Printer Friendly

Environmental law and millennial politics.

A few weeks ago, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara published a mostly autobiographical book about the War in Vietnam.(1) It ignited a firestorm. The book elicited editorial condemnations of the author's arrogance from some, and op-ed paeans to the author's courage and candor from others. Talk radio boiled over with the rage of opponents and supporters of the war alike. Two decades after the last GI returned to America, the wounds of the 1960s remain raw.

Earth Day was a protest, too, but a protest with a difference. In a society that was coming apart at the seams, the Earth Day organizers tried to pull people together. We reached out to tycoons like Dan Lufkin, and welfare organizers like George Wiley. We actively sought the participation of schools, colleges, churches, business, and labor. Indeed, in this era of jobs versus owls" bumper stickers, it is worth remembering that organized labor provided the largest source of funding for the first Earth Day, dwarfing the contributions of traditional conservation sources, most of which viewed the campaign with skepticism. Indeed, the United Auto Workers provided more enthusiastic support for the Clean Air Act of 1970(2) than most traditional conservation organizations, which then still viewed air pollution as outside their missions.

The Earth Day message was, of necessity, broad enough to be broadly inclusive. At the same time, it was genuinely revolutionary. America, we said, was growing wealthier but not better. There was a fundamental conflict between how the nation measured progress and what people really cared about--a conflict between what our statisticians counted and what really counts.

Not long before his assassination in 1968, Robert Kennedy discussed the gross national product in a speech that could have served as the anthem for Earth Day:

[The gross national product] counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and

ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our

doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our

redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts

napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead . . . .

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children,

the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include

the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of

our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. h measures neither

our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion

nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except

that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about

America except why we are proud that we are Americans.(3)

That--expressed in myriad ways by all manner of people-was what Earth Day was about. The message resonated across the moats and barricades that divided the land. And twenty Million people came together to launch what has become the modem environmental movement.

Twenty-five years after Earth Day, the bald eagle is no longer endangered, and the Great Lakes are returning to life. Air pollution has decreased by more than one-third, even though we now are driving almost twice as many cars more than twice as many miles every year. The Cuyahoga River no longer catches on fire, and hundreds of streams, lakes, and bays are swimmable. Millions of people choose to recycle, conserve water and energy, eat lower on the food chain, and limit their family size for environmental reasons.

Most of this change has been immensely popular. Even at the zenith of the Great American Tax Revolt, eighty percent of Americans told pollsters they favored spending as much as it takes to protect the environment.(4) Strong environmental support is found among all income groups, education levels, geographic regions, and ethnic backgrounds.

The environmental movement that grew out of that spring protest in 1970 may well be the most successful social movement in American history. Environmental concerns guide the nation's investments, its lifestyles, and its laws. The right to a safe, healthy environment is a concept that essentially did not exist before 1970. When I grew up in Camas, Washington, the ungodly stench that pervaded everything was considered normal, even praised as the smell of prosperity. Today, the right to a safe and healthy environment has become an American core value, possessing wider, deeper public support than some values enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The new congressional leadership seems not to understand this, and it may eventually pay a heavy price for this misunderstanding

The 1994 Election

Last November, the nation inadvertently elected the most rabidly anti-environmental Congress in its history. I say "inadvertently" because exit polls and focus groups found that while many voters were motivated by concern for crime, the budget deficit, the economy, and a simple blood lust against Democratic incumbents and the big, faceless, bureaucratic government with which they are identified, only seven percent were influenced by environmental factors. Most voters appear to have assumed, as usual, that everyone was for the environment. It is absolutely clear that the 1994 election provided no mandate to trash twenty-five years of popular environmental progress.

However, the election was a landscape-altering earthquake for Democrats. Not one Republican governor, senator, or representative lost a bid for reelection. Republicans now control the Senate by a margin of 5446, the House of Representatives by a margin of 230-204, the nation's Governors' mansions by 30-19-1, and a majority of state legislative chambers.

