$21.95, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1994

Vice President Gore’s best-selling book Earth In the Balance is the most extensive examination of environmental issues by an American politician to date. In it, Mr. Gore examined the host of issues raised by "the environmental crisis," ranging from the political and scientific to the moral and spiritual elements. Well received by the national press, Earth in the Balance presented many politically popular ideas about the environment.

Unfortunately, relatively little critical attention was paid to it at the time, and the nation missed an ideal opportunity to examine the fundamental issues in environmental politics and policy today.

Environmental Gore is a much needed companion to Earth in the Balance; the two, together, reveal the true range of perspectives on these issues. This national dialogue has never been more needed. The 104th Congress and the White House are forced to seek compromise on a host of issues that have historically divided Democrats and Republicans. Environmental issues are certain to be among the most hotly debated; a successful and intelligent governing consensus would be a significant accomplishment. Unfortunately, compromise is unlikely unless the national understanding of these issues is raised to a higher level. Industry has made tremendous advancements in their commitment to environmental protection in recent years; environmentalists now must make similar advances in their understanding of the complexity of these issues.

American politics has become so bitterly polarized that it is tremendously difficult for people to see all sides of many multi-faceted and complex problems. Environmental issues typify this problem. Activists tend to portray these problems as being simple questions of greed and power. That portrayal resonates with many sympathetic voters, but does not advance the understanding necessary to make sophisticated policy. At this point, many of our remaining environmental problems persist because solutions are genuinely complex, and often there is considerable doubt as to the optimum course of action. What is certain, however, is that simplistic approaches are likely to either fail or, in many instances, compound the problem.

A genuinely honest and critical debate is our best hope for finding real solutions to these difficult issues. Unfortunately, Earth in the Balance is mostly a collection of politically appealing bits of conventional environmental wisdom, and rarely presents issues as being complex or open to varying interpretations. Earth in the Balance alone reveals a lot about how our environmental problems are popularly perceived, but not much about the true complexity of the issues involved. Read in conjunction with Environmental Gore, however, the reader may begin to see that there is much more to these issues than first meets the eye.

Environmental politics and policy involve extraordinarily complex questions of ecology, economics, and many facets of human behavior. Designing effective policies requires that we fully understand how all these elements interrelate. Naturally, there are substantially different approaches to these issues, depending in part on one’s political predisposition. While Vice President Gore is a firm believer in the ability of a central authority to dictate policies that will effectively eliminate environmental problems, the authors of Environmental Gore believe there are alternative approaches that rely on individuals to act in ways that government cannot. As John Baden and Gus diZerga write in the Introduction to Environmental Gore,

A corollary of this idea—when no single individual is fully responsible for the costs and benefits of their actions, mismanagement is encouraged—is also often overlooked by environmentalists. The single largest property owner and employer in the country is the government, and government subsidies for environmentally destructive practices are astronomical. Government is also far less accountable for its actions than any private business or individual; ironically, although this is the area that Vice President Gore has the most power to affect change, it receives scant attention in his work. Government, it seems is more interested in coercing others than it is in cleaning its own house.

As Professor James Huffman of Lewis and Clark College of Law observes in his chapter, "Comments on Earth in the Balance," Gore repeatedly refers to Love Canal and the Aral Sea. Both of these problems were principally the result of the irresponsible use of power by governments, yet Gore and many environmentalists see these as evidence of industrial greed.

Earth in the Balance is a classically political text, but not really an analysis of policy. Its aim is foremost to create converts to the cause of environmental protection; it is assumed that this is the equivalent of solving problems. As Professor Huffman writes, [Gore’s] proselytizing will no doubt increase the ranks of the soldiers in the war to save the planet. Unfortunately, the book contributes little to our understanding of the environmental risks we face, and even less to our comprehension of either causes or solutions." (p.3) This "war mentality" is one of the most significant philosophical differences between Vice President Gore and his critics. While Gore seeks to add converts to a cause, Environmental Gore strives to understand exceptionally difficult issues. Since popular support for the environment has been high for many years now, it seems plausible that political power may not be the only missing element in our common quest for environmental protection.

Because Earth in the Balance is a conglomeration of politically popular ideas, it exemplifies, in many ways, the philosophical inconsistencies and contradictions that exist within the environmental movement. Since environmentalists generally refrain from criticizing each other, despite whatever personal reservations they may have about specific questions (another example of the war mentality), these issues are rarely discussed, and hence not resolved. Gore is no exception to this rule. Earth in the Balance lumps together radical and moderate concepts of environmental reform and never pauses to consider the differences and the reasons to choose between them.

One important tension in environmental thought lies between reformers who seek to merely improve our current economic and political systems, and more radical critics who believe that our environmental problems are of such a severe nature that nothing short of the most sweeping, fundamental changes in both government and cultural values will suffice. This philosophy is succinctly expressed by the Earth First! slogan, "Back to the Pleistocene!" To those who subscribe to that axiom, environmental reforms which improve the existing structure of American industry and government may be considered counterproductive if they deflect attention from the real task of changing the cultural values which have shaped America today. The tension, therefore, between reformers and revolutionaries is dramatic, yet Mr. Gore borrows from both sides, seeking, as politicians tend to do, to please all his "constituents."

