Campaign Issues

By Dick Thompson

This is the second in a series of weekly essays on the important issues that the candidates are, or should be, addressing.

It was the summer that the earth struck back. Amid an unnerving global heat wave, scientists took the planet's temperature and debated whether the greenhouse effect had already begun. At the beach, syringes replaced seashells. The wholesale destruction of forests in northern India and Nepal helped spawn a tragic flood in Bangladesh. Sturgeon were infected by toxic wastes in the Soviet Union, threatening the caviar supply. And, belatedly, the environment returned as a compelling political issue in the U.S.

This time the ecological agenda goes beyond Earth Day folk songs and the old tree-hugger concerns of toxics, smog and the deterioration of national parks. Those disgraceful problems still persist. But they have been overshadowed by a realization that the world's life-support system may be on the brink of a breakdown because of carbon-dioxide loads, chlorofluorocarbon residues and forest destruction. The earth and its atmosphere are drowning in man-made wastes, a situation that has become so critical it may soon make other political issues -- even budget deficits and military needs -- seem trivial. Yet the dire nature of the danger, if properly approached, also presents the glimmer of a great opportunity: the planet's problems could become so paramount they would force a new spirit of international partnership, one that could serve as a model for cooperation on political, economic and military matters. "We're talking about a global-security issue," says Robert Berg, president of the International Development Conference.

The new environmental problems are especially complex because they are caused by substances that are necessary to fuel the economies of industrialized nations and warm Third World families. Cleaning up a polluted river or a waste dump is often a mammoth task, but it requires that a community decide it is worth the cost and effort. Stemming the destruction of the earth's atmosphere, on the other hand, will require a national and international effort to change the way that economies run and lives are lived.

Currently the most pressing and complex environmental problem is the greenhouse effect. The industrial age has been fueled by the burning of coal, wood and oil, which spews wastes -- most notably carbon dioxide (CO2) -- into the sky. This thickens the layer of atmospheric gases that traps heat from the sun and keep the earth warm. This greenhouse effect is expected to bring about more change more quickly than any other climatic event in the earth's history. Scientists warn that the changes cannot be stopped, though they can be slowed. But the time is short. Says Robert Dickinson, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research: "We don't have 100 years. We have ten or 20 at most."

If the warming is not slowed, scientists predict, the greenhouse effect will melt enough of the polar ice caps to threaten the water supply of New York City and the very existence of low-lying New Orleans by the middle of the next century. Areas that are now productive farmland would become parched and dusty.

The other major environmental crisis involves the earth's thinning ozone layer. This is being caused mainly by the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemical compounds that can be found in Styrofoam cups and fast- food containers and in the Freon used in air conditioners and grocery refrigeration cases. The CFCs float up into the stratosphere and break down the layer of ozone gas, which serves as a shield protecting the earth from much of the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation. One result: increased ultraviolet radiation that could cause more cases of skin cancer. An even more dangerous consequence would be the disruptive effect increased ultraviolet radiation would have on plant growth and photosynthesis. That could upset the foundation of the food chain.

One man will have more impact on the earth's environment than any other person for the rest of this century: the next President of the U.S. The 1990s may be the most crucial decade in history for saving the planet's environment. Both candidates have proclaimed their concern for the environment, and both have gone to great lengths to dramatize their commitment. But a look at their records as well as their rhetoric shows neither to be unblemished on the issue.

George Bush, for all his recent insistence that "I am an environmentalist," is by far the more vulnerable. Repeatedly, he has been conceding that a Bush Administration would have to do better than Ronald Reagan's. But that raises the "Where was George?" question about his responsibility for the dreadful policies of the past eight years, when political appointees turned the Environmental Protection Agency into a cesspool: auto-emission standards were relaxed, and clean-water and clean-air - laws languished. Reagan showed a willful disdain -- and an awful ignorance -- about environmental concerns, symbolized by his 1980 remark that trees are responsible for most pollution. Until his recent pronouncements, Bush showed little or no interest in the issue.

Nor does the former Texas oilman seem likely to buck the oil industry or curb the nation's consumption of oil. He has endorsed oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Range, and he has come out strongly against any new oil-import fee and would be unlikely to impose any new gasoline tax designed to cut consumption.

Bush's greatest strength is his foreign policy experience; solving the environmental problem will require deft diplomacy. In a speech last month laying out his environmental policies, Bush proposed some sensible ideas. Among them: tackling acid rain by promoting more nuclear energy, halting ocean dumping by 1991, strengthening Superfund programs to clean up toxic wastes, and calling for a worldwide conference on the environment to be held at the White House.

In his rhetoric, Michael Dukakis has produced a near perfect platform on the environment. It blends conservation measures with a revitalized alternative- energy scheme. He has pledged a national policy that emphasizes cleaner fuels, such as natural gas, methanol and ethanol. Dukakis claims that he would also tackle the driving force beyond the degradation of the earth, explosive population growth. He has said he would rescind Reagan's "Mexico City policy," which cut funds from international family-planning programs.

