Gunning for The Greens

By Charles P. Alexander

Who cares about a few spotted owls when loggers' jobs are at stake? Why worry about caribou when America needs more of Alaska's oil? Who can afford to think about the environment when the economy is the pits?

When times get tough, the questions facing environmentalists get even tougher. And these days, economic anxieties and shifting political winds are threatening to produce a green-out effect that could make tree huggers feel as endangered as the California condor. Epochal events such as the gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union have pushed most domestic ecological concerns off the front pages. The recession has prompted many people to question the costs of environmentalism and made it harder for preservation groups to raise money and boost membership. In the presidential campaign, saving the planet has become an orphaned issue. No savvy candidate would dwell on ozone depletion and the need for biodiversity when voters are worrying about whether they'll have a job next year or be able to pay their medical bills.

Environmental groups claim that their members are as committed as ever, but recruits are getting harder to find. For every organization that is still growing -- membership in the Nature Conservancy jumped 15% last year, to 620,000 -- another one seems to have hit a plateau. After expanding in 1990, the Sierra Club stayed level at about 620,000 members last year and fell short of its goal of boosting contributions 10%. The National Wildlife Federation had to trim its work force 8% in 1991, and the Wilderness Society laid off 10 of 136 staffers. Says David Gardiner, who heads the Sierra Club's Washington office: "There's no question that 1991 was a disappointing year for protecting the environment. We are marking time when we should be moving forward."

But there is no marking time in the opposition camp, which is more organized than ever before. Scores of interest groups -- including ranchers, miners, loggers, developers and manufacturers -- have become allies in a "wise-use movement" to fight what they see as the extremism of those who put wilderness protection and the rights of endangered animals before the welfare of humans. "There seems to be a coalescing of different economic interests to fight the green devils," observes environmentalist Thomas Lovejoy of the Smithsonian Institution.

This antigreen brigade advocates economic development in wilderness areas, arguing that land can be used wisely for human benefit without destroying Mother Nature. The timing of the campaign is excellent, since two landmark pieces of environmental legislation are up for renewal in Congress this year: the Endangered Species Act, which prohibits development that drives a species to extinction; and the Clean Water Act, which contains a provision protecting wetlands from uncontrolled exploitation. The wise-users are pressuring Congress to weaken those laws as a way to spur economic growth. Another goal is to block proposed reforms of the federal mining law that would make it harder for companies to open mines on public land. "Anytime anyone gets as much power as the environmental movement has achieved, a backlash can be expected," says Oregon logger Tom Hirons.

In dealing with these issues, Congress is likely to be sharply divided, just as public sentiment is. In a poll conducted this month for TIME and CNN, 58% of the people surveyed expressed concern that the quality of the U.S. environment was "becoming worse," but only 50% thought the country should "go full speed ahead in spending money to clean up the environment." Another 45% said it would be better to "go slow." And 51% agreed that environmentalists "go too far in their demands on business and government."

Hoping to encourage a public and political backlash, the wise-use movement has been adopting many of the tactics long used by environmentalists. Last September timber interests from the Pacific Northwest invited other antigreen groups to join in a five-day lobbying campaign in Washington dubbed the "Fly- In for Freedom." In all, some 370 people from 25 states showed up to stage rallies and urge Congress to roll back environmental regulations. Two months later, many of the same activists met in St. Louis to form the Alliance for America, a potentially powerful umbrella organization that boasts more than 125 member groups. They range from Louisiana shrimpers, who resent federal rules designed to keep them from accidentally snaring sea turtles in their nets, to off-road-vehicle enthusiasts who want to see more trails built in national parks and wilderness areas.

