Tom Kovach

Partisan politics hurt environmental efforts – Tom Kovach

Three opposing forces affect the implementation of an appropriate approach to environmental protection and preservation. These three forces can be generally categorized as: environmentalists, anti-regulatory interests and the government. Responsible government must provide a rational balance to the polar opposite perspectives of environmentalists and anti-regulatory forces – a balancing act that is exceedingly difficult given the political nature of government.

Government and elected officials are, of course, heavily influenced by the views of the two major political parties: one extreme insisting on the absolute need to protect the environment, and the other insisting on the absolute need to promote jobs and the economy. Stereotypically, Democrats support the need for strict government control and heavy regulation of industry. Equally stereotypically, Republicans support less government interference and more self-regulation by industry.

Unfortunately, debates about environmental issues tend to be dominated by those who shout the loudest – the stereotypical extremes in both parties. This creates a false narrative that the extremes can fight over for show: one that pits protecting the environment versus jobs and the economy. Rationally speaking, there should be no battle between the preservation of the environment and the creation (and preservation) of jobs. Despite propaganda from both sides, proper and appropriate environmental protection can and must be accomplished without interfering with job creation.

This vital task of preserving the environment while at the same time promoting jobs requires partisan elected officials – on both sides of the metaphorical aisle – to stand up to the most extreme, and irrational, voices within their own party. Candidly, it requires action that neither extreme is likely to be happy with. Republicans must acknowledge and accept scientific evidence concerning the need for industry to be accountable for its environmental impact. Similarly, Democrats must reduce irrational fear-mongering based on anecdotal evidence and balance actual environmental impact with the societal benefits of prosperous employers.

 

Unintended and seriously harmful consequences result from elected officials acting without a rational and informed perspective.

For example, a bill was introduced from the floor of the Delaware State House (without an environmental committee hearing) at the end of the legislative session in June 2010. This Democrat-sponsored legislation attempted to expand the scope of Delaware’s “incinerator ban” by banning scrap or recycled biomass. This legislation was well-intended, but it was not well thought out. The bill would have prevented an alternative to landfilling biomass materials and killed a potential market for reclaiming such materials.

At its essence, the bill would have enlarged the burden on landfills (which are already overburdened) and increased the cost to dispose of such materials. Moreover, the bill would have stymied innovation that would allow the conversion of waste biomass into locally produced energy, creating permanent local jobs and eliminating thousands of pounds of pollutants from our airstream caused by older, out-of-state electric generating sites.

In this case, rationality prevailed. Serving as a Republican legislator at the time, I understood the unintended but harmful consequences and objected to this bill. Even with just my one dissenting vote, Collin O’Mara, the former secretary of the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, recognized that the legislation was not only unnecessary, but potentially harmful, and prevailed upon Gov. Markell to act rationally and veto the harmful legislation.

Also during my tenure as a Republican legislator, I defied Republican caucus leadership to rally Republican support for Gov. Markell’s 2010 recycling legislation. I did so because I put rationality above partisan politics and, looking past party lines, focused on the significant merits of the legislation that reduced and “sunset” the bottle tax; removed the significant burden of bottle collection for hundreds of small businesses; created a critical mass of recycled materials; provided a mechanism for voluntary recycling; and helped the environment. As a result of limited Republican support, the bill passed – a bill that simultaneously helped small businesses and preserved the environment.

There are real dangers to the environment and to our economy in continuing with an overly partisan approach to the environment. So, what can you do? Demand courage in the form of a rational and balanced approach to environmental protection from your elected officials. The environment and the economy are counting on it!

Tom Kovach serves as special counsel at the law firm of A.M. Saccullo Legal and as an adjunct professor at Wilmington University. He is the founder of the nonprofit Assist and Inspire Delaware, is the immediate past president of New Castle County Council, served one term as a state representative and was the 2012 Republican candidate for Congress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *