‘Green’ Issue Fades Out in Senate Races

It was a hot smoggy day in South Los Angeles, and an exhausted Dianne Feinstein weaved through a maze of supporters toward the air-conditioned comfort of a waiting car. There were handshakes along the way, shouts of approval and an impromptu discussion about the sorry state of the economy.

Its seems everywhere the four U.S. Senate candidates in California go these days, people want to talk about jobs, taxes, the budget deficit, inflation--anything and everything about the economy. Then a middle-aged man in a baseball cap unexpectedly lurched forward.

“Don’t give up on the desert protection bill!” he exhorted, referring to federal legislation that would safeguard vast tracts of Southern California’s desert. “We really need it.”

Feinstein’s eyes widened with surprise. “I won’t,” she promised. “You’re right. It is important.”

In eco-centric California, where environmental causes have shaped the political landscape since John Muir popularized the Yosemite Valley more than a century ago, it comes as an odd twist of recession-year fate that queries about Mother Earth are the exception on the campaign trail.

With less than a month before Election Day, the environment has been a backwater issue in the races for California’s two Senate seats, even though few issues better illustrate the differences--and similarities--among the candidates.

For example:

* In the race to succeed retiring Sen. Alan Cranston, the environmental platforms of Republican Bruce Herschensohn and Democrat Barbara Boxer vividly demonstrate the dramatic conservative vs. liberal clash that has dominated the contest.

Herschensohn, a former television commentator, and Boxer, a congresswoman from Marin County, agree on virtually nothing when it comes to the environment. Boxer has been hailed by environmental groups as a “consistent leader” on issues important to them, while Herschensohn has been branded as “openly hostile.”

Boxer favors the Endangered Species Act as written; Herschensohn has dismissed it as a “national scandal,” saying it sacrifices jobs for the sake of obscure “subspecies of subspecies.” Boxer supports the most far-reaching version of desert protection legislation; Herschensohn opposes any version, citing potential job losses. Boxer has sponsored legislation to ban all oil drilling off the California coast; Herschensohn favors increased drilling.

On water issues, Boxer says she supports a controversial Democratic bill that, among other things, would require the secretary of the Interior to double depleted fish populations in the Central Valley; Herschensohn has labeled the bill “anti-farmer” and has pledged to fight it.

In recent interviews, both candidates described themselves as environmentalists, albeit with widely varying definitions of the term. Herschensohn accused Boxer of being a captive of “anti-capitalist environmental leaders,” while Boxer scoffed: “For Bruce Herschensohn to call himself an environmentalist is like for me to call myself the world champion pole vaulter.”

* In the contest to complete the final two years of Gov. Pete Wilson’s term in the Senate, the environmental positions of Feinstein and Sen. John Seymour, the Republican appointed by Wilson, also reflect the dynamics of the contest. Although Feinstein is the clear favorite among environmentalists, their positions underscore the centrist nature of the two candidacies.

Feinstein and Seymour support opposing versions of several important environmental bills, including efforts to protect the desert, reform California’s water policy and improve automobile fuel efficiency. In general, Feinstein has endorsed legislation favored by environmental groups, while Seymour has sided with business.

But on other key issues to environmentalists the two candidates are not far apart. Both say the Endangered Species Act needs to strike a better balance between economic needs and preservation goals (a stance opposed by environmental groups); both oppose offshore oil drilling in California (although Seymour is only a recent convert), and both are against the construction of nuclear power plants. As senator, Seymour backed the largest proposed boundaries for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and helped set aside 400,000 acres of wilderness in the Los Padres National Forest, actions supported by Feinstein.

Feinstein has been endorsed by the state’s most prominent environmental organizations, having ingratiated herself to them in 1990 when she supported the unsuccessful “Big Green” ballot initiative during her failed bid for governor. Seymour opposed the measure. But some still regard Feinstein as a lukewarm ally.

“This isn’t to say we are in 100% agreement,” said an official from one endorsing group, “but we at least feel we have someone who is sensitive to the issues.”

