| A recent Christian Science
Monitor story about the U.S. House-passed bill for Endangered
Species Act reform speaks of "a deep and growing regional
divide over fundamental environmental protections.”
The Monitor story goes on to characterize the divergent
regional approaches this way:
In general, ranchers, farmers, and others in the rural
West (and their champions in Congress) want to make
laws like those protecting endangered species far
less restrictive. Eastern lawmakers, whether Republican
or Democrat, are more likely to support sanctions
on development and other land use in the name of protecting
plants and animals threatened with extinction.
Is there in fact a regional divide over
the ESA or other environmental laws? If so, does the
Monitor's characterization capture the essence of the
split?
On the face of it, at least, it seems to
be the case that the most outspoken support for the
bill that passed the House has come from the West.
California's Congressman Richard Pombo, the chairman
of the House Resources Committee, is the chief sponsor
of the bill, and his support has been warmly seconded
by Congressman Greg Walden, R-Ore. So far, the strongest
voices in opposition as the debate moves to the Senate
have come from Sens. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and Hilary Rodham Clinton, D-NY.
Laying aside for the moment the perennial
question of whether California is actually part of the
West or not, Congressman Pombo certainly speaks for
many Western Republicans in his unrelenting attacks
on the ESA and other environmental legislation.
But there is a real question whether Pombo's
stance on these issues fairly represents the region,
or for that matter, the Republican Party in the West.
Meanwhile, the all-too-predictable opposition of northeastern
senators to any change from the status quo promises
one more round in an often-repeated saga of which Westerners
have with good reason grown weary.
Fortunately, cool heads on both sides of
the aisle and of the continent have provided a basis
for a much more constructive debate than might be feared.
The real danger will come from the ideologues on both
ends of the political spectrum. Since assuming the chairmanship
of the House Resources Committee, Congressman Pombo
has gone out of his way to wear the mantle of ideologue
and his proclamations in defense of his proposed ESA
revisions promise more of the same.
If revision of the Act hinges on the kinds
of property-rights rhetoric that Pombo puts at the center
of his argument, then the revisions will almost certainly
perish in the Senate, and it would be as well if they
did.
On the other hand, if environmental hard-liners,
intent on preserving the status quo, prevail in the
Senate, it may well signal the death of reform legislation,
but it may also turn out to be one more self-inflicted
wound to the body of the environmental movement itself.
Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus's
essay on "the
death of environmentalism" continues to generate
healthy discussion within the environmental movement,
and as the endangered species debate moves to the Senate,
environmental leaders will be challenged to manage this
crucial environmental issue in a way that adds strength
and credibility to their movement, rather than further
undermining it.
In fact, there is no reason that the ideologues on
either side should have to prevail in this debate. There
has already been a good deal of common sense brought
to bear from both sides of the aisle, particularly around
the widespread recognition that the “critical
habitat” provisions of the existing legislation
are deeply problematic and that there must be a better
way to achieve the profoundly important objectives of
the Act.
This does not have to be an ideological
battle to the death, and it certainly does not have
to be a regional battle. There was no sign of a regional
divide last February when Sen. Chafee joined with Congressmen
Pombo and Walden, and with Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho,
in calling for "a
House-Senate partnership” in addressing some
of the perceived problems with the Act.
Sen. Crapo speaks in what I would consider
a much more authentic and constructive Western voice
than Congressman Pombo usually manages on this subject.
In his testimony
to the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation,
for example, Crapo called attention to success stories
where farmers, ranchers and environmentalists had, by
concentrating on problem-solving rather than ideologies,
managed to make some substantial progress with species-recovery
efforts.
It is this kind of problem-solving approach
that the Western Governors' Association has also taken
in dealing with the Endangered Species Act. The governors'
work on sage grouse protection is an excellent example of attempting
to get ahead of an issue before it becomes bogged down
in litigation.
The WGA approach, and that of Sen. Crapo,
should be seen as the quintessentially Western way of
dealing with a difficult challenge like ESA reform.
It would be a shame if either the East or the West lived
up to their worst stereotypes in this instance. |
