Senator Albert Gore, Jr. is a man on a mission -- a mission to save planet Earth. The author of the best-selling, and highly controversial, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Senator Gore has positioned himself as the environmental point-man in the Senate. Thus, it is no wonder then that the environmental establishment -- once so critical of Governor Clinton’s record on environmental issues -- immediately closed ranks around the Democratic ticket when Gore was chosen. Yet, while these environmental leaders may celebrate Clinton’s selection, there are serious reasons why the American people should not be so enthusiastic.
Senator Gore not only sees environmental problems -- of which there are many -- he sees evidence of an “ecological Kristallnacht” that “signal an environmental holocaust without precedent.” Thus, every societal institution must be redirected and preservation of the environment must become the “central organizing principle” of modern civilization. That urgent and drastic action is absolutely necessary “is no longer a matter of any dispute worthy of recognition.” Political leaders must act quickly and decisively to transform the world. This is not an environmental program for the weak of heart.
The centerpiece of Senator Gore’s plan, as outlined in his book, is the establishment of a “Global Marshall Plan” -- with a scope and complexity to “far exceed those of the original” -- and a “Strategic Environment Initiative” designed to direct the world toward ecologically sound policies of “sustainable” development. These programs would establish a green global bureaucracy, levy taxes on fossil fuels and virgin materials, erect green trade barriers, mandate strict energy efficiency standards, and enact a whole host of programs aimed at environmental education and the transfer of wealth to the Third World. For all of his talk of relying upon the marketplace to provide environmental amenities, Senator Gore eagerly endorses the continued domination of environmental policy by bureaucratic entities. Not only will such approaches derail economic growth, they will accomplish precious little in terms of protecting the environment.
Senator Gore repeatedly insists that environmental quality need not come at the cost of economic growth, that there is no necessary trade-off between jobs and the environment. This is certainly true. Market-driven increases in efficiency, whether in agriculture or in energy use, allow for the creation of goods and services while producing lesser marginal environmental impact. Many companies have found that what once was considered waste can actually be reprocessed to create additional products. This helps the environment and the bottom line.
Nonetheless, it is quite incredible to claim that the imposition of massive taxes on energy use and resource consumption, combined with the construction of larger regulatory agencies, comes at minimal economic cost. Recent studies of conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) suggest that the economic dead-weight loss is event greater from consumption taxes than income taxes, and rises dramatically with marginal increases in the tax level. Recycling hazardous wastes may save money in certain industries, but the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s mandatory prescriptions are hardly a boon to the economy. Environmental regulations of the command-and-control variety that Senator Gore has repeatedly endorsed necessarily divert resources that would have been used for other purposes, from capital investment to increased employee benefits. Let there be no mistake, forcing companies to spend millions on legal fees and compliance costs does not produce net growth in the economy and does not create net jobs for the economy as Gore likes to claim.
One would think that Al Gore had learned these lessons. After all, he has been deeply involved in environmental issues for well over a decade, and he has had plenty of cause to learn from his mistakes. In the late 1970s he was a staunch opponent of oil and gas deregulation -- which dramatically lowered prices and was a boon to the American consumer -- and he was a principal player in the development of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. This bill, better known as “Superfund,” was designed to provide for the cleanup of the most polluted, abandoned waste sites in the nation. Yet while it claims near 25 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, it has produced few results. Most of the expenditures, rather than going to cleanups, are paying for the filing of paperwork and the hiring of lawyers. Moreover, Superfund’s “cleaner than clean” remediation standards impose tremendous costs that are rarely justified on grounds of risks to human health or the environment. Few would claim that the program has been a success, yet the senator makes only passing reference to it in his book. For all his talk of thorough evaluations of environmental policy, there is little consideration of the massive pitfalls already created by regulatory overreach.
To his credit, Senator Gore struggles with the fact that “the most serious examples of environmental degradation in the world today are tragedies that were created or actively encouraged by governments.” From the environmental devastation fostered by the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the ecological havoc wrought by farm subsidies, water projects, and international aid institutions such as the World Bank, the record of government-sponsored environmental damage is a terrifying one. Exclusive reliance on government to protect environmental values has failed, but Senator Gore still has an unabiding faith in its ability to do so in the future.
As with the Democratic Party’s 1992 platform, Gore pays homage to the vital importance of the free enterprise system. He notes in Earth in the Balance that “free men and women who feel individual responsibility for a particular part of the Earth are, by and large, its most effective protectors, defenders and stewards. Wherever this sense of responsibility is diluted or compromised by competing imperatives, the likelihood of stewardship and care for the environment diminishes.” Nonetheless, he fails to learn the lessons implicit in his own rhetoric. He thus endorses more bureaucracy rather than the progressive approaches of private stewardship of resources, conservation-through-use of species and habitat, and the establishment of proprietary rights in threatened resources. These policies, by establishing a connection between individuals and the environment, would overcome the “dysfunctional relationship” that Senator Gore believes Americans have with the planet. Yet he fails to incorporate this approach in his discussions of environmental policy. Indeed, his policy recommendations are the same that have been peddled by the professional environmental lobby for years.
What is perhaps most distressing in the environmental politics of Senator Gore is his unwavering devotion to the politics of apocalypse. This led one observer to derisively label his politics as “messianic.” Senator Gore is certain that the world will be destroyed, and that only he can save it. On global warming, which he views as the most serious threat facing humanity, he will spare no expense to avert any warming of the planet. That there is no scientific consensus supporting his apocalyptic vision -- even his mentor, Dr. Roger Revelle, warned against drastic action in the face of such uncertainty -- does not deter Senator Gore. He has even attempted to discredit those scientists who have questioned his assertions. The global warming policies he has endorsed would cost approximately 600,000 jobs, according to a report by the CONSAD Research Group. Greenhouse warming is a subject worthy of study and concern, but the economic stakes are too high to endorse hasty and ill-considered responses. Unfortunately, that is the balance that Senator Gore has offered.
Senator Al Gore surely wants to save the world, and he is convinced that he is the one to do it. Indeed, he has said that if only he were in charge, he believes he could set the situation right. Unfortunately, a careful analysis does not lead to the same conclusion. If Gore is elected vice-president, both the earth and the economy will be hanging in the balance.