaders has not. For more than a decade, we've had no national energy strategy, no environmental strategy, no economic strategy to capture the markets of the future with new technologies that are energy-efficient and environmentally sound. Within the past decade, climate change, ozone depletion, and other global environmental problems have emerged as threats to our very survival. Dependence on foreign oil has been the cornerstone of our energy policy, and oil imports now make up half our trade imbalance. The collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War have created new markets and a new urgency for environmental cleanup. We have an unprecedented opportunity to protect the earth and make our economy grow. Too often, on the environment as on so many issues, the Bush Administration has been reactive, rudderless, and expedient. Under George Bush and Ronald Reagan, presidential leadership on the environment has become an endangered species. George Bush promised to be the Environment President, but a photo op at the Grand Canyon is about all we have to show for it. He made Boston Harbor a prop in his negative campaign in 1988, but four years later has done precious little to help clean it up. He promised "no net loss" of America's precious wetlands, then tried to hand half of them over to developers. He invoked Teddy Roosevelt's devotion to preserving our natural heritage, then called for opening the Arctic wilderness to oil drilling. He talked about the need for an energy policy, then went to Detroit on the eve of the Michigan primary to promise American automakers that he wouldn't raise fuel efficiency standards for American cars. He called for an international summit on the environment but now is singlehandedly blocking an historic meeting in Rio de Janeiro of a hundred nations to control global warming. And just yesterday, I read in the paper that he wants to make another attack ad, this time about problems along the White River in Arkansas. We're fighting the battle to clean up the White River, and I welcome the President's attention. So, Mr. President, when you return from Rio, I hope you'll visit Northwest Arkansas and the White River. I'll show you what the problems are and what progress we've made. I'll show you rivers you can fish in, and streams kids can swim in. And if you really want to clean up the problem, I'll make an agreement with you. We'll outline federal and state responsibilities -- and we'll get results. Our people are tired of the politics of blame. But this is no Boston Harbor. If you want to place blame, you'll have to shoulder some. Let me be clear. I don't believe President Bush is bent on destroying the environment. But his views were shaped in another era, when the world faced other threats, and economic growth and environmental protection were seen as mutually exclusive. I've spent the last decade as Governor of a poor state, fighting to keep jobs and make up for lost time. I know how much our people are hurting after the longest recession and slowest economic growth in the last 50 years. In the '80s, I also faced the old short-term tradeoffs between jobs and the environment, made tougher by cutbacks in federal aid and the lack of clear policies in some areas which allowed states to be played off against one another. In this context, I've made the choice for jobs in a poor state without enough jobs or federal help for environmental protection and cleanup. But over the years I've learned something that George Bush and his advisers still don't understand, to reject the false choice between economic growth and environmental protection. Today, you can't have a healthy economy without a healthy environment, and you don't have to sacrifice environmental protection to get economic growth. Our competitors know that you can't have one without the other. One of the reasons German workers make 25% more than the average American worker is that their economy uses half the energy to produce the same amount of goods. Japanese companies enjoy a 5% competitive advantage in the global marketplace because of higher energy efficiency. Our competitors are rushing to develop new environmental technologies that will enable them to capture the markets of the future. Only the United States is heading toward the 21st Century without a long-term strategy to achieve sustainable economic growth. The Bush Administration doesn't understand that perpetuating the false choice between environmental protection and economic growth is bad for the environment and bad for the economy. Our lakes will be dirtier and our air will be more dangerous because George Bush put Dan Quayle in charge of the Competitiveness Council, a group which lets major polluters in through the back door at the White House to kill environmental regulations they don't like. And the most disturbing thing is, they call that competitiveness. Over the long run, the Bush Administration isn't doing American business any favors by pretending that energy efficiency and improved environmental protection are at odds with economic growth. If we're going to compete and win in the world economy, if we want to improve our quality of life as well as our standard of living, we need to learn to use environmental protection as a tool for economic growth. That is what I've tried to do in Arkansas. As Governor, I've worked hard to pursue both environmental quality and economic growth. In my first term, I took on one of my state's strongest special interests when I tried to focus our utilities more on conservation than construction of new power plants. Today that approach is called "least cost planning," and nearly half the states use it to conserve resources and save ratepayers money. Back then, the name didn't exist and the utilities fought it tooth and nail. By the end of the '80s they had come around, and Arkansas consumers and businesses will save lots of money in future. We did other things, too. We set up one of the nation's first state-level paper recycling programs, helped establish nearly 40 new wildlife preserves and parks to protect our rivers, forests, wetlands, and prairies, and created a new statewide reforestation program that has planted 25 million trees in the last two years. We've provided Arkansas business a 30% tax credit for installing waste reduction and recycling facilities -- a measure that is protecting Arkansas's environment and creating Arkansas jobs. There was a time in this country when environmental protection was viewed as at best a necessary burden for industry to bear. Today that idea just isn't true. Technology has changed; the stakes have changed; and it's time for our thinking to change, too. In today's economy, there doesn't have to be a tradeoff between growth and environmental protection. We now have the tools and the need to choose both. Wha What we need today