The Democrats control the White House. But in winning the Presidency, Bill Clinton received three percent fewer votes than Michael Dukakis got four years earlier, when Dukakis was routed by Bush. The wild card in 1992 was Ross Perot. Perot took nineteen percent of the popular vote, and he took sixteen percent of it from George Bush. If Perot had not run in 1992, Clinton would have lost in a landslide. If Perot runs in 1996 (and his organization is currently busily preparing to run a fifty-state campaign), then, depending on who the Republican candidate is, Perot could draw evenly from both candidates. If Jesse Jackson runs an independent campaign in 1996, he will take all his votes from Clinton.

From a Democratic point-of-view, this sounds pretty bad. But, as Mark Twain replied when asked what he thought of Richard Wagner's music, it's "better than it sounds."(5) The current Republican hegemony is more correctly viewed as a beachhead than a landslide. A switch of just 170,000 votes in 13 congressional districts last November, and Newt Gingrich would be the minority leader, not the Speaker. And trouble looms ahead. The first one hundred days were truly the easiest. The major entitlement programs the Republicans will have to tame if they are to balance the budget--social Security, Medicare, subsidies to farmers, and aid to veterans--are hugely popular with bedrock Republican constituencies. But if the Republican leaders duck these issues, they virtually guarantee a Perot candidacy. Abortion is a no-win issue for them, but Pat Robertson will not let them avoid abortion forever. Promoting assault rifles carries a political cost and that cost will grow if new right-wing, paramilitary terrorist organizations start using them. All in all, the Republicans could be entering a period of root canal politics.

Nevertheless, they have gained an astonishing beachhead, especially for a party that just two years ago carne out of Houston divided and dispirited, with no vision and no agenda. For the past four months, they have had the most disciplined congressional majority since World War Il. Between now and November 1996, every step taken by the Republican leadership will be disciplined by the need to convert their beachhead into a watershed. Today, the smart money is betting that they will succeed.

What does this imply for the environment? Historically, the environmental movement has been bipartisan. Republican Theodore Roosevelt tripled the size of the national forests, expanded the national parks, and established the first national monuments. Republican Richard Nixon took the initiative to establish an Environmental Protection Agency, and he named strong leaders to head it. Numerous Democrats have been strong environmentalists including Ed Muskie, Cecil Andrus, Gaylord Nelson, and the Udall brothers. However, to the double misfortune of environmentalists, the environment is becoming an increasingly partisan issue. This is unfortunate on one hand because the new Republican leadership is senselessly hostile and seems bent on doing irreparable damage. It is unfortunate on the other hand because the Democrats now take environmentalists for granted. Like organized labor and African-americans, environmentalists are viewed by Democratic leaders as a captive constituency whose loyalty can be assured with lip service to environmental goals and occasional symbolic acts.

Still, the real damage today is being done by congressional Republicans. The Contract With America turns out to have some environmental fine print. And, as any lawyer could tell you, the fine print never contains good news. Within the next several months, Congress proposes to pass a radical collection of laws, many of them openly drafted by industry lobbyists, that will wipe out much of the environmental progress of the last twenty-five years. Key targets include the Clean Water Act,(6) the Endangered Species Act,(7) and a salvage logging rider to an appropriations bill.(8) If the current leadership had controlled Congress in 1970, the only bald eagles in the lower forty-eight today would be on postage stamps.

The virulent anti-environmental stance of current congressional leaders could produce a James Watt-like backlash that again makes the environment a voting issue. Walter Mondale did not recognize that backlash in 1984, and he was in any event poorly positioned to take advantage of it. But there exists a core constituency, with special strength among women, college students, and well-educated professionals, that could be mobilized to make an electoral impact as early as 1996. It could make all the difference in some key states, including California, Oregon, and Washington. Today, however, the political professionals of both parties see environmental voters as a marginal electoral force.

How Could This Happen?

For two decades, the environmental movement was the political equivalent of apple pie. Even those who disagreed with its specific programs gave lip service to its general values. However, the absence of a vigorous opposition was not an unmixed blessing.

* In the eyes of some, environmentalists became part of "the establishment" that we once railed against.

* As environmental issues grew more complex, the environmental dialog became the domain of experts--inaccessible to anyone without a Ph.d. in atmospheric chemistry or conservation biology. Words like "poison' were replaced with words like "polychlorinated biphenyl."

* We forgot that the most effective rules are always the simplest. Banning DDT and leaded gasoline are on everyone's short list of environmental triumphs. Unlike Olympic diving standards, environmental progress does not give extra points for degree of difficulty.

* A movement that prided itself on its broad-based grass-roots organization was slowly transformed into a gigantic fund-raising apparatus, whose disenfranchised "members" are dunned by direct mall, telephone solicitors, and door-to-door canvassers to support a distant army of mercenary specialists to fight for them in Washington, D.C. During one recent week, I received an average of six environmental solicitations a day.

* After winning an almost unbroken string of landmark victories in the courts, we began to think of legal victories--and the environmental laws on which they were based--as eternal verities, perhaps the product of divine revelation. We forgot that in a democracy the whole statutory system is subject to instant recall--that we can have law and virtue and science on our side, but if our opponents have the votes, we lose.

* All our issues have a human dimension, but we have not always left the affected people with any sense that we care about their needs. Some environmentalists forgot that nobody cares how much you know until they know that you care.

* Visionary, charismatic leaders were replaced by efficient managers, capable of running large, complex organizations. They share the skills, work habits, cultural values, and recreational habits of business and professional leaders, and are much more socially comfortable at a trade show or formal dinner than at a bowling alley or political rally. Ultimately, much of the general public--while retaining an abiding concern for environmental values--began to feel alienated from "environmentalists."

Today, for the first time, the environmental movement faces a disciplined opposition that displays a robust pride in being "anti-environmental." Well-funded by mining, timber, and agricultural interests, these anti-environmental activists are using high technology to deluge politicians with propaganda. Although still a tiny minority, this "Wise Use" opposition is run by passionate ideologues who are adept at tapping populist, antigovernment sentiments that are deeply rooted in American society. Their emotional assault on science--they want to abolish the National Geological Survey, the National Biological Survey, and the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment(9)--is reminiscent of George Wallace's attacks on "pointy-headed intellectuals." If ignorance is bliss, these guys must be on the verge of ecstacy.

The world has changed dramatically in the last quarter-century. In important ways, the environmental movement is falling to adapt. Twenty-five years after the first Earth Day, it is time to rethink our strategy.

Erect a Big Tent

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this goal. The genius of the original Earth Day lay in the way it enlisted all segments of American society. Earth Day's organizers had no interest in events in which the Sierra Club just talked to the Audubon Society. Instead, we invited students, teachers, clergy, business, labor, farmers, ethnic minorities, and civic organizations to help plan the campaign. Congress adjourned for the day to go home and learn about this new issue. In a nation emerging from the polarizing 1960s, Earth Day provided a vehicle in which diverse people could come together to promote their visions of a better future. And in the process, it propounded a value system that still commands the support of eighty percent of all Americans.

The environmental movement should own the Big Top, but instead we are stuffing ourselves into a pup tent. National groups squabble incessantly. Grass-root groups spend more ammunition attacking national groups than in attacking real enemies. Our greatest power is in unexpected coalitions--Friends of the Earth and the National Taxpayers Union; the Greenbelt Alliance and the Bank of America; Environmental Defense Fund and McDonald's; the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Electric Power Research Institute--and we just do not do enough of this.

Everyone blithely says the Wise Use movement is out-organizing us. What exactly does that mean? It means that they have a targeted strategy to build a majority coalition, and they are more interested in winning and establishing relationships than in maintaining ideological purity. They scramble. They are pragmatic. They ask what it takes to get the ranchers, the miners, the mill workers, and they do it. They bring people into the tent, and they negotiate the details later.'

