From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: EARTH DAY SPEECH
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:20:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.194012.18473@hsv3.lsil.com> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>
>>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

But the market does encourage externalization of costs in the form of
pollution and far be it from a small businessman to fight the market.

>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.

And the sooner the better.
>
>>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.

Have there been any?

>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.

Its your turn to provide some proof.
>
>>An ozone hole is growing over Kennebunkport. 
>
>This is utterly silly, and has been quite thoroughly debunked.
>
This is obviously political sarcasm.

>>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.

Has Bush talked about these proposals at all?  I also don't know
whether he will actually pursue these proposals but its nice to hear
them being talked about by mainstream politicians.  If Bush supports
them, then they might actually have a chance.
>
>-----
>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


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)