Commentary : More Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Better : Environmentalism: The concept has gained acceptance, but the resulting bureaucracy has found more and better ways to mask inaction.

To be an environmentalist today takes less effort or conviction than it did 20 years ago. In the 1960s and ‘70s, those who ventured to publicly voice their opinions about preserving the environment were branded “tree-huggers” or “earth-firsters.” A person who wanted to protect natural surroundings instead of develop them encountered a certain derision.

Today, with sewage spills, deteriorating air quality and landfills that can no longer accommodate our waste, the environment is a matter of great importance and concern to San Diego.

Perhaps nowhere is environmentalism more evident here than in the politics of growth and development. The question of whether development is environmentally sensitive is a pivotal consideration in the determination as to how and where growth will occur.

Indeed, it would be difficult today to find a San Diegan who would claim not to be an environmentalist.

But the increased popularity of environmentalism has not necessarily meant better environmental policies.

In 1963, the word “environmentalist” did not appear in Webster’s dictionary. “Environment,” however, was listed and defined as the “complex of climatic, edaphic (relating to soil), and biotic factors that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival.”

By the mid-1980s, “environmentalist” appeared in the dictionary as “a person who seeks to protect the natural environment.” But “environment” was defined simply as “surroundings.” No mention of “organic” or any relation to “ecology,” and certainly nothing about survival.

One could conclude that in those 20 years our concept of the environment was simplified while the number of people concerned about that concept increased. At least enough of a numerical increase to justify a mention in the dictionary. Or to put it a little less subtly, more and more of us became concerned about less and less.

Today many people consider themselves environmentalists if they have paid their annual dues to an appropriate environmental organization.

In 1972, President Nixon could be said to have made the entire federal government “environmentalists” when he established the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. With the passage of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and a few other pieces of federal legislation, the members of Congress also became environmentalists. In his 1988 presidential campaign, George Bush surprised the Democrats by declaring himself an environmentalist. And a Gallup poll recently found that 76% of all Americans now consider themselves environmentalists as well.

Who are these people and what are they doing to claim the label “environmentalist?” Does voting in favor of certain legislation make our elected officials environmentalists? Certainly the politicians argue that it does.

What does that label mean in the complexities of politics today? When George Bush claims to be an environmentalist but his Administration attempts to block a worldwide conference on air pollution, has the label become meaningless?

In today’s political vernacular “environmentalism” has evolved into a simplified administrative concept. Ecology and survival have not only disappeared from the definition in the dictionary, but from the political reality of environmentalism as well. In their place, administrative criteria have been substituted.

Today, if a government form is completed correctly, you have done your environmental duty. As long as a business meets the government- mandated level of compliance, it is being environmentally sensitive. It does not matter that those mandated levels are wholly inadequate or that for certain hazardous substances, no standards have been set.

And what happens if a business does not fill out the appropriate government form? It is fined. The EPA calls it a “consent decree.” The California Water Resources Control Board issues a “clean-up and abatement order.” These enforcement tools do three things: They publicly slap the company on the hand, they require the company to pay the government a certain amount of money, and they usually request the company to clean up its mess.

This method of administrative environmentalism stops the gas station down the street from pouring used oil in the sewer; it often even puts them out of business. But for Exxon or Union Carbide, they simply pay the fine, relocate the contaminant, and hire a public relations firm to clean up their image (not the mess). It is the new cost of doing business in the world of administrative environmentalism.

Or take, for example, clean air. There was concern last year because many U.S. communities, including San Diego, recorded dramatic increases in the number of times the air quality failed to meet federal standards. Instead of working on reducing the number of days where communities are out of compliance, the EPA created an administrative category of “non-attainment” areas. In these areas, being out of compliance with clean-air regulations for 20 or 30 days is now acceptable. By changing the administrative classification, these areas can now meet the (reduced) standards if their air is unhealthy 20 or 30 days a year.

Administrative environmentalism runs rampant in the area of toxic materials. Scientists working for the state of California recently recommended a ban on a widely used pesticide because they found it highly toxic. The state Department of Food and Agriculture decided that a ban would harm farmers’ economic interests, so they created a regulation to allow them to use it only during certain times of year and at a reduced level.

After all, EPA Administrator William Reilly stated recently that the government needs risk standards that are “flexible.” And Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter added that such standards could not be strengthened because they must be “uniform.” So what administrative environmentalism calls for are regulations that are uniform and flexible at the same time.

This brand of “environmentalism” seems to have placated the concerns of the new “environmentalists.” And politicians are learning that “environmentalism” is a necessary buzzword to be elected.

But administrative environmentalism masks inaction with rhetoric. And for the past 20 years, as people have called for the restoration of the environment, the politicians and bureaucrats have, through administrative environmentalism, allowed its degradation.

The time has come for everyone to end this environmental charade, or in the next 20 years, there will be plenty of excuses but little environment left to protect.