Flashing Yellow on Issues Green? : No, don’t misread the defeat of Proposition 128

The demise of Proposition 128, better known as “Big Green,” was a humbling event for most environmental activists. But it was hardly humiliating. Protecting the environment has a broader political base than ever. It was not the “Green” on the ballot that turned voters away; it was the “Big.”

Californians, who turned 128 down by a 2-1 margin, were not saying that they care nothing about their state’s splendid coastal waters, beaches and headlands, only that this month of this year they care more about the fragile economy, the Persian Gulf and the shadow these issues casts on their future.

Gov.-elect Pete Wilson can demonstrate that he understands what happened by setting two environmental tasks for the Legislature even before he takes office.

--One, creating a state-level Environmental Protection Agency to enforce laws, monitor pollution of air, land and sea and propose stricter laws when monitoring shows environmental defenses are weak.

--Two, enacting a program to rescue stands of ancient redwoods from the logger’s saw that would have been saved under Proposition 130, the “Forests Forever” proposal that narrowly failed Tuesday.

Without swift action from Wilson, the political environment will likely force issues onto future ballots. Solutions can and should be worked out in Sacramento.

Most spokesmen for environmental organizations recognized the reasons behind the Big Green debacle. Already they are discussing more focused environmental initiatives for the ballot if politicians do not deal with threats to health and quality of life that still are not covered by law. The sooner California business and government leaders realize that it was Big Green that fell-- not concerns among voters about the environment--the better off they and the state will be.

Unfortunately, too many spokesmen for business were busy taking bows that same morning for beating Big Green to death with anywhere between $12 million and $15 million worth of bigger green. One even hinted that business now knows how to turn back environmental proposals that it considers unreasonable.

They may have missed an important bit of arithmetic that environmentalists saw clearly: The industry-sponsored antidotes to parts of Big Green and Proposition 130 were defeated by wider margins than either of the sincere environmental proposals.

For now, fortunately, there are some protections: Existing law protects against scattering pesticides and other toxic chemicals willy-nilly through California’s farms and markets, although the law must be aggressively enforced and toxics thoroughly monitored.

Reductions in carbon dioxide likely to be achieved under both the new U.S. Clean Air Act and California’s air quality programs will help reduce global warming.

But the ancient forests must be shielded now or lost forever. And California needs an agency to set off alarms and rally Sacramento to action when any element of the environment gets in trouble. For these, Californians must not be asked to wait.