We have to get more people into the tent. The Wise Use movement has been poaching in what should be our ponds. I am appalled that we lost the support of timber workers in the Northwest forest fight. A central environmental goal should have been to secure a sustainable future for them. We got out-hustled by the timber industry and its Wise Use allies.

It is time, now, for environmentalists to go fishing in Wise Use ponds. Let me talk for a minute here about the rank and file of the Wise Use movement. Not the bizarre, extremist, self-anointed spokespeople; they are not the movement, any more than some of our own bizarre, extremist, self-anointed spokespeople are the soul of the environmental movement.

The rank and Me of the Wise Use movement, as best I can tell, consists mostly of people like those I grew up with, played basketball with, went camping with. I was raised in a small company town in which life centered around the paper mill. Many of the members of my high school class--those fortunate enough to have jobs--work in the mill today. Rural southwest Washington state has an unemployment rate of over twenty percent, and a lot of tumble-down shacks have hand-lettered plywood signs out front, saying, "This home supported by timber dollars."

If you were to have a beer with my old high school teammates, they might strike you as humble. They tend to describe themselves as "ordinary" people. They are just a little awkward with someone who went away to college.

But when they loosen up, they make it clear that they view themselves as America's true workers--the producers of wealth. They are proud of their skill, their strength, and their capacity for hard work. And almost universally, they feel exploited by powerful, remote parasites. They do not think much of lawyers.

They define their success in largely material terms--by how "well off" they are. They know they are less well off than their parents. They believe their children will be even less well off than they are. And they are convinced that their government does not give a damn. The smartest of them voted for Perot. They all seem to loathe Clinton.

Not exactly prime prospects for the Sierra Club.

But you had better not write them off. One-third of American students do not graduate from high school. Of those that graduate, about one-half do not go on to college. Environmental groups do pretty well with college graduates, and even better among those with advanced degrees. But if we do not also pick up a large percentage of those who do not go on to college--those who make paper and cook fast food and empty bedpans and sell clothing and repair cars--we will lose.

Moreover, they can be won! They love their children as much as environmental activists love theirs. They are as frightened by the future as you are--maybe more, because they feel even more helpless to change it. They are looking for a positive vision, stated in ordinary language, that makes sense. They are suspicious of centralized power--for good reason--and they intuitively reject anything that seems "extremist." They have been fed a lot of falsehoods, but they possess a large measure of common sense.

But we will not win them if we do not talk with them. We will not win them if we talk down to them. We will not win them if we do not start putting a great deal of effort into winning them.

Do Not Attack the Good in Pursuit of the Perfect

We must never raise a white flag in any battle over basic environmental values, because that is a battle that defines what kind of people we are. That is a battle that will determine our children's fate. But, as Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural, "every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle."(10) The first step to wisdom is knowing which is which.

We must not confuse our basic principles--which are inviolable--with the details of particular regulations--which should be pragmatic tactical choices. If the real choice is between utter defeat versus a small step in the right direction, that should not be a tough call to make. The left wing of the environmental movement, which spends ninety percent of its ammunition blasting moderate environmentalists, should pay attention to the discipline exercised so successfully by the Christian Coalition. Leaders, from Mahatma Gandhi to Saul Alinsky, who have been driven by idealism to successfully organize for change in the real world, have all understood that a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.

If environmentalists are to create a big tent, we have to make ideological room in it for people besides ourselves. Our policies are not the product of divine revelation. For example, many of us fought hard and long for Superfund(11)--and got hit in the back of the head by the boomerang of unintended consequences. 1, for one, wanted to have companies that created toxic waste dumps pay to clean them up. However, I did not hope to use one-third of the clean-up funds to pay lawyers to argue over indemnity and contribution, and I did not want to drive new industrial development into pristine rural areas while leaving vacant urban sites to decay.

