Sen. James Inhofe is at it again. In the Feb. 2005 issue of
Scientific American (
Available online if you pay) he writes a letter to the editor taking the magazine to task over their discussion of the Clear Skies Initiative. He cites numbers, etc, and is rebuffed by the editors (they run more numbers).
My point is not that Inhofe is wrong (he is). Rather, why did he write a letter to the editors of
Scientific American citing partial truths regarding the Clear Skies Initiative? The senator is the chairman of the senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He knows (or should) his numbers are wrong. I can see two things at work here:
1) BushCo propaganda. His statements reassure the casual reader that there is debate regarding these issues, and reassures that it is ok to trust the government. After all, the SCLM is trying to knock BushCo wherever it can. Right?
2) A short timescale of interest. The whole Clear Skies issue is centered on allowing obsolete technology to continue to pollute the atmosphere. The argument is economic: "It will cost too much to do the Clean Air Act. Let us rewrite it so that the US economy remains strong." Hogwash. This does not address the long term economic issues nor does it address the other (health and environmental) costs to our society.
How do we combat this? We need to take the issue to the people. How about invoking the Montana Miracle? I am drawn specifically to point 4 of Schweitzer's strategy"
He appealed to environmental sensibilities of hunters and fishermen.
In my home state, the fishing regs say I should eat no more than 1 fish per week that I catch in any freshwater lake due to atmospheric pollution from heavy metals (think mercury) from local and exotic sources. There are no pristine lakes or rivers here. We need to use this fact to promote environmental preservation
Embracing the hunting and fishing lobby feels like a betrayal for this environmentalist. But I think it is essential to making further headway on the issue. Many in this country look at hunting and fishing as a birthright. If we frame the environmental debate in these terms, we might also get more support for our entire agenda.