But for all his sound plans, Dukakis has a spotty record. The Massachusetts Governor inadequately funded some of his environmental programs, occasionally appointed weak people to key positions and, when conflicts arose, was reluctant to antagonize business. He applied for permits to dump Massachusetts' garbage off the New Jersey coast, as Bush eagerly reminded that state's voters in a beachfront appearance early this month. Certainly Dukakis' options were limited; he knows from experience the difficulty of waste disposal. In addition, Boston Harbor may be the dirtiest in America. Dukakis is not solely to blame: it was fouled long before he took office. But he began the cleanup only after years of costly delay that stemmed from a reluctance to pay for such a mammoth project.

One Dukakis weakness is his narrow nuclear-power policy. While Bush enthusiastically supports the nuclear option, Dukakis has been an adamant opponent of the Seabrook plant in neighboring New Hampshire and an antagonist of nuclear power in general. His concern for safety is laudable, but the greenhouse crisis makes urgent a solution to these long-standing problems of the nuclear industry. To construct an effective energy policy, Dukakis must promote nuclear-energy research as vigorously as he does solar.

Whichever man is elected, certain environmental remedies must be sought quickly.

-- The U.S. must ban chlorofluorocarbon production. This step would be an effective means of slowing ozone loss and greenhouse gas buildup. Both candidates endorse such a measure, but Dukakis would prohibit the importation of products manufactured with CFCs, such as Japanese computer chips. Chemical companies are unlikely to promote costly alternatives in a world marketplace where other nations are selling the real stuff. So international agreements are necessary. A partial step was taken last September, when 24 nations agreed to cuts in their CFC production of 30% to 50% by 1999. But the "Montreal protocol" was a half measure at best. The U.S., without much of an economic sacrifice, could make a bold step by unilaterally banning CFCs.

-- In order to burn less coal and oil, the U.S. should pursue alternative- energy sources, including nuclear power. Reagan decimated the budget for solar, while Japan and West Germany have been boosting theirs. That shortsighted approach must change. In addition, a new generation of nuclear plants that are safe even if mistakes are made by their operators must be developed.

-- Gasoline use must be reduced through taxes and stricter standards. A modest gasoline tax would slow the rate of fuel use (as well as help reduce the Reagan debt). In addition, fuel-efficiency standards should be doubled for new cars. More than 60% of the nation's energy is used for transportation; a doubling of the current 26-m.p.g. requirement would cut in half that contribution of the CO2 load. Current standards imposed on Detroit helped boost efficiency between 1975 and 1985 by more than 66% and helped save more than 2.4 million bbl. of oil a day, according to analysts. Yet the Reagan Administration relaxed this year's goal for Ford and General Motors. Honda and Suzuki have cars in production that get 50 m.p.g.

-- The environment must be treated as a foreign policy issue. Industrialized nations must solve the problem of managing the global commons. Who bears the costs for benefits over the border? The U.S. contributes only one-quarter of the CO2 load and less than one-third of the CFC burden. The Soviet Union is the second largest consumer of fossil fuels, and Japan is third. Says University of Southern California Provost Cornelius J. Pings: "There is the potential for real tensions over these issues, especially if some countries continue to consume or won't agree to protocols." There is also the potential for shutting Third World nations out of the chance for industrial growth if restrictive energy policies are imposed. But if these global problems, with all their international entanglements, can be managed so that competing national needs are accommodated, that would lay the ground for dealing on other international-security issues.

-- Deforestation must be stopped. This is an issue for the Third World, where forest clearing, agricultural practices and wood burning add significantly to environmental degradation. Each year 28 million acres of tropical forests are cleared, producing one-quarter of the CO2 burden through combustion, erasing species of plants and animals, and allowing rains to sweep across smooth ground into floods, like those in Bangladesh. Trees, the lungs of the planet, are being cut down nearly 30 times as fast as they are being replaced. The U.S. should encourage a scheme, to be administered by the U.N., in which the foreign debt of Third World countries would be swapped for tropical forests. Also, reforestation programs can help cleanse the atmosphere of CO2 while ensuring a stable source of fuel for the Third World. Finally, advanced kilns and stoves can be provided, so that scarce wood supplies can be used more efficiently.

President Bush or President Dukakis will need popular support to accomplish any of these things. It is possible that the intensity of this summer's environmental passions will cool in the autumn. Stoking those passions will be difficult because the problems are complex, the dangers seem misleadingly remote, and the cost of preventing chaos could run into the billions. Thus one of the most urgent tasks of the next President will be to explain the dire nature of the challenge. As the Great Communicator, Reagan had the opportunity to do just that but squandered it; his successor will not have that luxury.