In the upcoming presidential election, the environment should emerge as one of the most important issues. As our population continues to grow, the squeeze on resources becomes more acute. In a global economy, the exponential growth in China and other Asian countries exacerbates the problem for Americans. When the United States was the only country consuming large quantities of oil, we could afford to expend it. As other economies continue to expand, America no longer has free reign of the planet's natural resources. The depletion of the world's oil supply is by no means the only environmental issue at stake. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and mercury emissions are just a few of the other concerns environmentalists hold.
The "left" is generally credited for its activism with respect to nature. Democrats are viewed as pro-environment and Republicans as those who couldn't give a rip. However, history demonstrates otherwise. For the past 30 years, both Democratic and Republican presidents have very little pro-environment legislation to show. The environment has taken a back seat to other issues since Nixon. Before then, both Republicans and Democrats showed great interest in conservationism.
The whole movement started with Republican Teddy Roosevelt's presidency, when he set aside 194 million acres for national parks and nature preserves. Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon represented the Democrat and Republican parties, respectively, and both agreed on the importance of protecting the environment. The Johnson administration implemented the National Wilderness Preservation System and Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thus, while Democrats are credited as the party that cares about the environment, both parties share a rich history of being able to work together on conservation.
Even President George H. W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act during his presidency in 1990. The entire Republican Party is not anti-environment, and as new faces emerge for the 2008 election, it would be unjust to assume that they all conform to the environmentally apathetic stereotype. For example, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, has worked for the greater part of the last decade to prevent global warming. He and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, worked together on drafting the legislation. Republicans and Democrats can and need to get along on this issue if the proverbial handwriting on the wall is to become clear to the American public.
Contrary to McCain's work, Rudy Giuliani's environmental record as mayor of New York City was described as "pretty unremarkable, and at times dismal" by the chief energy economist for the Natural Resources Defense Council. In addition, Giuliani joined a law firm notorious for representing large energy companies such as Enron, ChevronTexaco, and Pacific Gas & Electric. Republican voters should take this knowledge into consideration as they choose their next candidate.
There is no anti-environment party. No one destroys the environment "just because." The anti-environment stigma is a result of a cost-benefit struggle where industry and, let's face it, the American cost-conscious consumer, generally wins. Protecting the environment is remarkably inconvenient. It also happens to be very expensive. Let's face it, regardless of political persuasion, all will gripe about shelling out $3.50 for a gallon for gas. Without considering the toll it takes on the environment, it is still very economically favorable to use energy derived from oil and coal rather than wind and solar. For a typical Bowdoin student's family, a 20 percent increase in energy cost as a result of cleaner energy is probably not going to keep any food off of the table.
However, there are many households that would proportionally be adversely affected from such an increase. A single mom who teaches at a public school in a city, lacking sufficient income to live close to work, is going to be hit hard by an increase in oil prices in an effort to clean up the air. Democrats, often seen as champions of the poor and middle class workers, will therefore be caught on both sides of the environmental cost-benefit issue. Legislation that is "progressive" with respect to the environment may act as a regressive "tax" on the working class. The fact that fossil fuels are running out only aggravate the dilemma. It is a difficult balance.
I must add that it is not only those who would be hurt most by an energy increase that are preventing the progress. Those who actually can afford the clean energy increase are often the most guilty in obstructing it from becoming inexpensive. As we attempt to take advantage of natural resources, affluent members of both parties need to recognize that windmills may obstruct views from a Cape Cod mansion. They may just have to see several more on their cruise or sailing trip, in order that we maximize our natural resources.
As voters make a point to vote a pro-environment president into office, they must not count out every member of the Republican Party. Republicans, like Democrats, have a rich history in environmental protection and only lately have gained the stereotype of apathy. Certain members of the GOP have legislative histories that demonstrate their commitment to the environment and would work in office to accomplish similar goals with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. In addition, voters need to keep in mind the balance between marginal cost and benefit when environment issues are involved. The answer is certainly not continuing on our present course; the externalities are too great. Neither can we switch to a completely green economy. These are complicated concepts, especially considering the environment generally does come with an attached dollar value. When choosing a candidate on this issue, evaluation should be made on his or her understanding and honesty of both the marginal cost and marginal utility of protecting the environment, as well as his or her dedication to finding the balance.
Brian Lockhart is a member of the Class of 2008.