We have made mistakes. It would behoove us to listen to the constructive suggestions of others who share our basic goals.

Work Both Sides of the Aisle

Although the new Republican Congress sees red when it hears green, there are at least three good reasons why environmentalists should not write off the GOP. Democrats have no monopoly on good ideas. All politicians ignore any constituency they can take for granted. We have a broader base of support than the Democrats do.

But is this realistic? Is there any chance the Republicans--the party of James Watt and Slade Gorton, of Don Young and Frank Murkowsky, of Linda Smith and Helen Chenoweth--can ever again be environmental allies?

Well, was there a chance that the racist, segregationist Democratic Party of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s could become the party of civil rights? That it could win African-americans away from the party of Lincoln?

Party politics is a matter of leadership and definition. If we whack them hard on the head in a couple of elections, I would not be shocked to see a brand of environmentalism emerge again from the party of Dick Cheney arid Jack Kemp, the party of Elliot Richardson and Russell Peterson, and John Chafee and Jim Jeffords. It is true that some of their policies win be different than those of Ed Muskie, Mo Udall, Phil Burton, and Al Gore. But, like the green pricing proposals of the late Republican Senator John Heinz, they may well be smarter and more effective!

Reduce Reliance on the Federal Government

If we step back from domestic politics and look at the world, it is hard to avoid the fact that we are in a period of centrifugal politics. Successful new micro-technologies and failed bureaucratic management are combining to create an accelerating force for decentralization. The starkest example is the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of Eastern Europe into tribal warfare. But this phenomenon reaches far beyond the irredentist aspirations of the ethnic communities of Eastern Europe. A similar set of forces is shattering the Horn of Africa, much of Asia, and elsewhere.

The winds of change that swept away the nineteenth century colonial empires are returning now to destroy many of the nation states those empires left behind. The advantages of size are proving illusory. The tiger economies of East Asia are emerging as the new model of disaggregated development.

Along with the explosive growth of religious fundamentalism around the world--itself a product of powerlessness and instability-these centrifugal forces, made possible by the information revolution, may be the dominant political phenomenon of this period of millennial transition.

If the United States is to endure, if the great American experiment is to succeed, the challenge is to channel these forces into federalist solutions. The politics of this have been abrupt and astonishing.

In the American political firmament, the Democratic Party is the party favoring strong centralized national government. This evolved as a response to the Great Depression and the requirements of World War II. It continued as a consequence of the Cold War.

But now the Cold War is over. And without an enemy to push us together, powerful forces are pulling us apart. Over the years, the size, complexity, and facelessness of federal decision-making has alienated huge numbers of people. The Great Society's failure to end poverty, reduce crime, deliver quality education, house the homeless, build a balanced transportation system, or even balance its budget, has eroded the confidence of many of its most stalwart supporters.

Ironically, environmentalists, many of whom entered public life batting against the Army Corps of Engineers, the Atomic Energy Commission, or the Department of Transportation, are now identified in the public's eye with government bureaucrats. Anyone who has ever tried to find the answer to a simple question in the thousands of pages of environmental regulations in the Federal Register understands why the EPA is facing a populist revolt.

The current fascination with devolution is not limited to Congress. The Clinton White House is downsizing and decentralizing far more aggressively than did Reagan or Bush. And the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning a federal law banning gun possession in schools may signal the beginning of a long-term erosion of the expansive way the Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted.(12) My hunch is that the current Court will not push this too far, but that the next appointment to the Supreme Court could have an extraordinary impact on the shape of American government. I pray that that appointment is not made by a President Phil Gramm.

Huge institutions--corporate, as well as governmental-become dysfunctional at some size. They cease to perform wen, and they lose their authority. Today, the pendulum is swinging strongly toward decentralization, with broad public support. In such circumstances, it would be foolish for the environmental movement to bet all its chips on federal solutions.

