newsroom
FIVE QUESTIONS

with Gene Ulm

Gene Ulm is Vice President of Public Opinion Strategies, an Alexandria, VA-based political polling and consulting firm.

 

 

Q: What environmental problem -- if any -- do you think that the environmental movement tends to treat in an unduly alarmist manner?

A: First, a few words in the defense of alarmism: Alarmism is part of politics. Without alarmism, there would be no immediacy. Without immediacy, there would be no constituency that operates from self interest or societal preservation. And, if you believe Saul Alinsky had it right in Rules for Radicals, both are required to motivate people to action. Further, activists tend to "deactivate" if not constantly presented with the next "battle."

So in as much as the environmental movement can be faulted for overstating their case, so can many other "movements" for employing similar tactics to drive a political agenda.

Even with that disclaimer, the environmental movement has been guilty of being alarmist to the point of being counterproductive to their own goals in terms of: 1) Depreciating how their message is covered by the media "gatekeepers"; and 2) In attempting to polarize their troops, they have managed to polarize powerful opposition, mainly in the form of organized labor (a group that is also a strong, focused constituency, especially in Democratic politics).

(As a sidebar, they have also forced much of industry to change how it operates. Industry is also considerably smarter in how it deals with the public and its concerns about the environment. From the start, much of industry is now interested in communicating to the public its actions in protecting the environment, as well as communicating other potential benefits of its actions.)

The environmental movement has been over reliant on generic emotional appeals to persuade rather than on more specific, individual, scientific or factual approaches. While broad generalizations about negative potential outcomes were once all that was required to win the "spin" war now, more specific evidence is required to make news and persuade people.

In short, the environmental movement's constant play on emotions can win a short term battle, but loses its staying power when trying to accomplish long term objectives. When enviros dust off old saws for their opening salvos of a debate, those watching the debate immediately know they have little else in their quiver.

I think the most recent example of this is the launching of the Cabrini Saturn space explorer which was powered by a nuclear system. While this story was well covered in the alternative press, National Public Radio and similar outlets, it was not covered heavily by more mainstream media outlets. I think this mainstream non-coverage was a direct result of the media's discounting the story. They pitted what looked like poor scientific evidence against a barrage of Cal Tech scientists with 30 years of experience successfully launching and retrieving similar devices.

Another example is the "2,500 scientists" who supposedly endorsed the U.N.'s 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report forecasting global warming. The 2,500 scientists are often sited by President Clinton to portray "a scientific consensus."

The July 25 Wall Street Journal article titled, "A treaty built on Hot Air, Not Scientific Consensus" easily punches a few holes in the notion of a scientific consensus and exposes several problems. This article is easy to look up, but to save the effort, here are a few examples where the evidence may have been "overspun:"

Global warming may or may not be a fact, but according to much of the science community, this has yet to be revealed by the data. The environmental movement's political clout should be commended for actually getting the words "global warming" to come out of the mouth of the most powerful communications vehicle on earth -- the President of the United States. However, the over reliance on emotional appeals, without the facts that it takes to build a long term messaging campaign in the end, will only undercut the movement's credibility and harden industry opposition and the belief that the environmental movement really is not interested in reaching common ground.

Our surveys consistently show that people believe that an environmental agenda and profitable industry are not mutually exclusive. Polls (ours and others) also show that people believe that the world is fundamentally different now than 30 or 50 years ago. Voters believe advances in technology and science have given us the ability to employ, make products and other economic goals, while still preserving the environment.

 

Q: What problem -- if any -- do environmentalists tend to overlook?

A: I believe the environmental movement tends to overlook the local problems. While the national legislation like the Endangered Species Act and others grab headlines, environmental policy is made every day by local zoning boards, county commissions and planning committees. While boring, tedious and not very romantic, this is where most of the laws that impact the environment are made and common ground is reached.

For instance, a local developer, because his or her children attend local schools, is often just as concerned about the impact of growth as the local environmentalists. By the same token, the same environmentalists are concerned that their children might need jobs and that local storefronts should be supported. Because the debate is more immediate and less abstract all parties are more interested in staying at the table, listening to each other concerns and evidence, and hashing out an agreement which all parties can live with.

This notion of local control is not new. Our polling has consistently shown that voters are much more likely to trust local people and their town councils over state legislatures, Congress or the EPA when it comes to protecting the environment OR property rights.

 

Q: Would you support a so-called tax shift, whereby taxes on employment and investments are decreased and taxes on fossil fuels and pollutants are increased? Is it politically realistic to think that any tax shift proposals could be supported by influential members of both parties? If so, when?

A: In this day and age when the clamor for fairer, flatter taxes is high, it is difficult to change taxes on the basis of encouraging one social goal over another. Increased fossil fuel taxes would surely result in a rise at the pump, which is extremely regressive towards the less fortunate who are more dependent on cars (especially older ones). It would cross-pressure Democrat constituencies.

Much as several issues divide the Republican party, I believe the divisiveness of environmental issues within the Democratic party are significantly underestimated. These antagonisms are exacerbated by the class warfare aspects of the debate. The environment has a more affluent, more educated, socially liberal voting constituencies. In contrast, labor issues have more blue collar, labor, ethnic constituencies.

One need to only follow the Gore - Gephardt debate to see a sample of what could be to come on this issue.

 

Q: What do you make of President Clinton's negotiating position for the upcoming Kyoto conference?

A: This president is the master of phrases that sound good but mean nothing and promise even less. He knows he is being confronted with an important agenda (Al Gore's presidential aspirations) as well as a powerful intra-party constituency: the environmental movement. However, if he supports a position that allows Third World nations to operate by a less strict standard, he will run counter to another powerful Democratic constituency: organized labor, already upset over third world wages. Exit polling in '94 and '96 showed significant labor defection from the Democratic Party as well as a depressed turnout among labor groups. These issues will only serve to aggravate existing labor problems.

So, as always, Bill Clinton tries to be all things to all people. And, since he has few of the reins of power other than that of the bully pulpit, he uses what he has. And he is very good at it.

 

Q: What role -- if any -- do you think environmental issues will play in next year's congressional elections?

A: Very little, if any. When we ask voters to name the most important problem facing the nation, the state, or their local area, concern over "the environment" trails other concerns like education, crime and pocket book issues like taxes and spending. Further, when we look at the crossection of voters who are concerned about the environment, they are not "battleground" voters. That is to say, they are disproportionately core Democrat constituencies who Democrats can take for granted and Republicans have little hope in persuading.

Should the economy continue to trend positive (this past week's stock exchange convulsions aside), the emphasis voters place on the environment will likely continue to grow and it will likely play a role in future elections.

To put this in perspective, when we ask voters to agree or disagree with the question, "Protecting the environment is so important that environmental improvements should be made regardless of cost," about 60% agree. Compare this to 80% in 1989 immediately prior to the recession and amidst 40+ quarters of growth. The conclusion is inescapable: people care passionately about the environment only when they're not too worried about prosperity.

 

Thanks, Gene.

 

Recent "Five Questions":

Archived 11/04/97 -- Deb Callahan, Executive Director of the League of Conservation Voters, the electoral arm of the American environmental movement.

Archived 8/05/97 -- Doug Bailey, Chairman and co-founder of the American Political Network, producer of addictive daily electronic news briefings on politics (The Hotline), the environment (Greenwire), and other pressing issues.