Enlibra Rising

When President Bush announced the nomination of Utah governor Michael Leavitt for administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the immediate response was a confused murmur. Leavitt, the nation’s longest-serving governor, has performed admirably for Utah in the last decade, and is popular among his fellow governors. But who is he, and what would he bring to the EPA? The answer may lie in a word you’ve never heard of. Leavitt is no neophyte to the land-use arena, but is most notable for his views on the environment, which he encapsulates in the term “Enlibra”, from the Latin (loosely) for “in balance”. The brainchild of Leavitt and former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, Enlibra could be called a new vision for protecting air, land, and water. The Salt Lake Tribune also called it a “woozy brew of market-based economics, local empowerment, cost-benefit analyses, collaborative decision making, and incentive-driven processes”. Leavitt envisions Enlibra as a way to reach the middle ground between conservationists and industry. In theory, the strategy tries to bring some sanity to environmental issues by balancing conservation and development interests, regulators and the regulated. It holds that big, top-down regulation is inefficient, slow, and expensive, instead favoring state and local control of regulation. This results in more flexibility and participation and less delay – and, say critics, much less conservation. Are these audacious and ambitious goals or so much hot air? Enlibra’s guiding principles vary from the bland and obvious to the practical and exciting. All eight involve varying degrees of conflict to implement fully at the national level. “National Standards, Neighborhood Solutions – assign responsibilities at the right level.” A lot of experts have said that states should take the lead in environmental regulation and enforcement. Enlibra may be stating the obvious, but implementing national standards locally has a nice ring to it. Of course, Congress has written the laws so that state and local responsibility are kept on fairly short leashes. “Collaboration, Not Polarization – use collaborative processes to break down barriers and find solutions.” The collaborative process is nothing new; the EPA has dozens of outreach programs. Collaboration between some NGOs and companies, though, may be well-nigh impossible. Both camps have valid opinions, and discussion would be better than the current climate of vitriol and lawsuits. “Science for Facts, Process for Priorities – separate subjective choices from objective data gathering.” Of course, environmental solutions need good science and good policy. The governor is right on the money here. In the subjective, emotional environmental arena, compromise is all too often impossible to reach. “Markets Before Mandates – pursue economic incentives whenever appropriate.” Nobody actually wants a dirty, toxic world, but how to prevent it is the question. Many groups favor forced compliance: punishment, enforcement, injunction, and mandate are all music to lawyers’ ears, but anathema to regulated industry. On the other hand, market-based incentives and economic rewards are something industry can relate to and work with. “Change a Heart, Change a Nation – environmental understanding is crucial.” This principle involves a broad swath of the public through education and academia. Nothing wrong with that; an informed public makes informed and rational choices. “Recognition of Benefits and Costs – make sure all decisions affecting infrastructure, development and environment are fully informed.” Most environmental regulations give some thought to cost-benefit analysis. Many conservation groups feel this is unimportant, that environmental compliance has no compromises and that cost should not be a factor. Others feel that industry traditionally overestimates the cost of regulations and underestimates the benefit to human health and the environment. Maybe Leavitt, as EPA administrator, would put some teeth in the Enlibra maxim that “environmental decisions should be guided by an assessment of [the] true costs and true benefits of different options.” “Solutions Transcend Political Boundaries – use appropriate geographic boundaries for environmental problems.” What the governor means by this may be that natural boundaries are more important than jurisdictional ones – think Canada and Mexico, for starters. You can already see the storm clouds brewing. One leading wildlife advocate predicted Enlibra would “allow federally subsidized ranchers and other ‘stakeholders’ to screw with endangered species and habitat protection measures”. Another observer called it “a way of compromising and finding solutions that are good for a healthy economy and sustainable use, with the emphasis on use.” Senators Lieberman and Kerry promise a lively debate in Leavitt’s confirmation hearings and plenty of sounds bites for their presidential campaigns. Cynics say Leavitt will have to distance his theories from the White House, whose environmental credentials are worth less every day. Meanwhile, the spin doctors will be whirling away. Douglass Rohrman

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.