Conserving Conservation

Conserving Conservation
By W. David Lockard

Dr. W. David Lockard is Senior Fund Raising Consultant with Church Growth Ministries in Nashville, Tennessee. Previously he was Associate with the Christian Life Commission, SBC; and before that he served for 29 years with the Foreign Mission Board, SBC first as a seminary president in Zimbabwe and then as Director of Missionary Training. He is a graduate of Baylor University and of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary where he earned the Doctor of Theology degree with a major in Christian Ethics, studying with Dr. T.B Maston. He is the author of The Unheard Billy Graham published by WORD and dealing with the ethical dimensions of Graham’s ministry. He and his wife, Susi, have two grown children and eight grandchildren.

Although human beings, including Christian human beings, ..have difficulty in setting priorities that reflect God’s priorities, authentic discipleship has a great deal to do with priorities — setting them and pursuing them.

Recent attacks on the environment demand a closer look at our responsibility in caring for the planet. It is the only one we have. Who can say with certainty exactly where environmental concerns should rank in God’s scheme of things? I certainly claim no such ability. However, the Bible is clear in teaching that we have a God-given responsibility to care for the natural resources in this garden which he has given us to till and to keep. A brief look at the biblical message in comparing God’s expectations with our performance is in order. Throughout human history, God-given stewardship has generally given way to profligate exploitation of God’s creation.

The Christian Coalition grades the performance of congressmen and senators on a rigidly selective score card on which no one need bother to look for environmental concerns. This issue has been abandoned in the same manner that the radical right generally dismisses concerns regarding social or economic justice. Responsible Christians dare not follow their lead in ignoring the growing threats to safe food, safe water, and safe air. ˆ There is currently very grave danger that even people of authentic Christian faith will become apathetic regarding the care and protection of the environment. Many assume that nothing that we do or could do would actually change the environment of the world in a significant manner. Vice President Al Gore has warned that “this assumption must be discarded.”

Clear and significant progress has been made. How can we justify the removal of laws and regulations that have made a difference?

So You Want to Be a Prophetic Voice?

In today’s political climate, it is easy to be labeled a “tree hugger” or a “new ager.” If a person is reasonably aware and genuinely concerned about the environment, such terms of ridicule may well be encountered. Why?

Few pastors or church members include environmental issues among the “top ten” of their agenda. It is extremely rare to find this concern expressed in sermons or Sunday School lessons. Most seem to prefer a more “spiritual” agenda. We can strike a prophetic note, if we begin by acknowledging that concern for the environment is a part of our Godgiven stewardship of his creation.

And God Saw That It Was Good

The Genesis account of creation presents God’s running commentary concerning all that He made: “It was good.” At each step in creation, the God of the universe is asking, “What else can I provide for humanity’s use and good?”

All that we need was wonderfully made and graciously turned over to mankind for our use and care. “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.” (Psa. 24: 1)

Man’s Dominion and Power

The Psalmist echoes the Genesis creation declaration that human beings are to subdue and rule over creation. “You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet” (Psa. 8: 6).

ˆ Mankind’s dominion does not mean ultimate ownership or absolute power. God’s authority and ownership are merely delegated to humanity. Yet, we continue to mistake stewardship for ownership. Eric Rust pointed out years ago that “man in his arrogance, has regarded his control over nature as absolute and his use of his skills as solely at his own discretion.” 2 This is the very attitude that permits humanity to exploit and damage the physical world and to thwart much of God’s purpose concerning the environment. Because human selfishness, greed, and indifference are gravely destructive, we need to review the biblical truths that concern this world which God made and in which God became human and dwelt here among us.

Valuable to God

When God declared his creation to be “good, very good,” two implications are suggested according to Eric Rust. “…This world is significant to God and has value in itself God rejoices in what He has made and celebrates His World.” f3 How can we who enjoy it and depend on it do less? To value God’s creation and to celebrate it demands that we make every effort to care for it and protect it.

Portions of the Old Testament have been called the First Handbook on Ecology. God did prescribe certain ways in which his people were to care for the physical world. Agriculturalists have noted the wisdom and effectiveness of the Bible’s commands related to the land and its use.

