Just ran into a Seattle Dinocrat in the neighborhood grocery store. We're talking about a voter in "Baghdad Jim" McDermott's congressional district here. A neighbor and friend - real estate agent and former hi-tech guy; like myself a married father of two. Unlike me, he voted for Kerry for President, and like me, for the apparently victorious (pending the recount) R-Dino Rossi for WA Gov. Says he believes 20 years of D Guvs in WA have helped create an unfriendly business climate, and a change was needed.
He IS concerned about environmental trade-offs, and mentioned a third way, a pro-business, pro-environment mindset. Says he's been reading a book by the founder of Cliff Bars (the first energy bar that really tasted good, by the way), which explores the imperative of "green marketing."
I replied that that stuff can sometimes be more a PR facade than anything else, but agreed we can't afford to be totally cynical. Balancing pro-growth policies with the environment in an (echh, I hate this phrase) "win-win" way is a huge, and important area to get into. Everything doesn't have to be a zero sum game. That's the kind of thinking that has poisoned many a public policy debate. With folks on both sides (pick any issue, practically) to blame.
See how you'd answer these questions.
For Democrats: If an "environmental protection" initiative is advanced by a Republican, or Republicans, can it actually be beneficial? Can you think of any? Can you think of any instances when allegations that pro-business policies would hurt the environment proved false? Are there any myths or even serious uncertainties you have identified about air or water quality, global warming, open spaces or endangered species? If so, what? Which species, if any, should be allowed to be sacrificed for progress (regardless of what the law says, what is your opinion?). When have Ds gone overboard in protecting the environment? Ever?
For Republicans: are there any ways in which current environmental protections are falling short? Are salmon threatened in the Northwest and West? If not, please explain. Doesn't urban air pollution, especially from motor vehicles, really make you sick? Or do not enough of you live in cities to care? How can you fail to understand the need for more and better urban and suburban mass transit? Should a paper mill be allowed to monitor itself for pollutant emissions, and then report the results to the state? Explain.
Cross-posted at Rosenblog.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 18, 2004 09:58 AM | Email ThisMy suggestion would be hefty fees on factories & corporations that release toxins into the air and water, possibly in the form of parts-per-million vouchers or some such. These should be coupled with a comparative decrease in business and/or property taxes, so as to avoid increasing--or preferably, to decrease--the overall burden on Washington businesses.
In the coming weeks at my own little online outpost, I'm going to be taking a careful look at what Republicans need to do to win, and the environmental issue is a pretty big part of that. Anyone who has any thoughts, facts, history or anything on this, please send them my way.
Posted by: Timothy on November 18, 2004 10:15 AMIf we move left who will there be to guard the nations economic interests?
Posted by: K Shannon on November 18, 2004 10:43 AMHowever, I tend to not vote for Republicans for federal positions, because of the scary notion that that the current administration wants to turn back the clock, (on abortion, environmental protections, etc.). I know a few Democrats that thought about voting for Dino, but didn't because if Patty/Maria die, the governor gets to pick a replacement! (But really, what is the chance of that - they look pretty young and healthy to me.) I wasn't afraid to give Dino a chance, but still voted for Patty.
Posted by: Democrat on November 18, 2004 11:59 AMI believe the politcians should try to compare
the costs and benefits of their proposed rules
(and ignore the "we have to do this at any
cost" people).
This morning I got punked - as in PUNKED - by the Gregoire campaign and their 1,001 hackers in which they have the Cantwell phone # the Gregoire phone #. I blogged it HERE.
And now, I get my "West Wing" moment!
COOL! Which life of some miserable aide am I now tormenting in good fun?
DINOCRATS FOR CANTWELL! DINOCRATS FOR CANTWELL! DINOCRATS FOR CANTWELL!
Posted by: Josef on November 18, 2004 12:58 PMThe overregulation issue is NOT as much of an issue in environmental pollution- the Department of Ecology, as obtuse as it may be in other areas, has developed a very good attitude to working WITH small business in this state in such areas as stormwater, hazardous waste, air, etc.
Of course, those of us who live here want clean air and clean water, want to fish and swim, etc. We don't want to pay MORE than necessary to accomplish these goals, but life has not been unreasonable...
On the other hand, one can see very clearly in the meeting rooms that the absentee owners of big businesses would just as soon be able to pay a fine and keep on polluting. That just doesn't work- it irks me that they don't care about the quality of MY air or water or life.
Rossi's choice of Director of Ecology will be very important- this agency needs balance at the top, and a cooperative attitude throughout. The Growth Management and shoreline issues need work- but we can't start just dismantling.
And Dino needs to make it real clear to the environmental community that human recreational uses are a part of the environment!
On the other hand, tear down Lunatics and Idiots and start over...
Posted by: Jim King on November 18, 2004 02:19 PMI don't think anyone would want a plan that would allow an increase the amount of pollutants released. That wouldn't exactly be a good part of a green Republican strategy.
What I'm thinking of would be more of a redistribution of the tax burden onto companies that pollute. The idea behind "vouchers," at least as I understand it, is that there would a limited amount of vouchers--lesser than or equal to the currently allowable emissions. These are then sold in some way, and can be purchased by anyone. Green environmental groups could theoretically purchase them and lower the total amount of pollutants even more.
Posted by: Timothy on November 18, 2004 02:28 PMWe still need significant environmental improvement, because the mass of polluters- see urban residents especially, and their municipal governments- continue to cause serious problems but escape responsibility for them.
As a prime example- check the latest 50 year extension for Seattle to deal with its combined sewer/stormwater overflow- and take a look at what pours into Lake Union after a storm.
While little communities in red counties are forced to upgrade, big blue Seattle escapes.
Which brings us to the best way to "green" the Republicans- have them force the "blue" cities to live up to their voters' principles...
Posted by: Jim King on November 18, 2004 04:15 PMI feel obligated to note that I updated my blog on being Punked by Gregoire's losing campaign HERE.
Posted by: Josef on November 18, 2004 05:10 PMLetting the counties take the lead, rather than development interests, would be smart politics...
Posted by: Jim King on November 18, 2004 08:42 PMNot vouchers but a cap and trade system like the one used for acid rain. This cap and trade system instituted by George Bush the elder has been one of the most effective conservation measures ever used by the goverment. It, unlike most of the liberal proposals for cleaning up pollution, uses the free market not onerous regulation to solve the pollution problem.
Republicans should move on the issue of conservation. But they should move right not left. Conservation is part of a truly conservative political platform.
Republicans need to take a leadership position on conservation or they will never be in the majority. By leadership position, I mean spearheading efforts like the use of biodiesel. This is a no brainer. It helps the economy, it helps farmers, it helps the environment. But rather than creating legislation for tax breaks in this area they let the Democrats take the issue. Another no brainer is the area of efficiency. The Republicans could promote more efficient lighting etc through legislation but they don't.
Posted by: m&m on December 7, 2004 02:09 PM