Going Global on Environment

There is hardly any issue in the current presidential race that seems as clear-cut as the environment. While Vice President Al Gore '69 is as close as it gets to being an environmentalist in government, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, as the Economist put it, "has never suggested he cares." Their respective records back up this image of the two candidates. Gore, author of the 1992 manifesto Earth in the Balance, is an avid supporter of the Kyoto protocol--a 1997 commitment signed by over 100 countries to stem global emissions of greenhouse gases. Alternatively, Bush's home state of Texas has the dubious distinction of having one of the worst environmental records in the nation. Recently, Houston surpassed Los Angeles as the smog capital of the U.S.

At last week's debate, the environment was, rightly, one of the major issues on the table. Gore repeated his commitment to the Kyoto protocol, vowed to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil exploration and argued that environmental protection and economic growth can go hand in hand. Gore also affirmed that he still believed in the statement he made in Earth in the Balance; the protection of the environment must be made the simple organizing principle for civilization and "there must be a wrenching transformation to save the planet." But in the face of soaring gas prices, Gore took back his 1992 call for energy taxes and instead emphasized tax cuts to encourage the development of cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.

Bush also put on an environmental face at the debate. He mentioned that his administration has cleaned up more abandoned urban industrial sites--also known as "brownfields"--than any administration in his state's history, and cited the fact that industrial waste in Texas has been reduced by 11 percent. Most importantly, however, Bush emphasized the role of states and local authorities in administering environmental programs and claimed "that if you own the land, every day is Earth Day." Bush has proposed limiting the federal government's role in many areas. However, this policy is risky when it comes to the environment. For instance, Bush's campaign emphasizes the importance of private, voluntary conservation efforts. Besides a few proposed incentive programs such as tax breaks, grants and awards, the effectiveness of this strategy is highly questionable. Every "Social Analysis 10: Principles of Economics" student learns that asking businesses to voluntarily cut down on pollution--equivalent to asking private industries to freely provide a public good--simply does not work.

Some of the existing federal command-and-control pollution measures are indeed outdated. The answer, however, is not to replace them with more localized or voluntary measures, but to use market-based pollution abatement strategies such as tradable pollution permits or flexible tax systems. These measures show that economic efficiency and environmental protection can indeed go hand-in-hand, a view Gore's campaign embraces.

One of the most contentious issues is the United States' response to global warming. As a senator and later as Vice President, Gore played an important role in formulating an international response to the threat of global climate change. Bush, however, argues against the Kyoto protocol. Like his father in the 1980s, Bush calls for further research before taking action against. In last Tuesday's debate, Bush stated that he would not let the U.S. carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air. He is correct in asserting that excluding India and China from the treaty exempts the world's two most populous nations from contributing to the reduction of global carbon dioxide emissions. The ultimate goal must be to include all developed and developing countries in a joint effort to curb the world's greenhouse gas emissions. But this cannot happen without U.S. leadership. It seems unlikely that Bush would provide such leadership if elected.

Both candidates have struggled throughout this campaign to approach the middle ground--Gore has tried to shed his greener than green image, Bush has attempted to show that he indeed cares about the environment. However, the two candidates' sides are clearly delineated on this issue. If there is one area in this presidential race where a candidate has a clear advantage, it is Gore on the environment.