The people of God were told that the land should be left idle one year in seven; fruit trees were not to be picked in their first year; a corner of a grain field must not be reaped. Even the livestock should be respected, and mankind was given a covenant with the domestic animals. (Lev. 19:9-10; 25:1-7; Prov. 12:10; Job 41:4.) Our respect for nature, the land, the harvest, and domestic animals implies a morally responsible relationship to all of nature.

What ought morally sensitive Christians to do in the light of deliberate attacks on the environment? Stealth attacks by our elected representatives, instigated and bankrolled by interests, ought to be exposed and opposed. Inaction on the part of concerned citizens would allow polluters and politicians to win by default.

Environmental Concerns: Steps to Revise or Steps to Reverse?

Environmental policies, like all others, are not perfect. The flaws and short-comings are numerous and call for candid and responsible improvement. Federal rules and regulations inevitably tend to escalate and become increasingly tedious, comprehensive, and even obnoxious. This process seems always to multiply bureaucratic red-tape, no matter whether it has to do with protecting our environment, improving our health, or maintaining our military strength.

There is a clear need to streamline and improve the Environmental Protection Act and the Food and Drug Administration. The truth is, however, that the sitting Congress has taken steps to turn back much of the progress that has been made with bipartisan support across several decades in safeguarding our nation’s natural resources. Incidents of bad bureaucracy and over-regulation provide the justification for the attack. “The need to update laws has become an excuse for trashing them.”⁴

Deregulation is the code word that is being used to describe what Congress is attempting. If memories of the Savings and Loan deregulation make us shudder, we can be assured that our concern is legitimate.

Trivia Pursuit and Tall Tales

Many current members of Congress, in league with anti-environment lobbyists, seem determined to defang and defund numerous important enforcement agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Charles Norwood, a Georgia Republicans says that “OSHA regulations regarding disposal of bloody medical waste prohibited him from giving children their extracted baby teeth for the tooth fairy. To augment his attacks on OSHA, this new congressman promulgated his own fairy tale, stating that the American Dental Association had declared that these important laws designed to set standards for the safe disposal of bloody medical waste, mean that dentists cannot return extracted bab~’ teeth. The ADA denies it ever issued such an interpretation.”

This far out example illustrates an obsessive determination to ignore the progress that has been made in order to remove impediments, real or potential, to higher profits.

Why the Secrecy, If the Massive Cuts Are Good for the Public.

The most regressive actions against health and the environment have frequently been called a “Stealth Attack.” The attacks on the environment went unnoticed for much of 1995 because of a tactic previously used by Democrats. Many of the changes were attached as riders to appropriation bills that fund federal activities. This strategy prevents the open debate that is required if these were stand-alone bills. Other cuts are tucked away in budget reconciliation bills. “The riders include directives to the Environmental Protection Agency forbidding it to issue standards for measuring arsenic in tap water or to list new hazardous waste sites for cleanup.”⁷ Obviously, polluters are the only winners in such action by congressional representatives. Who do these legislators represent?

Full Speed Ahead for Toxic Pollution

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” This observation by Voltaire provides a timely truth as the congressional tanks continue to roll over two decades of progress in the battle to make our air and water safe for human consumption. When crusading legislators, well paid with more-than-generous health care provisions both now and in retirement, reduce medical services for millions, they know that they are exempt from such worries.

Unless they plan to live on another planet, however, they will suffer along with us, the tragic result of trashing the Toxic Release Inventory. (TRI)

Since 1988 the Toxic Release Inventory has proven to be effective in protecting our air and water. Molly Ivins, of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, reveals the hypocrisy of another attempt to “improve” our environmental laws:

“The R’s are now out to destroy one of the least burdensome and most effective environmental rules on the books: a requirement that manufacturers disclose how much they pollute. The Toxic Release Inventory doesn’t force anybody to do anything about pollution, except to let people know about it.”

Although no action is mandated, this requirement to release information on pollution has proven to be extremely effective. Millard Etling of Dow Chemical says, “This mandatory disclosure has done more than all other legislation put together in getting companies to voluntarily reduce (toxic) emissions.”’ This statement comes from one who certainly is not known as a tree-hugger or radical environmentalist.

Early TM data shocked many industry leaders. Dan Borne of the Louisiana Chemical Association admits that the magnitude of toxic release got the attention of many industrial polluters (Ibid.). Responsible industry leaders realized that they needed to find ways to reduce toxic pollution. Significant progress has been made.

