|
There are many issues on the minds of US voters these days, but according to national polls, the environment ranks ...um... somewhere above hemp policy and just below humane treatment for shoe bombers.
People are, of course, justly concerned about top issues such as health care, terrorism, and jobs. So, why vote "green" (for candidates who consistently take pro-environment positions) when there are other seemingly more urgent issues to attend to? Because the environment actually has a role to play in all of those areas. Below are some examples of how this is so.
"If you have your health, you have everything"—so goes the old cliché. We usually don't think too much about our health until we have a problem. Diseases usually creep in on us slowly. They're very patient, waiting until our defenses are down far enough for us to be susceptible.
The health of the environment—the quality of the air we breathe, the purity of the water we drink, the condition of the land we grow our food on—are prime factors in the health of our bodies. We can protect the health of ourselves and our families by reducing pollution, by encouraging better farming practices that result in more nutritious agricultural products, and by getting the toxic chemicals out of the products we use every day.
Politicians are busy jousting about who has the better plan for improving health care, but they're mostly silent on the most basic health issue—keeping disease-causing pollutants and toxins out of the environment and out of us.
What are the terrorist targets that have the most potential for causing problems? Here are three.
Ports: We thoroughly inspect only a fraction of the more 6 million containers arriving in US coastal cities each year. Many security experts think it's just a matter of time before terrorists sneak a nuclear, chemical or biological device into one of them. By supporting the concept of "buying local," our leaders could begin reducing the traffic in our ports and thus make the problem more manageable. This would also reduce the huge level of pollution associated with product transport. Instead, our leaders pursue ever-grander "free trade" schemes that only INCREASE port security problems. You can indirectly promote better safety by voting for candidates that are critical of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and trade agreements like NAFTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
Chemical Plants and Other Facilities That Use Chemicals:
A terrorist strike at a facility that manufactures or uses toxic substances could release clouds of poisonous chemicals. And we're not only talking about heavy-duty chemical and industrial plants; many water-treatment facilities, for instance, still use toxic forms of chlorine for disinfection, even though safer alternatives are available. Those who currently control our federal government have been far too passive in addressing problems with high-chemical-use industries. Find out where your candidates stand on security at chemical plants. If they offer a response like "the industry has it under control," run.
Nuclear Power Plants: Although most nuclear facilities are hardened against airplane strikes, many are vulnerable to direct terrorist takeover. Because there are only 103 nuclear power plants in the US and because they do get a fair degree of attention when it comes to security, this is probably the
least likely of the three disaster scenarios presented here. But it's still a possibility, and instead of trying to reduce the level of the vulnerability by diverting investment resources to development of wind, solar, wave, and other clean, safe forms of electricity generation, some politicians are pushing hard to build MORE nuclear power plants—and they're planning to spend billions of your tax dollars doing it. (By the way, if electricity from nuclear power plants is so cheap (as the nuclear industry repeatedly tells us), why do they need such huge subsidies?)
Finally, more nuclear power means more nuclear waste. Radioactive waste is not only an insanely unforgivable legacy we leave for thousands of years of future generations, but if terrorists get a hold of any, they can use it to make "dirty bombs." Egad.
Mature industries do not typically create large numbers of new jobs. Industries based on oil, gas, and coal—the "business-as-usual industries" in the energy sector—are certainly not going to bolster our sagging job numbers, given that they're caught between the twin hammers of dwindling fossil-fuel supplies and the need to reduce air pollution and CO2 output.
But there is a good solution. According to analyses by The Apollo Alliance, embarking on an ambitious program to develop renewable energy will allow us to create three million new, high quality jobs, free ourselves from imported oil, and clean up the environment. That certainly sounds a lot better than no new jobs and lots more black smoke in the sky.
Additionally, candidates who strongly support alternative energy technologies and would vote for tougher rules for polluters are usually opposed to the current free-trade agenda, which is much more about rigging the game for large multinational companies than it is about leveling trade rules. In the US, participation in the WTO and various trade agreements has done a lot to foster the offshoring of US jobs, so voting for a green, anti-WTO candidate would be a good thing for jobs here.
|
While the federal government continues its unprecidented spending spree, many states and counties are suffering downward pressure on they budgets. So, at the state level—where most environmental monitoring occurs—how are the budgets of our environment and natural resources agencies faring? Did they suffer cuts right along with the Program to Assist Millionaires Become Billionaires? Are important environmental projects being dropped from the budget along with luxury items like the statehouse's new Gold-Plated Enforcement Gavel?
|
|
ECO-HEROES: THE STATES |
|
It turns out that the states, not the US EPA, are carrying most of the load when it comes to environmental enforcement:
- 75% of the federal programs that can be delegated to states have been delegated;
- 90% of environmental enforcement actions are taken by the states;
- 94% of the data in EPA databases came from the states.
- Many important issues, such as land use and recycling programs, are usually decided at the county level.
|
|
Reducing resources at the state and local levels can cut the heart out of the planning, monitoring, and enforcement activities that are needed to ensure that our air, water, and land—and our bodies—are protected from environmental toxins. Even more troublesome are elected officials who have a weak commitment to the environment. The back-room deals cut in your governor's mansion, your statehouse, and your county council chambers can have a great impact on the environment.
So, are you convinced that voting green also supports many of our other primary goals at the ballot box? If so, the best way to decide which candidate is the most supportive of our environment is NOT to listen to what they say—which is often
just a bunch of environmental doublespeak—but instead to look at their voting records. Grinning Planet has tried to make this easy for you by compiling a comprehensive environmental voting guide with links to specific information and tools for each US state.
Even though the environment may not come up much in debates and TV ads, it is our air, our water, and our land. Keeping it clean is an important issue in its own right, but it plays a part in almost all other issues too. Vote green!
More articles and resources on....
|
