
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, April 22, 1993                   TAG: 9304220431
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

CLINTON AND THE ENVIRONMENT

EARTH DAY in Roanoke as elsewhere seems to have become a rather obscure celebration, observed quietly in small groups here and there. Credit President Clinton, at least, with marking its 23rd anniversary by committing the country to join an international treaty protecting endangered plants and animals.

This biodiversity treaty, rejected by former President Bush at last year's Earth Summit in Brazil, could help slow the awesome rate of destruction of living things. It's been estimated that from 50 to 100 species become extinct every day, the fastest such rate since dinosaurs began disappearing.

Bush refused to sign the treaty - agreed to by more than 120 other nations, including other major economic powers - because of concerns that it lacked sufficient patent protection for U.S. businesses and would leave the United States open to big financial demands from developing countries.

Clinton shared these concerns. His administration, however, worked out an interpretive statement that will accompany the U.S. signing of the treaty. The language was endorsed by both industrial and environmental groups. Bush, who promised to be the environmental president, could have done the same but didn't care enough to try.

So, are environmentalists slaphappy with the new president? Hardly.

Many are disappointed that Clinton postponed a plan to raise grazing fees on Western land. Others are skeptical of his promise, made Wednesday, to reduce "greenhouse gases" that cause global warming.

Environmentalists complain that the Clinton administration, no less than its predecessors, is too concerned about the costs of protecting the environment, including the costs to business and industry and local governments, and the potential loss of jobs.

But these concerns aren't insignificant. As important as it is for earthlings to be better caretakers of the globe, this nation shouldn't embrace every goal of the greens without weighing costs and setting priorities.

What the country really needs from the new administration is a more sophisticated approach to environmental protection. An approach that:

Emphasizes incentives for recycling and pollution-prevention rather than disposal plans that move pollutants from one place to another.

Harnesses the power of market forces (such as with tradable pollution permits) to achieve desirable results, rather than relying on bureaucratic command-and-control regulations.

Recognizes that jobs growth and environmental protection need not be in competition; indeed, environmentalism is itself a global growth industry.

Focuses attention and resources on what are in fact the greatest threats to environment and health, based on scientific assessments of relative risk.

It is premature, of course, to judge President Clinton's commitment to environmental protection. Clearly, the administration is trying to demonstrate an environmentally sensitive tone. Vice President Al Gore's commitment is well-known. The president is (slowly) appointing others with strongly held views, such as former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt, now interior secretary.

But the best test of this administration's environmental record won't be the number of environmentalists appointed or the level of applause from some of the old lobbying groups. It will be the government's success in transcending old notions of environment vs. growth, and in targeting policy to yield, most efficiently, the greatest reduction in environmental risks.

On Earth Day and other days, realism and innovation are goods to hope and work for.

by CNB