Clinton Council Targets Environment, Economy

Depending on one’s point of view, President Clinton’s new Council on Sustainable Development convened in Seattle on Thursday either to lead America toward a future in which jobs and nature both flourish, or to indulge in a political fairy tale and distract the nation from its implacable economic and environmental demands.

Composed of five members of Clinton’s Cabinet and leading industrial and environmentalist figures, the council will seek practical ways to shape America in Clinton’s vision--satisfying the needs of today’s generation without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own.

Someday the council may recommend sweeping legislation and regulatory reform. On Thursday, it took a first step, unveiling a set of nine principles to guide its work.

The draft statement, written by a task force of some of the more environmental-minded of the council’s 27 members, struck a tone that is sure to generate debate, if not results.

Perhaps its boldest call was seeking an end to poverty as an essential component to economic and environmental well-being.

But others were just as far-reaching: redesigning the free-market system to factor into goods the environmental costs of their production. And altering the burden of proof in economic decision-making so that potential environmental dangers are given weight “even in the face of scientific uncertainty.”

The council draft also proposed adding environmental quality as an essential component to national security, along with military defense and economic prosperity.

Vice President Al Gore urged the council via satellite hookup to “be bold . . . be practical” in trying to formulate policies that are cleaner for the environment and cheaper for industry.

Optimists might be pleased to hear Nature Conservancy President John Sawhill speaking about environmentally friendly “development” or Dow Vice President David T. Buzzelli adding up the favorable investment returns for eliminating pollution rather than just trying to control it.

But pessimists, including some council members, worried that even a bold start by the council fell far short of the challenge facing America and the world. National Wildlife Federation President Jay D. Hair noted that the council had not yet shown any willingness to tackle energy conservation policy or global population stabilization “without which we have nothing.”