“The latest reports show that industrial releases of toxic chemicals in the U.S. dropped by 12.6 percent in 1993, to about 2.8 billion pounds. That’s a total reduction of nearly 43% since the TRI started in 1988…”

Why then should we not continue to attack the pollution problem? According to the New York Times, Senate aides on both sides of the aisle say that the amendment to repeal much of TRI was drafted by lobbyists for the chemical industry. This amendment, sponsored by Senators Bennett Johnston (LA) and Trent Lott (MS), would force the TRI to remove hundreds of chemicals from the reporting requirement. Presently, 95% of toxic contamination of the air and water is not covered by the reporting requirement.

In spite of the modest requirements and significant progress, there is a determination to remove even voluntary action which helps safeguard the human beings who live in this environment.

Contract ‘With America, or Payback Time 

The current attacks on the environment are not based on any mandate to the new Congress. Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, has reminded Americans that “the environment wasn’t even an issue in the last campaign. It’s not even mentioned in the Contract With America.

It is doubtful that many politicians would campaign on the promise to gut the Clean Water Act and cut EPA funds by 34 percent. Polls have established that these are not goals of the American people. Nevertheless, these are goals of the current Congress.

Until January, 1995 environmentalism was largely a bipartisan cause. However, after the last election, many business interests called in their chits. Researcher Peter D. Hart says that polls reveal “that voters clearly were not trying to communicate a call for the newly elected members of the 104th Congress to roll back the environmental protections.”

The Dole-Johnson Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act has been defended with the claim that “the American people are fed up with a regulatory state that is out of control   and that this bill “simply asks the agencies to use common sense to avoid unnecessary costs when pursuing important goals such as health and safety.”” Examination, however, confirms that it is not the American people but the lobbyists representing vested interests who are crying for regulatory relief. Their cuts represent neither simplicity nor a common-sense approach.

A poll, conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, an independent public-opinion research firm, was commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation in order “to find out exactly what the voters who swept this new Congress into power want to do about the environment” according to NWF president, Jay D. Hair.’⁴ All 1200 people who were polled had voted in the November 1994 elections. Of those surveyed, 51% had voted for their Republican candidate, while 42% of the respondents voted for the Democratic candidate. Results revealed that:

• 76% said “strengthen current safe-drinking water laws.”
• 41% said current environmental laws “don’t go far enough.”
• 21% said current laws “strike the right balance.”

Only 18% of the respondents believed that current laws and regulations for protecting the environment go too far. Almost half said that such laws do not do enough to protect the environment. Every section of the survey found that both Republicans ??? 15??? and Democrats support strong environmental protection.

The League of Conservation Voters has presented similar documentation that the “Contract With America” did not address environmental issues. Nevertheless, the actions taken by the House gravely affect such issues.

The Fox in Charge of the Hen House 

In this march towards weakened protection, some government committees and representatives have done the unthinkable. As already mentioned, high pollution industries and their lobbyists have helped to rewrite new regulatory guidelines so as to preserve their privileges even at tragic cost to the public.

Consider two specific cases that illustrate this point. Senator Orin Hatch allowed utility lawyers to conduct a briefing for Judiciary Committee staff members working on the contents of the “Dole-Johnson Regulatory Reform Act.” A partner from the law firm of “Hunton & Williams” has lobbied for electric utilities for years. Later “the American Bar Association removed him from the chairmanship of an ABA regulatory reform task force.” There was a clear “conflict of interest between task force role and his work for clients.”’⁷

When Georgia-Pacific faced an ongoing enforcement action against more than 20 of its facilities for “Clean Air Act” violations, their political allies came to the rescue. The New York Times revealed that a specific provision was drafted by Georgia-Pacific in order to head off any action that would hold some of the biggest polluters in America accountable for serious violation. This wrongful use of lobbyists prompted Vice President Al Gore to denounce this “jihad against the environment.”’⁸

Secrecy and deception were another part of these “hearings” by the Judiciary Committee. This so-called “Regulatory Reform Bill” was sent to the floor with no committee vote or debate. This unprecedented strategy gave additional advantage to the lobbyists.

