In the last month, the country has gone to war. If Kuwait were not an ally sitting atop one of the world’s largest oil fields, one can only wonder how quickly the United States would have rushed to its defense. As quickly as, say, it has helped Cyprus? Lithuania? the Chinese democracy movement?
Whatever one thinks of the Middle East strife, it underscores the costs — in environmental damage, economic loss, and, not least, human suffering — that result from this country’s failure to develop a far-sighted energy policy. Lectures on this point are bootless. More constructive are suggestions for actions that this state can take on its own, and we attempt to provide several in our cover story of this edition of Environment Hawai`i.
More generally, we would urge the Legislature to give extra weight this year to the energy factor as it attempts to balance pros and cons of the many hundreds of bills it will consider. Will a given bill discourage consumption of fossil fuels? Will it promote energy efficiency? Will it encourage the installation and use of tried-and-true alternatives to energy derived from the burning of fossil fuels?
Hold the Fort
The need to move forward on the environmental front is urgent. Nonetheless, it now appears as though this will not be a year of great things for Hawai`i’s environment. Just to avoid setbacks will require uncommon diligence.
Much of the blame for the lack of achievement that we anticipate will almost certainly be placed at the doorstep of the Middle East war. That’s a convenient scapegoat, although not always will it be justified. While money may be tighter this year than in years past, many environmental initiatives do not require money so much as political will. Despite the hoopla attending Earth Day 1990, however, legislators’ courage to do right by the environment does not easily stay glued to the sticking place. This is especially true when the environment is pitted (rightly or wrongly) against the economic interests of business.
In fact, many environmental proposals not only would cost nothing, but would actually generate revenue. A prime example is an increase in the state gasoline tax (although the increased revenue would be earmarked for repair of highways and bridges).
An example of a revenue-neutral measure is the bill to brick up a loophole in the law on Conservation Districts by banning any use other than one that is permitted, temporary, or non-conforming. This would bring to a halt many of the abuses that go on in Conservation District lands under the “conditional use” label. Although costs to the state would be non-existent, costs to developers (in terms of lost income potential) will probably be enough to sink this measure.
One of the most far-reaching environmental measures is the one to allow land use planning by initiative. Again, it is not cost to the government that stands in the way of its passage but the cost — in lost opportunities — it would represent to developers and those who work for them (most especially the construction trades).
At the Very Least
Some measures simply must be passed. The state cannot wait another year before getting around to dealing with solid waste in a systematic, environmentally and economically sound manner. With a few fixes, the administration’s solid waste bill should be — must be — enacted.
Also, we cannot overstate the urgency of the need to get management of the state’s energy needs out from under the thumb of the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. DBED’s lack of imagination, foresight, and respect for taxpayer’s pain (to say nothing of its environmental insensitivity) has been abundantly demonstrated. While the welcome appointment of Murray Towill as DBED’s new director may herald better management for DBED, it does not alleviate the conflict of interest that occurs when the energy portfolio is placed in a cabinet where business development is the primary concern. A bill has been introduced that would establish an energy commission and place it, for administrative purposes, under the Department of Land and Natural Resources. As a first step toward giving energy the respect it deserves, this is a sound measure.
If the session ends with nothing accomplished in these two areas, consider it an environmental bust.
Not on the Menu
Two years ago, the Legislature asked the Environmental Center at the University of Hawai`i to review the law on environmental impact statements (Chapter 343) and to suggest revisions if the center deemed them desirable. Thanks to Marvin Miura, late of the Office of Environmental Quality Control, the center did not get funds to begin the review until just a few months ago. Thus, despite the recognized need for changes to Chapter 343, the Legislature will almost certainly wait until next year to take up this matter.
Still, Senator Andrew Levin has introduced a bill that merits serious consideration this year. It would have EIS consultants for private developments chosen by a majority vote of the reviewing agency, the developer, and the Environmental Council. Under this system (at least in theory), consultants would not be as bound as they now are to do the bidding of developers in preparing an EIS. In practice, it might open the door to political cronyism, with certain favorite consultants getting all the contracts. (Miura’s office set a poor example.) With adequate safeguards, it may be possible to avoid this outcome.
An Environmental Portfolio?
Several bills call for establishing a new Department of Environmental Protection or Department of the Environment. In nearly all cases, the new bureau would house the environmental branch of the Department of Health, the Office of Environmental Quality Control, and the pesticide enforcement programs now part of the Department of Agriculture.
The sentiment is fine, but beefed-up environmental protection will require more than the huddling of underfunded existing agencies under a new roof. If the Legislature must choose between using available funds to bolster current environmental protection programs or using them to set up a new department, we would urge it to opt for the former course.
Changing of the Guard
The leadership struggle in the House of Representatives resulted in some changes, although it is too early to say how meaningful they will be. If the outcome is a more open decision-making process, that can only be applauded. The restructuring of House committees, new committee chairs in both the House and the Senate, and new faces (especially in the House) may bode well for the environment.
However, the gains, if any, are modest. The challenge is immense. Merely to protect the status quo will require meeting every environmental assault with an offensive of at least equal force. While legislators hold the key, it is not theirs alone to turn. They need to see that environmentalists are every bit as concerned and committed to passage of strong measures as opponents are committed to their defeat.
Volume 1, Number 8 February 1991
Leave a Reply