From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: EARTH DAY SPEECH
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:40:12 GMT

In article <92232.000454U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> U45301@uicvm.uic.edu
(Mary Jacobs) posts Clinton's Earth Day speech:  Quoted text is
Clinton's.  (Or, at least, his speechwriter's.)

>We stopped building nuclear power plants, but now see our
>addiction to fossil fuels wrapping the earth in a deadly shroud of
>greenhouse gasses.

Can you say "cause and effect"?

>A Big Mac at McDonald's comes in a recyclable cardboard container
>in a recycled paper bag.

Grease-soaked cardboard is not recyclable.  Styrofoam is recyclable,
but it usually isn't.  McD's was recycling the foam that was deposited
in their trash cans.  Switching to cardboard was a net loss for the
environment.


Out of one side of his mouth, Slick Willie says

>Dependence on foreign oil has been the cornerstone of our energy
>policy, and oil imports now make up half our trade imbalance.

and out of the other he excoriates Bush for 

>He invoked Teddy Roosevelt's devotion to preserving our natural
>heritage, then called for opening the Arctic wilderness to oil drilling.

Consistency, Willie, consistency.


>He talked about the need for an energy policy, then went to
>Detroit on the eve of the Michigan primary to promise American
>automakers that he wouldn't raise fuel efficiency standards for
>American cars.

As if increased MPG ratings had no cost.  Increased mileage does not
come free, and a large part of that cost is in human blood, spilled on
the streets.  Other things being equal, smaller cars are less safe than
larger ones.  This is simple physics.  But then, physics has never been
the ecocrazy's strong suit; they tend to confuse it with Ex-Lax. (True.)

>But over the years I've learned something that George Bush and his
>advisers still don't understand, to reject the false choice between
>economic growth and environmental protection.  Today, you can't have a
>healthy economy without a healthy environment, and you don't have to
>sacrifice environmental protection to get economic growth.

Followed by some assertions that "green" technology can produce
as much more cheaply.

I've got news for you, Slick Willie: Businesses do not have a vested
interest in destroying the environment.  Not only do businessmen want
to make a profit so they can stay in business, but (surprise, surprise)
they tend to want to be good citizens, too.  If the techniques you
mention are cheaper and better for the environment, just prove it, and
they will be enthusiastically adopted, without any need for government
coercion.

>In my first term, I took on one of my state's strongest special
>interests when I tried to focus our utilities more on conservation than
>construction of new power plants.  Today that approach is called "least
>cost planning," and nearly half the states use it to conserve resources
>and save ratepayers money.

Tell it to the ratepayers when the brownouts and blackouts start.
This has been done by paring reserve capacity beyond the danger point.
We're in for years of severe electrical shortages because of this
short-sighted policy.

>An ozone hole is growing over Kennebunkport. 

This is utterly silly, and has been quite thoroughly debunked.

>     For the past 11 years, we have had no national energy policy.  In
>a Clinton Administration, we'll have an energy policy the day I take
>office:
>
>*  We'll accelerate our progress toward more fuel-efficient cars,
>     and seek to raise the average goal for automakers to 45 miles
>     per gallon.

At what cost?  I mentioned the cost in human blood.  Another cost is
that by pricing new cars out of most people's reach, people continue to
drive more-polluting older cars much longer than they otherwise would.

>*    We'll increase our reliance on natural gas, which is
>     inexpensive, clean-burning and abundant, and can reduce our
>     carbon dioxide emissions.  I'll start with an executive order
>     to purchase natural gas powered vehicles for the federal
>     fleet, following the lead of Gov. Ann Richards in Texas.

This is actually a good idea.

>*   We'll invest more in the development of renewable energy
>     sources.  ...  We'll encourage the
>     use of new energy sources like wind and solar,

Piddlin' flea power ...

>     In a Clinton Administration, we will designate as wilderness the
>     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and stop the crusade for new
>     drilling off our coasts.

... and more dependance on foreign oil.

>*    As part of an effort to convert some of our Cold War military
>     spending to civilian purposes, we'll use research and
>     development funds to develop light rail, which can speed
>     travel, save fuel, and provide transportation for people less
>     able to afford it.

Less able to afford it because it's been punitively taxed.  Light rail
is a Good Thing as long as it is put where it is needed.  Experience
has shown, though, that politics almost always runs it from where
nobody is to where nobody wants to go.  That's certainly the case with
San Jose's light rail -- a useless, expensive monument to Mayor McHenry.
At least Mayor Hammer didn't get her monument (the Giants stadium.)

>*    We'll create a system of tradeable credits that will reward
>     companies that recover a greater portion of their waste and
>     penalize those that don't.

This is another a good idea, as long as it's implemented sensibly.
(No sarcasm.)

>*    We'll pass a national bottle bill to encourage recycling by
>     creating small deposits on all glass and plastic bottles.

Good idea.  We are running so desperately short of sand.  (sarcasm)
Glass recycling is mostly a bad idea; it costs energy and conserves
nothing that needs conserving.

>     The third priority I want to speak about today is the need to
>bring powerful market forces to bear on America's pollution
>problems.  Many of our environmental efforts in the past were based
>on a "command and control" approach to regulation that told firms
>how much pollution to produce and what kind of technology to
>use.  While that approach produced important successes, it
>sometimes stifled innovation by locking firms into a specific kind of
>equipment, and increased regulatory costs and burdens by taking
>such a detailed and inflexible approach.
>
>     I believe it is time for a new era in environmental protection
>which uses the market to help us get our environment back on track
>-- to recognize that Adam Smith's invisible hand can have a green
>thumb.  While we need to maintain tough guidelines and goals for
>reducing pollution, charging companies for their pollution would
>give them a daily incentive to find progressively cleaner technologies
>and manufacturing processes.  In certain settings, this results-oriented
>approach can cut compliance costs, shrink regulatory bureaucracies,
>enlist corporate support, take environmental policy away from the
>specialists and lobbyists, and open it up more to the general public.

Here (no sarcasm) is the best idea in the whole speech.  This should be
put into practice immediately.  I think, however, that the Republicans
are much more interested in taking this approach than the Democrats.
If I thought they were at all likely to actually take this approach,
rather than the usual "TaxRegulateTaxSpendTaxRegulateTaxTax" approach,
I might consider 'em -- or at least be less likely to move my
retirement fund out of the U.S. if (God forbid) they win.  I really,
really do not like Bush.  But I like Clinton and Gore even less.

-----
I considered sending this to the Compuserve address for Clinton's
campaign, but decided I didn't want to do Slick Willie any favors. :-)
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                       When the fog came in on little cat feet
Headland Technology/Video 7         last night, it left these little muddy
sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp               paw prints on the hood of my car.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment