Green Versus Gold
Phony Debate in Whatcom County

John Watts represents the third ward on the Bellingham City Council. A retired chemical engineer and businessman, his work experience includes research and engineering, manufacture, quality control and sales of building materials; industrial water treatment and trouble-shooting; technical sales for engineering and construction firms specializing in petroleum refineries and chemical processing facilities; and environmental consulting and remedial cleanup services for polluted sites. He has lived and worked in eight different states and traveled extensively, both within the U.S. and internationally, and writes from this perspective.

What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?
-Henry David Thoreau

Pitting green versus gold (environmental health versus economic health) is such a phony debate! In fact, these colors have much in common:

•They are close together in the visible spectrum;

•Artists consider using them together as pleasing to the eye;

• They are the colors of a local high school;

• Both are often used to describe wealth; whether the naturally occurring kind, or the kind derived from work.

Lately, a so-called “debate” has been cooked-up that attempts to actually pit these two inherently complimentary colors–and the concepts they can be said to represent–against each other. This “debate” is actually a campaign of unprincipled propaganda that is motivated by greed and quick profits, to be gained at the expense of other citizens and our environment.

The too-clever arguments being parroted by paid mouthpieces of our local Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, say that only faster growth can bring economic prosperity to Bellingham, and that this is somehow incompatible with sustaining the quality of our lives and our environment. How absurd! On its face, this is as false a myth as most folks will ever hear, presented in the guise of serious argument.

The reality is—and always has been—that environmental protection actually benefits both the economy and people’s lives. Consider these citations from Eben Fodor’s book “Better, Not Bigger,” as further proof of this statement:

A comparison of environmental standards and economic growth by the Bank of America in 1993 found the economies of states with strong environmental standards grew about ½ percent faster per year during the previous 14 years than states with weak environmental standards.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study evaluated all 50 states and found:

•States with stronger environmental policies consistently out-performed the weaker environmental states on all economic measures;

•The pursuit of environmental quality does not hinder growth and development;

•There appears to be a moderate, yet consistent, positive association between environmentalism and economic growth;

•No evidence exists that shows relaxing environmental standards will produce economic growth.

A similar, 1994 study by the Institute for Southern Studies ranked the 50 states in two categories: Environmental Health [green index] and Economic Health [gold index]. Twenty indicators were used in each index to create the rankings.

Nine of the states ranked among the top 12 on the environmental scale, also ranked among the top 12 on the economic scale. Conversely, 12 states ranked among the 14 worst on both lists. This clearly supports the conclusion that environmental protection and economic prosperity go hand in hand.

In other words, the states that do the most to protect their natural resources also wind up with the strongest economies and the best jobs for their citizens! The top 10 ranked states were Vermont, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maryland. The bottom 10 ranked states include Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia and Louisiana. Note that Washington state ranks somewhere between these extremes.

Another study, published by the American Chemical Society, found that states with lower pollution (based on chemical emissions per job) have stronger economies as reflected in lower unemployment rates. They also have better environmental quality and lower energy use.

We need to hold people who argue against reasonable environmental safeguards accountable for their claims for exemption. Perhaps, it’s simply time to emulate those famous ‘Missouri mules’ and say ‘show me’ to these folks! They are the ones who need to credibly and clearly demonstrate why they should be exempt from following the same sensible rules that have been proven by experience to work anywhere.

Better yet, they could exercise the good judgment of honestly educating themselves on such matters, and then willingly comply with those Best Management Practices that have been proven most effective in protecting our land, water and air.

Many years ago, people didn’t know any better than to rape and pillage the countryside, but we do now. Everyone has ancestors who believed the earth was flat. Now, we know the earth is neither flat, nor inexhaustible. §