Environmental Gore examines these contradictions. As vice-president, Gore is obviously committed to reforms within the structure of the American political and economic system as we know it. And yet, he also professes to believe we are up against "nothing less than the current logic of world civilization," which has created the environmental crisis through its individualistic, greedy and wasteful values. How, one might wonder, can we hope to solve such fundamental problems with merely technical solutions? James Huffman considers these questions in his essay:

Professor John Lott, Jr. of the Wharton School’s Department of Public Policy and Management is similarly critical of Gore’s misconceived approach to "market-oriented" reforms:

Although the fourteen authors whose works comprise Environmental Gore presents a wide range of perspectives and criticisms, one theme surfaces in most of these essays: a belief that, given the opportunity, individuals will act to protect and improve environmental quality whenever possible. Environmental amenities are highly desired by society at large today, and therefore when individuals have the chance to preserve that quality and profit from that decision, they will do so. Although coercive governmental regulations are certainly appropriate in some instances, there are many examples of regulations that unnecessarily reduce individual incentives to preserve the environment. Without exception, the authors of Environmental Gore agree on one thing: whenever possible, policies should be designed to encourage voluntary cooperation among self-interested parties, rather than relying solely on the power of punitive threats.

Coercive government regulations are often based on a mistaken belief that bureaucrats know more about what’s good for people than they know themselves. More generally, Gore’s philosophy of environmental politics seems to rest on a belief that the political forum is a more complete representation of people’s will than the market. Gore’s critics believe that markets are more direct expressions of individual preferences. Professor Lott explains how many government policies derive from a "government knows best"attitude:

Setting aside the specific question of individual incentives, there is a larger question of process here. Gus diZerga, University of California, Berkeley professor with the Institute of Governmental Studies explores this idea in his chapter, "Sustainable Communities:"

Although Environmental Gore finds grounds for debate over a broad range of issues, none are more significant than these questions of process. American environmental policy has matured to the point where disagreements over ultimate goals are far less common than questions of the means and methods to achieve them.

Such questions of process and method may seem abstract when discussed in theoretical terms, but they have very real implications in many policy questions. Water policy is a good example of how different perspectives on a problem lead us to significantly different approaches to solving it. John Lott explains how Gore’s instinctively technocratic approach ignores a much simpler, economics-based analysis of the problem:

This is a classic example of how government policies can create problems and, rather than simply removing the source of the problem, attempt complex and ineffective remedies. Government subsides of farmer’s water consumption removes the usual incentive for conservation—the cost—and Gore thinks that the best solution lies in installing complex water conservation technologies. A far simpler solution, in this case, would cost much less and be more effective. It would, however, require greater political courage, since it would face stiff opposition from the farm lobby. Gore’s approach, while ineffective, would have the advantage of continuing popular subsidies, and spending government money on water conservation technology, thus pleasing both farmers and environmentalists.

Many of these questions of process and perspective are also evident in the debate over global warming. One finds here (as with many other issues) considerable disagreement over the basic facts of the situation. Often available evidence is inadequate to clearly answer our questions, and often the quality of the data we have is uncertain. Yet another characteristic of these issues is that Gore and his allies insist that there is no credible disagreement over them. To Gore’s critics, this contention is particularly galling.

Robert Balling, Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University believes that "the best available evidence argues strongly against any rapid and substantial changes to the planetary temperature." (p.109) As a professional who is considered an authority in his field, one might expect that his opinions would be treated with some respect, even by those who disagree with them. And yet, he explains.

This disrespect for one’s opponents is not unusual in politics, but more so in scientific controversies. Scientists use a critical review process as a means to arriving at a better understanding of the truth, while politicians use debate as a means to persuade people; the truth is incidental to that process. When scientific matters such as the question of global warming are brought into the political realm, the quest for truth is certain to be quickly lost. Politicians, it seems, cannot understand that atmospheric scientists who have differing concepts of atmospheric change could, in good faith, disagree. Professor Balling explains his conceptual differences:

These charges against Gore and the environmental movement are very serious, and some may wonder whether they are fully justified. Many of the contributors to Environmental Gore complain that scientific truths are frequently neglected by environmentalists whose primary concern is political persuasion. This "war mentality" is tremendously damaging to efforts to arrive at a mutual understanding of genuinely complex problems. Sadly, there is abundant evidence that many prominent environmentalists whole- heartedly embrace this philosophy. Teya Ryan, the senior producer of Turner television’s "Network Earth" and vice-president of the Society of Environmental Journalists expressed her approval of this notion of "advocacy journalism:"

Sam Thernstrom is an environmental studies fellow at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Mr. Thernstrom is a graduate of Harvard University and is co-author of the Institute’s Leading Index of Environmental Indicators.