MADISON - The recent Legislative Lobby Day sponsored by the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters brought a large crowd of conservation-minded people to the state Capitol in Madison last week.
I went as a representative of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, hoping to delve as deeply into state level politics as is possible for an outsider. Here are a few observations about the League of Conservation Voters specifically and the environmental movement in general.
First, one must question the assertion that the League is a non-partisan organization as it claims - repeatedly and with great emphasis.
To the delight of the crowd, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton mocked Republicans, mirroring the League's conclusions that Republicans are generally anti-environment. As Anne Sayers, League program director, declared: "We have to get rid of the bad guys."
Regardless of how environmentally conscious Republicans might be, they can't catch a break from the League. A case in point is Senator Dale Schultz's strong record on environmental issues, somehow overlooked by the League.
Schultz was one of the first to promote funding of the Stewardship Fund at the full $105 million level supported by the League. In its Citizen Guide to the Legislature, however, Schultz gets no credit for his position, a political reality that comes as no surprise to him.
"Most of these people have never planted a tree in their lives, but they take a partisan position on the environment without having any idea what they're talking about," he said.
Schultz recognizes the need to wean the country off the fossil fuels that make us dependent on foreign countries that use our money to subvert U.S. sovereignty. But, like many other Republicans, he wants to look at the facts before embracing the goal of reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
To the contrary, we were advised during our morning session on effective lobbying to focus on "your values" regarding environmental protection. Someone else, they claimed, can work out the "details." Schultz's response: "Not only am I passionate about the environment, but I'm also passionate about pragmatism."
Environmental activists have their own set of internecine problems to reconcile as the proposed solutions offered by the various groups often conflict.
Some object to the use of nuclear power, such that, like oil refineries, we have experienced a 30-year hiatus in the building of new nuclear power plants in Wisconsin.
Both options run headlong into a complex set of government regulations that consume valuable resources. Once surmounted, operators still face interminable, and thus far insurmountable, legal actions taken by environmental groups to block new construction.
According to the Alliance "corn is one of the worst crops for rivers; it's water and fertilizer-intensive to grow (and a) a major contributor to erosion of soil and chemicals into waterways."
While everyone agrees carbon emissions are a problem, no one offers relevant data on the potential impact on the economy. Co-presidential candidate Bill Clinton asserts, however, that we may have to lower our economic expectations to accommodate attempts to reverse global warming.
Others might argue that the economy is at least as fragile as the environment and that our legislators should pay attention to both. The ready, fire, aim approach to solving our environmental problems begs refinement.
Not to be denied, however, some activists tell us we must solve this problem within ten years, an indication they may have been sniffing too much ethanol and must sober up.
I went as a representative of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, hoping to delve as deeply into state level politics as is possible for an outsider. Here are a few observations about the League of Conservation Voters specifically and the environmental movement in general.
First, one must question the assertion that the League is a non-partisan organization as it claims - repeatedly and with great emphasis.
To the delight of the crowd, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton mocked Republicans, mirroring the League's conclusions that Republicans are generally anti-environment. As Anne Sayers, League program director, declared: "We have to get rid of the bad guys."
Regardless of how environmentally conscious Republicans might be, they can't catch a break from the League. A case in point is Senator Dale Schultz's strong record on environmental issues, somehow overlooked by the League.
Schultz was one of the first to promote funding of the Stewardship Fund at the full $105 million level supported by the League. In its Citizen Guide to the Legislature, however, Schultz gets no credit for his position, a political reality that comes as no surprise to him.
"Most of these people have never planted a tree in their lives, but they take a partisan position on the environment without having any idea what they're talking about," he said.
Schultz recognizes the need to wean the country off the fossil fuels that make us dependent on foreign countries that use our money to subvert U.S. sovereignty. But, like many other Republicans, he wants to look at the facts before embracing the goal of reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
To the contrary, we were advised during our morning session on effective lobbying to focus on "your values" regarding environmental protection. Someone else, they claimed, can work out the "details." Schultz's response: "Not only am I passionate about the environment, but I'm also passionate about pragmatism."
Environmental activists have their own set of internecine problems to reconcile as the proposed solutions offered by the various groups often conflict.
Some object to the use of nuclear power, such that, like oil refineries, we have experienced a 30-year hiatus in the building of new nuclear power plants in Wisconsin.
Both options run headlong into a complex set of government regulations that consume valuable resources. Once surmounted, operators still face interminable, and thus far insurmountable, legal actions taken by environmental groups to block new construction.
According to the Alliance "corn is one of the worst crops for rivers; it's water and fertilizer-intensive to grow (and a) a major contributor to erosion of soil and chemicals into waterways."
While everyone agrees carbon emissions are a problem, no one offers relevant data on the potential impact on the economy. Co-presidential candidate Bill Clinton asserts, however, that we may have to lower our economic expectations to accommodate attempts to reverse global warming.
Others might argue that the economy is at least as fragile as the environment and that our legislators should pay attention to both. The ready, fire, aim approach to solving our environmental problems begs refinement.
Not to be denied, however, some activists tell us we must solve this problem within ten years, an indication they may have been sniffing too much ethanol and must sober up.
