Few people are wise enough to predict future events. When it happens, the rest of us should take note. For example , during an interview for the spring 1997 Chattooga Quarterly, Dr. Eugene Odum1 predicted, “I’m sure that by the next presidential election, the environment will become a major issue. My father was a sociologist, and he used to claim that it’s in human nature to wait until things get really bad before there’s a great rush to try and correct it.” The implications of Dr. Odum’s prediction are clear; he was emphasizing the imminent threat of environmental disasters in the context of the next presidential election cycle, where the debate would reach such a high level of intensity that citizens and candidates would address these issues.

Was Dr. Odum right? Did the election encompass meaningful debate about the environment, and what positions were taken? Consider three issues that were at the forefront of the presidential debates:

Artic National Wildlife Refuge Bush believes we need to open the Refuge to oil and natural gas extraction, to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. Gore favored not drilling, endorsing alternative energy development. Nader emphasized cutting consumption, and alternatives.

Protection for old growth forest and roadless areas Bush favors rolling back protection policies, and placing decisions on these issues in the hands of local collaborative forest planning. Gore defended protection policies at the national level. Nader supported ending most commercial extraction activities on public lands.

Campaign finance reform This issue, championed by McCain, Gore and Nader, is germane to the environment because so much money is poured into campaign coffers by industry polluters. To date, Bush is listening to McCain but is still on record as opposing the McCain-Fiengold Bill.

So yes, the environment was one of the major issues. George W. Bush is now President, and his environmental agenda contributed in part to his election. Now President Bush is laying the groundwork for carrying through on his stated intent during the debates. He appointed three top level cabinet heads (Gale Norton at the Department of the Interior, John Ashcroft as Attorney General and Spencer Abraham to head the Department of Energy) who believe in softening federal checks over polluting industries, and favor instead a locally based, collaborative approach to problem solving. In addition, they all subscribe to an interpretation of the United States Constitution that leans toward polluters of the environment.

If President Bush carries through on his agenda with the assistance of his new cabinet, he will not only fail to help protect our environment, he will surely help push us closer to the brink of environmental disaster. Take, for instance, the issue of gas and oil extraction in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. President Bush, an oil man elected by oil dollars, flanked by Gale Norton, career defender of industry and John Ashcroft (please see League of Conservation Voters Report), the most powerful law enforcement officer in the nation, may soon enter the Refuge to supply the US with about 6 months of oil and gas at the expense of seriously degrading the last, vast intact ecosystem in North America.

Concerning our national forest’s roadless areas and old growth, expect President Bush to try rolling back protection for these resources, while exploiting any loophole to log, mine, graze or otherwise make a nickel for his industry backers on public lands. He may do this by neutralizing recent federal policy initiatives in favor of local decision-making. Again, wisdom from Dr. Odum: “there must be enforceable high federal standards for air and water quality and land use that apply nationwide…otherwise, states and industries will be tempted to lower standards and increase pollution for temporary gain to the detriment of public health and long term economic well being” (winter 1995 Chattooga Quarterly).

These public land issues are harbingers of policies that could be equally as destructive on private lands. Big industries such as chip mills in the South, power companies, the chemical industry and the petroleum industry are poised to take advantage of incentives to plunder.

It was all a bit distorted in November with campaign rhetoric, but today the reality of a looming recession, more hard evidence of global warming, rolling blackouts in California, and water wars on the Chattahoochee give heed to a wise man’s warnings. All can see the dirty air and the heat lightning over Atlanta, spawned by a human-made climate. They see once pristine rivers now fouled, yet so precious from short supply that we battle for legal rights to the water—soaking it up before it can get to the sea.

One of the problems with pending disaster is that it strikes without warning. Up until now, ecological degradation was happening so slow that we accepted it in increments that spanned generations. Now, the pace has quickened. There are young people who remember cleaner air and water. So the jury is in; we have serious problems and the average citizen knows this. The ultimate question is, what will we do about it? We know what the current administration wants to do. What about the rest of us? Is the gravity of our threatened life support systems clear enough yet to spur us to action? My prediction: By the next presidential election, environmental issues will be even bigger. Meanwhile, we encourage you to join us and the growing number of citizens who are acting to protect our environmental capital.

1 Dr. Eugene Odum is Professor and Director Emeritus of the University of Georgia’s Institute of Ecology, and author of the first textbook ever written on the science of Ecology

Back to the Top