From: lwhite@MAIL.BUCKNELL.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Subject: Clinton/Bush: The Enviornmental Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:55:01 GMT
Reply-To: lwhite@MAIL.BUCKNELL.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

PROBLEMS:

        (1)How do you know when to move to implement environmental
legislation in response to a perceived environmental threat?

        a. When do you have enough MONEY?
        b. When is there enough public pressure?
        c. When is there enough evidence?
        d. When would there be a sufficient need for response by the
government?

        (2)How do you couple economic development with environmental
protection/legislation?

        a.Does environmental regulation hinder or help the economy?
        b.Bush has criticized Gore's plan of heightened regulation.  Gore's

          response is the creation of a new industry of environmental
clean-up
          companies.  Is this criticism response appropriate?
        c.Will Bush's plan to let the marketplace solve environmental
problems
          work?

        (3)Are Gore's views on the environment a political asset or
liability to
Clinton's campaign?

        a.Will Gore alienate the economic (economic recovery) vote?
        b.Even if so, will he draw enough of the environmental vote to
replace
          the economic vote?
        c.Is Gore too much of an environmental extemist?

        (4)Is Bush's claim as an environmental president a reality?

        a.Is the passage of the Clean Air Act Ammendments of 1990 an answer
for
          the future?
        b.Did Bush handle the Rio conference well?  According to whom?
        c.Are Quail's recommendations {council on competitiveness} valid?
Are
          they an asset or liability?

        (5)Are the federal agencies under President Bush enforcing the
existing environmental legislation? To what degree?

        a.What role does the council on competitiveness play?
        b.How effectively has Bush allowed the E.P.A. to function?
        c.Would the E.P.A. be more influential under different leadership?

        (6)What has Clinton done in the state of Arkansas on the subject of
the environment?  What has Gore accomplished in the Senate?



SOLUTIONS:

Governor Bill Clinton:

        --Clinton has stated that he believes that the protection of the
environment is fundamental to America's national security.

        --Under Clinton's leadership, Arkansas has received numerous awards
for Environmental Excellence.  Arkansas has had all waterways declared
safe, swimmable, and drinkable.

        --Arkansas is one of few states to meet all federal standards under
the Clean Air Act

        --Senator Al Gore has strengthened the Clean Air Act of 1990 and
has influenced numerous pieces of environmental legislation throughout the
years.



President George Bush: The recent administration has more than doubled the
monies appropriated for the development of research and development
technologies that will boost both economic preformance and enviornmental
quality.

President Bush has lobbied for and implemented the Clean Air  Act
Amendments, the most comprehensive enviornmental legislation in the world.

Under the Bush Administration, there has been over 1.5 million acres of new
land added to our national parks system.



Quayle versus Gore: The two vice-presidential candidates are alike in that
each is striving to build a power base from which to draw in the '96
presidential election. However, the difference between their environmental
policies is, at the very least, stark. Gore is a die-hard environmentalist.
He takes a long-term view of issues, arguing that the strength of the
economy can only be measured with the cost of environmental damage factored
in. Quayle takes a short-term view, arguing that development, jobs, and the
economy should come first, and that the environment must sometimes be
spoiled. Quayle's views are epitomized by his Council on Competitiveness,
which strives to remove regulations from government.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU