The search for balance

I recently ordered Arctic caribou for dinner. I was surprised to see it on the menu, but there it was, one of the evening specials at a fancy restaurant at a Colorado ski resort. I then thought, If it is OK to eat these critters, what could be so bad about drilling for oil near them?

The debate over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the potential impact such activity would have on the caribou is typical of the uninformed, polarized and unproductive tenor of public discourse about environmental issues in the U.S. These discussions are cluttered with misinformation, misleading sound bites, and misguided priorities.

Look at the alarmist nature of the headlines describing the Bush administration’s recent environmental policy decisions. Several of these decisions — the move to re-evaluate the scientific and economic factors associated with the new and drastically reduced arsenic drinking water standard, rejection of the unrealistic and economically burdensome Kyoto global warming treaty, and the decisions to re-examine mining regulations and road-building bans in our national forests — have all been portrayed as extreme measures that threaten our environment. The truth is, the Bush administration has a lot of remedial work to do when it comes to restoring balance to our dialogue about the environment. Regrettably, the Clinton administration and politically motivated environmental activists used environmental issues as a political tool — a blunt instrument to provoke partisan bickering and to foment public anxiety. They successfully persuaded Americans that the only way to protect the environment and public health is to impose unnecessarily stringent standards and prohibit natural resource development in a significant portion of our public lands. Many of Clinton’s last-minute environmental policies reflect this philosophy. Americans need to change their national Zeitgeist regarding the environment in order to engage in a more productive dialogue that focuses on balancing our needs and priorities.

Let’s give Bush a chance to develop policies that restore balance and set appropriate priorities. These policies must acknowledge economic and practical constraints, recognize the need to protect the environment while responsibly developing natural resources, and maintain multiple-use access to public lands.

It doesn’t make any sense to establish arsenic standards based on uncertain science, subscribe to a global warming treaty that sets unattainable emission limits, or restrict access to public lands with reserves of coal, minerals, oil, and natural gas that could help solve our energy crisis and reduce our reliance on unfriendly foreign sources of these critical commodities.

It is ludicrous to accept the stereotype that Democrats care more for the environment than Republicans. All Americans share in the commitment to protect our treasured landscapes and precious environmental resources. We will all benefit from policies that carefully weigh and consider environmental safeguards, responsible use and development of natural resources, and economic factors. Let us search for the truth and the reasonable middle ground as these important environmental policies are debated in the coming months. Dismiss sky-is-falling rhetoric that compromises thoughtful discussion of environmental issues. Look for the balance. Take a deep breath, and maybe even a bite or two of Arctic caribou. Both the country and the environment will be much better off.

— The preceding was previously published by the Spokane, Wash.-based Northwest Mining Association. The author is an environmental and government relations consultant based in Reno, Nev.