You Are On Your Own

Newt Gingrich has fought hard to limit the EPA and other enforcement agencies. On July 28, legislation passed by the House essentially rolled back 20 years of gains in protecting the environment and health. Without public hearings the EPA budget was slashed by 34%, and 17 amendments would block the enforcement of 17 anti-pollution laws in regulations. Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, observes, “Pressure from polluters and special interests has prevailed over the health and safety of the American people.” ???~~ President Clinton has vowed to veto the EPA spending bill and its amendments. Thus far, the Senate has been more reluctant than the House to overturn environmental regulations.

The FDA Is Also Targeted

Newt Gingrich has called the Food and Drug Administration “the leading job-killer in America.” One source of financing of Mr. Gingrich’s college video courses is the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative advocacy group. Among the Foundation’s donors are half a dozen companies that do business with the FDA. Mr. Gingrich has personally written letters urging FDA to approve new products of two of these companies.

Since the establishing of the Food and Drug Administration few have questioned the responsibility of government to see to it that the food which appears on our tables won’t kill us or even make us ill. That is, not until this current Congress came along. In spite of safety controls, our meat supply is still inspected by outdated and sometimes dangerous standards. “Federal meat inspectors, notoriously understaffed, still poke and smell meat to see if they can spot rot.” As a result, 4,000 people di~ every year and five million become ill from contaminated meat. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has proposed modern, improved inspection techniques. Plans to use microbial testing next year will either be dropped or postponed if new regulations are adopted by Congress. Why? “Because some small meat-packing businesses fear that the new inspection methods would drive them out of business or at least cost them a lot of money. Their money, our lives.¹²

A regulation to improve the testing of seafood would be stopped or postponed for several years. One must wonder why these steps regarding seafood and improved meat inspection were not implemented by previous Democratic Congresses. The FDA’s plan to regulate the packaging of iron supplements, the leading cause of poisoning of children, would also be dropped or delayed several years.

Drugs could also become less safe. The FDAs testing requirements for new medical drugs would be drastically curtailed. The new guidelines will permit the drugs to go on sale, and over time, the market place is to be allowed to decide whether they are safe and effective. This is absolutely incredible, and would score another win for profits over people.

If Congress Wins the People Lose

Only a fraction of the current attacks on the environment and our national health have been identified in this article. A complete listing of regressive and destructive laws and bills would require a book. Seldom before has so much harm been engineered by our congressional representatives on behalf of their corporate sponsors. One reason for lack of awareness on the part of the public is the almost total silence on the part of network news and the print media.

In less than a year, 73 freshmen out of a total of some 500 Representatives have become a potent political force. They see themselves as the conscience of Congress and the vanguard of the coming revolution. “With evangelistic intensity, the newcomers believe they must change government before it changes them.”²⁵ The lure and use of raw power has blinded them to the importance of discussion and negotiation in a democracy. The word compromise to the freshmen seems to mean sellout, and they have been reluctant to make concessions to moderates either in their own party or across the aisle. Tony Blankley, a Gingrich spokesman, says that these unyielding freshmen are central to the success of the proposed legislation. Their insistence on having things their own way sometimes rankles more senior members of their own party. Sherwood Boehlert, a moderate Republican veteran from New York, observes that these freshmen “are very effective talkers.. .but they have not proved equally adept at listening.”

If sane and responsible discussion continues to be diverted, the American voters must send a wake-up call and warning to Washington. “We have reached a critical point in the debate over public health and environment,” according to Carol Browner. This EPA executive warns, “We must not allow special interests and polluters to get special deals at the expense of families and individuals.”

Presidential vetoes can halt these destructive measures that are scattered and hidden in dozens of current budgetary bills. However, the public needs to speak out and act quickly. In a weekly radio address to the nation, President Clinton called for public support as the budget tug-of-war continues. The proposed budget, he said, “will mean dirtier water, more smog, more illness, and diminished quality of life….Under the cover of balancing the budget, the Republican Congress is going after the essential environmental protections that have guaranteed the health and safety of all Americans, and I am determined to stop them.. ..The pollution lobby knows it could never repeal half of our environmental protections, so the Republican budget cuts the resources for environmental enforcement in half….These cuts pull the “cop from the environmental beat.”²⁸

From Apathy To Action 

Awareness of this destructive stealth attack should move concerned citizens to ask, “What can be done?”