Although environmental concerns have not galvanized the two Senate races, they remain of key interest to environmental groups. Several prominent organizations, including the California League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, have mounted voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts targeted at “environmentally conscious” Republicans and independents who they believe will vote Democratic in the Senate races. Both organizations have endorsed Feinstein and Boxer.

David Allgood, regional director of the League of Conservation Voters, said the “negligible discussion” of environmental issues on the campaign trail has made it more important for his organization to spread the news about its endorsements. The Republican campaigns have dismissed the endorsements as partisan politics, saying environmental organizations historically back Democrats.

“We would certainly like to see the environment discussed more, but on the other hand, we are very well aware of the political reality,” Allgood said. “Obviously the reality is the economy.”

Formal and informal surveys statewide have reached the same conclusion. Only 8% of respondents in a Los Angeles Times poll last month mentioned the environment when asked to identify two issues they would like addressed in the Senate campaigns. The top response was the economy, followed by education, unemployment, the budget deficit and health care. Poll Director John Brennan characterized the environment as a “second tier” issue in the Senate races.

Significantly, the environment was almost equally irrelevant to those who are suffering from the economic downturn and those who said they are not, according to the poll. Eleven percent of voters better off financially today than four years ago cited the environment as an issue, while 9% of voters who are worse off also mentioned it.

Bob Hattoy, staff director of the Southern California office of the Sierra Club, said the lack of interest may be attributed partially to voter familiarity with the candidates’ views on the environment. A recent statewide survey, he said, showed that 81% of California residents consider themselves environmentalists.

“I think most voters understand that Feinstein and Boxer are good on the environment, and that Seymour and Herschensohn are bad,” Hattoy said. With both Democrats well ahead of their opponents in the polls, the differences among their environmental credentials have waned in importance, he said.

Republican consultant Ronald Smith blamed the low-key debate in part on the lack of a statewide ballot measure dealing with the environment. In previous election years, the “Big Green” initiative and Proposition 65, the toxics disclosure measure, focused attention on environmental issues and forced candidates to justify their views, he said.

“The public just isn’t thinking ‘environment’ this year,” said Smith, who ran Rep. Tom Campbell’s unsuccessful primary campaign against Herschensohn.

In campaign appearances statewide, the four candidates have clued in to the prevailing sentiment. Although the environment comes up in speeches, it is only rarely the centerpiece of a campaign stop.

A favorite Feinstein stump speech that focuses on the economy and abortion ends with her expounding on a dream for clean air and clean water. Herschensohn said he tries to include a reference to the environment “in almost every speech.” In a recent tour of the Central Valley, he was certain to tell farmers about his opposition to the Endangered Species Act, a popular stance in agribusiness circles.

Given the public mood, it should come as no surprise that the most substantive exchanges over the environment have related to the economy. Feinstein and Boxer, mirroring the Democratic Party approach nationwide, have argued that programs to clean up the environment stimulate economic development by creating jobs, encouraging innovation and providing safer and cleaner workplaces.

“If you can’t breathe, you can’t work,” Boxer said. “The economy and the environment are intertwined. All you have to do is look at Eastern Europe when the (Iron Curtain) came down. You could hardly see the cities for the pollution.”

Herschensohn and Seymour, also towing the party line to varying degrees, have insisted that “environmental extremism” has made it increasingly difficult for companies to do business in California. They blame burdensome federal and state regulations and promise to strike a balance between the economy and the environment.

In one of his favorite anecdotes about government overkill, Herschensohn tells a story about Alexander Graham Bell, claiming that the United States would be a “third-rate Third World nation” if Bell had invented the telephone today. The effort, he said, would be stymied by “environmental and regulatory leaders” bent on blocking innovation and progress.

“After inventing the telephone, what he wants to do is cut down millions and millions of trees, and out of those dead trees, put these poles, as they would be called, all over the landscape of the United States, the deserts, the plains, the valleys, the mountains,” Herschensohn said. “Then between the poles, he’s going to put wires; the wires, if a bird lands in the wrong place, it’s going to get electrocuted.

“This guy wouldn’t have got to first base.”