is a New Covenant for Environmental Progress. That covenant is built on a renewed commitment to leave our children a better nation -- a nation whose air, water, and land are unspoiled; whose natural beauty is undimmed; and whose leadership for sustainable global growth is unsurpassed. This new covenant will challenge Americans and demand responsibility at every level -- from individuals, families, communities, corporations, and government agencies -- to do more to preserve the quality of our environment and our world. A new covenant for environmental progress will have three priorities: exerting new American leadership to protect the global environment; preserving the quality of our environment here at home; and finding ways to promote innovation and growth consistent with firm environmental goals. The first part of a new covenant for environmental progress must be for the U.S. to exert international leadership for the health of the planet. The Cold War is over, and we have entered a new era in which threats to our security are less evident, but no less dangerous, than before. As Senator Gore has dramatized in his recent book, Earth in the Balance, if we do not find the vision and leadership to defeat the unprecedented new threats of global climate change, ozone depletion, and unsustainable population growth, then those threats may defeat us instead. This June, the nations of the world will meet in Rio to negotiate reductions in their output of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses; to end the destruction of the ozone layer; and to find rules for sustainable development to ensure that our species does not outlive its welcome on this planet. Nearly a hundred heads of state have firmly committed to attend. But yesterday, the President said he can't decide whether or not to go. We've seen eight of the hottest years in history in the last decade. The world's rainforests are disappearing at the rate of one football field a minute. An ozone hole is growing over Kennebunkport. And the leaders of nearly every nation on earth are waiting while the President of the United States makes up his mind whether to act. I say this is one foreign trip George Bush can't afford to miss. If the President does decide to go, simply showing up in Rio is not enough. Unless he makes the U.S. a leader against global warming and removes the obstacles he has thrown in the way of a climate change treaty, nothing will come of the Rio meeting. President Bush should commit the U.S. to limit U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000; and to join in new efforts to protect the planet's biodiversity and preserve its forests. As Senator Gore says, this is now are most important global environmental challenge. In a Clinton Administration, the U.S. will take the lead in promoting sustainable development. We'll call on major banks and multilateral institutions like the IMF and the World Bank to negotiate debt-for-nature swaps that allow developing nations to reduce their crippling international debt burden by setting aside precious lands. We should explore establishing the international equivalent of the Nature Conservancy, a fund contributed to by developed nations and pharmaceutical companies to purchase easements in the rainforests for medical research. These easements and the profits from new drugs could make not developing the forests more profitable than tearing them down. We can also lead the quest for sustainable development by supporting efforts to stem global population growth. As Al Gore has noted, it took mankind 10,000 generations to reach a population of 2 billion. Yet we will likely see that number triple in my lifetime. The earth's resources and delicate eco-systems are straining and breaking under this unsustainable burden. President Bush was once a strong supporter of efforts to limit global population growth, and it is shameful that he blocked our contributions to those efforts to appease the anti-choice wing of his party. A Clinton Administration will restore U.S. funding for the U.N.'s population stabilization efforts, and allow U.S. foreign aid to support Planned Parenthood. But we cannot lead the fight for environmental progress abroad unless we do more here at home. The U.S. constitutes just five percent of the world's population, yet we consume over a quarter of its oil. We need to reduce our oil consumption and increase our energy efficiency dramatically if we are to lead the fight against global warming, sharpen our competitive edge in trade, and reduce our vulnerability to cutoffs in the availability of foreign oil. For the past 11 years, we have had no national energy policy. In a Clinton Administration, we'll have an energy policy the day I take office: * We'll accelerate our progress toward more fuel-efficient cars, and seek to raise the average goal for automakers to 45 miles per gallon. * We'll increase our reliance on natural gas, which is inexpensive, clean-burning and abundant, and can reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. I'll start with an executive order to purchase natural gas powered vehicles for the federal fleet, following the lead of Gov. Ann Richards in Texas. * We'll push for revenue-neutral incentives that reward conservation and make polluters and energy-wasters pay. California, for example, has proposed giving purchasers of fuel-efficient cars rebates paid for by a special fee on those who buy gas-guzzlers. * We'll invest more in the development of renewable energy sources. Federal funding for renewables has dropped from $850 million to $114 million in the last decade. There's no reason why 60 percent of the Department of Energy's money should still be going to nuclear weapons, with nuclear power and fossil fuels getting most of the rest. We'll encourage the use of new energy sources like wind and solar, and new ways to get better results out of the sources we already have. In a Clinton Administration, we will designate as wilderness the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and stop the crusade for new drilling off our coasts. * As part of an effort to convert some of our Cold War military spending to civilian purposes, we'll use research and development funds to develop light rail, which can speed travel, save fuel, and provide transportation for people less able to afford it. * Finally, we'll make energy conservation and efficiency central goals in every field of policy -- in designing our offices, planning our communities, designing our transportation systems and regulating our utilities. My goal is to improve America's overall energy efficiency by 20 percent by the year 2000. We also need a policy to prevent pollution. Since 1970, we've made great strides in controlling pollution "at the pipe" -- regulating how much could be dumped and where. Now we need to expand our