Do Not Be Afraid of the Market

American business excels at producing whatever it is rewarded for producing. Let us figure out more ways to reward it for producing conservation. When Puget Power, a medium-sized utility in Washington state, was allowed to earn a rate-of-return for saved energy, it quickly built one of the finest energy conservation program in America. By its second year in operation, Puget's conservation program was saving more energy than Pacific Power and Light, Portland General Electric, Seattle City Light, Washington Water Power, Idaho Power, and Montana Power--combined.

Many environmental problems have their roots in prices that do not reflect the full costs of goods. Gasoline everywhere in the world costs about eighty-five cents a gallon. But in Europe, they add on taxes and tariffs of three to four dollars a gallon, whereas we add only about fifty cents. If gasoline were priced to reflect the cost of maintaining a fleet near the Persian Gulf, the cost of urban air pollution, and the "future's rent" my great grandchild would pay to have some oil left fifty years from now, we might spend fifty dollars or even one hundred dollars to fill 'er up. Then we would see a wave of engineering creativity in Detroit that would take your breath away. But as long as gasoline remains cheaper than bottled water, the Big Three automakers have no incentive to produce clean, super-efficient vehicles.

But Do Not Become Enamored of the Market

Ultimately, everything cannot be reduced to dollars. Consider, for example, national parks. We will not let anyone develop a geothermal plant atop Old Faithful, and we will not let anyone log the two-thousand-year-old General Sherman tree. Not for a million dollars. Not for a billion dollars. We have removed those things from the market and declared them priceless.

Remember the essence of Bobby Kennedy's message: The most cherished things are those that cannot be bought.

Everything Is Connected

The environment is not something "out there" divorced from people. We eat the environment. We drink the environment. We breathe the environment. The environment encompasses every aspect of life, and we must not allow our values to be pigeonholed into narrow journalistic slots like pollution and biodiversity.

The national debt is an environmental issue. Few things will exert a more profound influence on our children's world.

Education is an environmental issue. Without a wen-educated public, we surrender the playing field to Rush Limbaugh, and allow idiots to make policy by bumper sticker.

Jobs are an environmental issue. People, and their well-being, are our concern, too.

Environmentalists need to get involved in society's broader agenda, because, as John Muir told us so long ago, everything is connected to everything else.(13)

The Future

We live at an inflection point in history. The Cold War, the dominant factor of the last fifty years, is now over. The Berlin Wall has been hacked up into tens of thousands of paper weights. South Africa is moving toward full integration. The leadership of China is passing into the hands of people who were not alive during the Great March.

An information revolution is racing around the world. This is a "real" revolution, with implications for our culture, beliefs, social relationships, and sense of worth as sweeping as those that accompanied the agricultural revolution or the industrial revolution.

Tomorrow could herald a Golden Age or an authoritarian epoch, global peace or a world of garrison states. The future will not be the product of fate. It will be a direct consequence of choices we make today. No choices are more important than the environmental choices that our leaders are currently bumbling.

The human population is skyrocketing; other species are going extinct at the fastest rate in twenty-five million years; the global gap between rich and poor has turned into a gulf; oil use continues to climb, though nobody is down there making more; species-leaping viruses are emerging from devastated rainforests; endocrine-disrupting pollutants appear to be adversely affecting the reproduction of many species; the Non-proliferation Treaty(14) has come to resemble a slice of Swiss cheese; and there is a hole in the ozone layer.

We have been breaking a lot of little laws for a long time, and now the big laws, Nature's Laws, are catching up with us. We can change our laws. But we can neither change, nor break, Nature's Laws. We can only prove them.

It is time for the environmental movement to look reality squarely in the face, stop our posturing, and rebuild our base. Most important, it is time to return to our moral roots.

Finally, a few words directed exclusively at the students.

Do Not Wait for Anyone to Pass You a Torch

This may be the most important piece of advice you win ever receive.

President Kennedy's inaugural address contained many vivid images, none more arresting than the picture of one generation passing the torch to a new generation.

It never happens.