1. As persons of faith, Republicans and Democrats, enjoying the beauty and bounty of our land on loan from the Creator, we should remember our responsibilities as Christian stewards and resolve to act.
2. You can contact congressional representatives who cannot represent you unless you voice your opinions to them. Letters do make a difference. Congressmen and Senators value the concerns and opinions of their constituents. Keep in mind, that professional lobbyists are working hard on behalf of special interest who are their clients. Men and women of faith should do no less.
3. A central question has been addressed: Why would anyone be opposed to regulations that clearly save lives and protect our national health? It is clear that special interests and their campaign contributions exert disproportionate influence. Citizens ought therefore to act now on the issue of campaign finance reform. Currently there is a bipartisan bill in the House and Senate.²⁹ This bill places heavy restraints on special interest money. Currently Newt Gingrich is the major roadblock to this much-needed bill. Like Tom Foley the former speaker, Gingrich refuses to bring this bill to a vote. Gingrich has the same goal that Foley had: protection of incumbents. Among other features, this bill would limit lobbyists to contributions of $100. Presently, so-called “soft money” from corporations and unions goes into war chests by the barrelful. Major reform will not happen apart from pressure from the voters. Congress does not need a commission on campaign finance reform. It just needs leadership that will let this needed bill come up for a vote.
4. Concerned Christians should prepare for the coming elections by getting the facts. Evaluate the votes and actions of your congressman and senators. Learn about their stand on matters involving the EPA, the FDA and Campaign Finance Reform. Valuable information regarding new bills and voting records is available from the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.³⁰

The nation’s voters—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents share many common goals for the election year ahead. We all want a campaign season that is more thoughtful and deliberative than rancorous and divisive.

We will be judged by those who follow as to how we leave the water, the air, and the land. We will be judged by our commitment to the real meaning of the word conservative.

Endnotes

1 Albert Gore, Earth in The Balance, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA 1992, p. 20.

2 Paul D. Simmons, Ed., Issues in Christian Education, Broadman, Nashville, 1980, Chapter 9, by E.C. Rust, p. 165.

3 Eric C. Rust, Nature: Garden or Desert, Word Books, Waco, 1971, p. 19.

4 Ellen Goodman, article “Congress Taking an Axe to Environment.” Liberal Opinion, Vol. 6, No. 31, July 31, 1995.

5 Nina Barleigh, article “Small Ants, Tall Tales,” Time, September 18, 1995, p. 53.

6 Time, October 23, 1995, p. 70.

7 Ibid.

8 Molly Ivins, article “GOP’s Strike at Toxic Chemical Disclosure Law,” Liberal Opinion Week, July 24,1995, p.⁵.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid

12 Ellen Goodman, article “Congress Taking an Axe to Environment,” Liberal Opinion, Vol. 6, No. 31, July 31, 1995, p. 2.

13 Op.Cit, Ivins, p. 5.

14 Americans Speak Out,” a report on the poll results, National Wildl~fr, April/May 1995, p. 33.

15 Ibid. p. 35.

16 Stan Greenberg, “Environmental Impact of the ‘Contract With America,’ Exposed by 100-Day Scorecard, LCV Insider, Spring, 1995, Vol. II, No. 2, p. 1.

17 Ibid.

18 Time, October 23, 1995, p. 70.

19 The Tennessean, August 3, 1995.

20 Philip Hi8lt, “FDA Becomes Target of Empowered Group,”New York Times, February 12, 1995, p. 124.

21 Molly Ivins, “GOP Assualt of Food Safety Standards, Liberal Opinion Week, July 24, 1995, p. 5.

22 Ibid

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid

25 Jackie Koszczuk, “GOP House Freshmen Proved to Be an Unbridled Bunch,” The Tennessean, No. 55, 1995, p. 2D.

26 Ibid.

27 The Tennessean, October 27, 1995, p. 1A.

28 The Tennessean, November 5, 1995, p. 19A.

29 “Gingrich Ducks Out on Campaign Bill,” Editorial, The Tennessean, November 10, 1995, p. 14A.

30 A subscription to Report from the Capital, available for $10.00

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us