Environmental groups like ours should need something more than words to
convince us that the Man at the Top is indeed what he says he is--but I
am sure that regardless of his environmental records in Little Rock, as
well as D.C., many environmentalists will be voting for him in November.
What happens to the environment if he is re-elected is anyone's
guess--he has made no statement about his future environmental policy.
As far as his oppoenent, Mr. Dole, I would only say that despite the
rehtoric, the Republicans are no more interested in polluting our water,
destroying our forests, or dirtying our air as are Democrats. As I
pointed out to Rick Best in one of the policy roundtables at the last
conference, with a single excepotion, every bill opposed by California
Against Waste were sponsored by Democrats--and the same is true at the
national level.
What would Bob Dole's environmental policy be--well, he has't said
anything specific, but I do take solace in the fact that the Republican
congress, headed in both houses by men from agricultural states, was the
first in 40 years to cut back subsidies to farmers. Anyone who argues
that logging and other virgin product processors have more money than Ag
is seriously underestimating the size, power, and organization of the
country's Agribusiness sector, which leads me to my final point. With
Dole's plan to cut government spending by an additional $700billion, can
an end to subsidies to the forest products industry be far behind?
Bill McGowan
Rincon Recycling
UCSB