Power is an aphrodisiac. People and institutions that have power will move heaven and earth to hang on to it, and expand it, as long as they are able. In Seattle last year, we had an eighty-year-old state senator who was discovered to have been a legal resident of Hawaii for several years. Still, he insisted on running for reelection from the Queen Anne district of Seattle, an area rich in bright young men and women from three generations, all eager to receive his torch.

Torches are not passed. Torches are seized!

Torches change hands the way that dominance is shifted among elephant seals--with snarling, bellowing rage.

In all likelihood, no one will ever pass you a torch. My generation seized a torch in 1968, and mounted what the press denigrated as the "children's crusade" in the presidential primaries. And we drove a sitting President from the White House. No one empowered us to do that. We just rose up and did it.

My generation seized a torch in 1970, organized what until then was the largest planned demonstration in the nation's history, and launched an environmental revolution. Most of the environmental lobbyists behind the Clean Air Act of 1970 were younger than the students in this room.

For every person in this roomful of extraordinary persons, there is a torch out there with your name on it.

Find it. Seize it. And be true to it.

(1) Robert S. McNamara & Brian Vandemark, in Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (1995). (2) Clean Air Amendments of 1970, Pub. L No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. [subsections] 7401-7671q (1988 & Supp. V 1993)). (3) Robert F. Kennedy, Speech at the University of Kansas (Mar. 18, 1968) in RFK: Collected Speeches 329-30 (Edwin O. Guthman & C. Richard Allen eds., 1993). (4) See David Kirkpatrick, Environmentalism: The New Crusade, Fortune, Feb. 12, 1990, at 44, 46; Rose Gutfield, Shades of Green: Eight Out of Ten Americans Are Environmentalists, At Least So They Say, Wall St. J., Aug. 2, 1991, at Al. (5) The Harper Book of American Quotations 392 (Gorton Carruth & Eugene Ehrlich eds., 1988). (6) Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. [subsections] 1251-1387 (1988 & Supp. V 1993). (7) Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. [subsections] 1531-1544 (1994). (8) H.R. 1158, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. [sections] 2001 (1995). President Clinton vetoed this bill on June 7, 1995. Representative Robert Livingston (R-La.) reintroduced the salvage logging provisions as 2001 of H.R. 1944, which President Clinton signed into law as Pub. L. No. 104-19 on July 27, 1995. (9) The Office of Technology Assessment shut down on September 29, 1995. Barbara Rosewicz, Today's Last Rites for Small Technology Agency Mark the Start of a `Wrenching' and Historic Shift, Wall ST. J., Sept. 29, 1995, at A16. (10) Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1801) in The life and selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson 321, 322 (Adrienne Koch & William Peden eds., 1944). (11) Comprehensive Environ-mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. [subsections] 9601-9675 (1988 & Supp. V 1993). (12) See United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995). (13) John Muir, My First Summer in the Sierra, reprinted in Gentle Wilderness: The Sierra Nevada 17, 73 (David Brower ed., 1967). (14) Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, entered into force Mar. 5, 1970, 21 U.S.T. 483, 729 U.N.T.S. 161.

Denis Hayes, President and CEO of the Bullitt Foundation; Chairman of the Board of the Energy Foundation. Aft. Hayes served as National Coordinator of the first Earth Day in 1970 and International Chairman of the twentieth anniversary of Earth Day in 1990. This Essay is an edited and expanded version of remarks delivered at the twenty-fifth anniversary celebration of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program of Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College on May 18, 1995. The opinions expressed herein represent the author's personal views.
COPYRIGHT 1995 Lewis & Clark Northwestern School of Law
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1995, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hayes, Denis (American environmental scholar)
Publication:Environmental Law
Date:Sep 22, 1995
Previous Article:Transportation planning and the Clean Air Act.
Next Article:Challenges to environmental law.

Related Articles
A case history of EPA overkill.
Booked for 2000?
The past and future of environmental law.
Environment and Law.
Books received.
Books received.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters