Candidates Make Silent Springs Seem Garrulous

Since roughly January, unless you’ve been trapped at the bottom of the sea in a mid-ocean ridge somewhere, spent no less than all of your time out in the backcountry or have failed to leave Bicentennial Hall (entirely possible), you’ve hopefully figured out that the number by which we refer to this year is divisible by four. But more importantly there’s one of those election things coming up — the general election. And you know what that means: time for roadside signs to start multiplying like invasive species. On a more serious note, we vote for local, state and Congressional offices, along with that other one, the office of the president. Granted that the first two digits of 2012 are 2 and 0, respectively, and not, say, 1 and 4, or 0 and 8, or even 1 and 9, the environment should be a hot issue. But for some reason, even though we’re in the midst of a 21st century election, it isn’t.

During this election, oddly enough, the most surprising thing about either candidate’s position on the environment is that we haven’t really heard much about it. Four years ago, President of the United States Barack Obama told us he’d heal the planet. Governor Mitt Romney made a joke or two about those comments at the Republican National Convention, and mentions now and then that as soon as he steps into office, he’ll do away with the Environmental Protection Agency. Though there were some allusions made by the President during his speech at the Democratic National Committee to the seriousness of climate change and a plan to reduce carbon pollution, there’s been little talk of either since. The fact of the matter is that neither candidate has outlined a concrete plan for how he will tackle the issues facing our country.

Unfortunately, the environment right now is a non-issue. Yet things like energy independence, natural gas and drilling for oil are. Some people (myself included) would argue that these topics are, to the contrary, some of the most important issues in the environmental dialogue today, though they haven’t been perceived that way by the public. Both candidates, if elected, will probably approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, and most people couldn’t care less about where our oil comes from or how much of it is left in the ground, so long as it’s cheap. Actually arguing publicly that oil prices now are far below market value and that maybe we should be using less petroleum after all would be nothing short of political suicide. So why aren’t presidential debates flooded with questions about managing the national parks and wilderness areas, creating a sustainable energy future or cap and trade programs for carbon emissions? A look at why the country hasn’t made any significant environmental developments in the last 20 years may shed some light on the topic and requires going beyond presidential politics.

Annual studies conducted by the League of Conservation Voters for the last 30 years have tracked voting records in the House and Senate on environmental issues and illustrate just how deep into gridlock we are. Over almost four decades, statistics have shown that both parties have become even more polarized in either direction, with bipartisan support on environmental issues becoming less and less common. The environmental legislation passed in the latter half of the previous century was largely the product of bipartisan cooperation. So, where did it go? Other studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans like the environment and would be reasonably bitter if something awful happened to it. The sad truth is that these attitudes often fail to materialize as points of action and usually play second fiddle to hotter topics like job creation, tax policy and national security.

I’m not trying to downplay any of those aforementioned issues, but that environmental topics have gotten so little significant attention from either candidate is downright silly. Further, the New York Times has fact-checked Romney’s claim of cutting back the environmental regulatory structure in place and concluded that doing so is a pipe-dream at best. If there’s one thing that should ignite political interest in voters about the environment, it is that nature is a shared commodity. I’d hate to think that the only way for it to become salient as an issue is some kind of catastrophe, but the trends displayed don’t prove promising. To say that I’m less than enthused about the candidates’ showing on the issue would be an understatement. But, if there’s any way of making our own opinions heard, it’s out at the polls on Election Day.