efforts earlier in the process and move from control to prevention. One of our most urgent challenges is to reduce the amount of solid waste we generate. A Clinton Administration will find new ways to prevent pollution in the first place: * We'll create a system of tradeable credits that will reward companies that recover a greater portion of their waste and penalize those that don't. * We'll create incentives for firms and government to recycle, and use federal purchasing power to create markets in recycled materials. * We'll pass a national bottle bill to encourage recycling by creating small deposits on all glass and plastic bottles. To improve the quality of our water, we need to turn greater attention to the polluting effect of water running off our agricultural fields, city streets, and suburban developments. We need a new Clean Water Act with standards for non-point-source pollution and incentives that will unleash the creative and technological potential of our firms, farmers, and families to reduce and prevent polluted run-off at the source. We also need to strengthen our efforts on toxic wastes. The Superfund program has been disastrously mismanaged. We've spent $13 billion to clean up only 80 of the 1200 deadliest dump sites -- with much of the money squandered on legal fees and cost overruns to contractors who bought Rolex watches and art for their walls. The Superfund program was a historic breakthrough in 1980. In my first term, Arkansas was the first state in the country to have an EPA-approved hazardous waste management program. Superfund enabled us to contain the most immediate risks, and provided a powerful deterrent against toxic dumping. Now those of us who care about the environment must take the lead to explore every possible improvement that might get more sites cleaned up sooner for less, without letting responsible parties off the hook. We also need to improve America's resources by preserving our natural heritage for future generations. As President, I will protect our old growth forests and other vital habitats, and make the "no net loss" promise on wetlands a reality. I'll rededicate the agencies that manage our national parks and wilderness lands to a true conservation ethic. And I'll expand our efforts to acquire new parklands and recreational sites with the funds already available under the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Every year, millions of American families vacation in national parks, from Yosemite to Yellowstone. They deserve an administration that cares about America's parks as much as they do. All of our efforts to improve the nation's resources ultimately depend on enforcement and public awareness. In a Clinton Administration, we'll stop shortchanging EPA's enforcement efforts, and ensure that we hold companies and polluters responsible for their behavior. When corporate executives deliberately violate environmental laws, they must pay the price. The third priority I want to speak about today is the need to bring powerful market forces to bear on America's pollution problems. Many of our environmental efforts in the past were based on a "command and control" approach to regulation that told firms how much pollution to produce and what kind of technology to use. While that approach produced important successes, it sometimes stifled innovation by locking firms into a specific kind of equipment, and increased regulatory costs and burdens by taking such a detailed and inflexible approach. I believe it is time for a new era in environmental protection which uses the market to help us get our environment back on track -- to recognize that Adam Smith's invisible hand can have a green thumb. While we need to maintain tough guidelines and goals for reducing pollution, charging companies for their pollution would give them a daily incentive to find progressively cleaner technologies and manufacturing processes. In certain settings, this results-oriented approach can cut compliance costs, shrink regulatory bureaucracies, enlist corporate support, take environmental policy away from the specialists and lobbyists, and open it up more to the general public. But freeing up our companies to find cost-effective pollution control methods is not the only step we need to take. It is time we recognized that environmental technology will be one of the most vital and profitable economic sectors of the 21st Century. The market for environmental technology and services is already around $200 billion a year, and developing nations will need to install a trillion dollars' worth of energy technology over the next 15 years. Unfortunately, we're losing that battle. In 1980, the U.S. had three quarters of the world sales of solar technology. By 1990, German and Japanese competition had cut our share to 30 percent. We need to recognize that green economics is a booming business. And as President, I'll ensure that the nation that pioneered the environmental movement will be the world's foremost producer and exporter of environmental technology and services by the end of this decade. * * * As I have travelled across this country campaigning for President, I have been struck by the yearning I see among Americans of all backgrounds, incomes, and colors to be united again in common purpose. If there is one thing that has united Americans across dozens of generations, it is the feeling we have for this rich and expansive land. Our forebears were passionate about it. They were farmers and pioneers, who made these two billion acres we call America the canvas of their dreams. That stubborn, protective love of the land, which flows like a mighty underground current through our national character, is what burst to the surface of American life on April 22, 1970. And it was the well-spring for one of the most important marches for progress we have known in our time. For over a decade, that progress has been arrested. And for too many of those years, we have walked backwards. Too many times we w For over a decade, that progress has been arrested. And for too many of those years, we have walked backwards. Too many times we were told that trees cause pollution and that sunglasses are the best answer to the ozone problem. And far too many times we were divided against ourselves, falsely told to choose between our quality of life and our standard of living. I believe now it is time to move past the false choices, unite our nation again, and resume our progress for the land we cherish, the values we share, and the only earth we have. int, to which man returns again and again to organize yet another search for a durable set of values." One of the starting points for America will always be our devotion to our natural heritage. And today I ask you to join me in beginning an excursion from that starting point anew. Thank you. End of prepared remarks