The Alliance for America will be joining forces with two well-established coalitions, the National Inholders Association and the Multiple-Use Land Alliance. (Inholders own or use parcels of land within national parks or other government-controlled areas.) Led by a relentless organizer named Charles Cushman, the groups have a total of 16,000 members and a mailing list with 1.4 million names, including everyone in the country with a permit to graze cattle. "I view my role as a tank commander," Cushman says, "to get the troops focused, to get them the tools and money so they can fight effectively." To protest a World of Audubon TV special that attacked the cattle industry, Cushman's groups besieged General Electric, the show's sponsor, with letters and phone calls. GE later announced it would stop sponsoring Audubon specials when its contract to do so expires in 1993; a spokesperson said the decision was based only on budget constraints.

If Cushman is a tank commander in the wise-use movement, its ideologues are Ron Arnold, a former Sierra Clubber who did a philosophical backflip, and Alan Gottlieb, a longtime fund raiser for conservative causes. The pair set up seminars to show wise-use groups how to rake in contributions. At their Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise in Bellevue, Wash., they have put together a "wise-use agenda" listing 25 goals for the future. Among them: opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling and requiring the U.S. government to attach an "economic-impact statement" to proposed environmental regulations. Says Arnold: "We think 1992 is going to be our year, and for the decade after, we're going to run the environmentalists out of business."

Green activists have long used lawsuits to tie up development projects; now wise-users are turning the tables. "When the environmental movement tells lies that hurt you," Arnold tells his followers, "sue the bastards." Apple growers have in fact sued the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sounded an alarm three years ago that Alar, a ripening agent sprayed on the fruit, could cause cancer in children. The growers charge that the warning was unjustified and caused them to suffer severe financial losses.

An even more serious challenge to environmentalism comes from lawsuits that seek to compensate landowners who cannot develop their property because of conservation laws. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower-court decision that required the U.S. government to pay $150 million to a coal company in Wyoming that was barred from mining in a protected area. If such payouts became routine, they could undermine environmental laws by making the government more reluctant to control development.

While George Bush is much greener than his predecessor and can point to several accomplishments, such as his tree-planting program and the passage of a strengthened Clean Air Act in 1990, economic woes seem to be threatening his commitment to be the "environment President." White House officials say he is considering a 90-day moratorium on new government regulations and a thorough re-examination of federal rules that put economic burdens on businesses. Since many of the regulations needed to implement the Clean Air Act have yet to be written, environmentalists fear that the Administration will try to weaken the law in the rulemaking process.

That could set off a conflict in Congress, as could efforts by antigreen lobbyists to tamper with the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Though wise-users are on the offensive at the moment, the environmental cause still has strong support in Congress. When the President put forward his ! energy plan last year, the Senate tabled it because it included a provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The wise-use movement hopes to gain the upper hand by presenting itself as the voice of moderation in difficult economic times. The only way for environmentalists to counter that strategy is to show more flexibility and demonstrate that conservation is not incompatible with economic growth. Many preservation groups are already moving in that direction, and a consensus is emerging that government regulators should set firm antipollution goals but give business the latitude to find the most efficient way to meet those goals.

To remain a political force in the 1990s, environmentalists will need to be more adept at touting long-term economic benefits of conservation. They can point out that buying energy-efficient equipment ultimately saves money, that antipollution technologies can create as many jobs as they destroy and that preserving a forest may rescue an overlooked plant that could yield a cure for AIDS or cancer. Greens and wise-users disagree on many issues, but they agree on one inescapable fact: unless society does a better job of reconciling economic growth with the conservation of natural resources, future generations will have neither a healthy environment nor a healthy economy.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 500 Americans taken on Jan.2 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 4.5%. "Not sures" omitted.

CAPTION: TIME/CNN POLL

ARE WE LESS COMMITTED?

Do you . . .

Save newspapers for recycling?

Try to buy products made from recycled materials?

Contribute money to environmental groups?

Do you agree with environmentalists, or do you think they go too far in their demands on business and government?

Given our other problems, would it be better to go slow in spending money to clean up the environment or to go full speed ahead?

With reporting by Andrea Dorfman/New York, J. Madeleine Nash/Chicago and Dick Thompson/Washington