Editorial: New buzzword, idea for politics

Enlibra. No, it's not a sleek new sports car, and it's not the name of a controversial new European movie that American theaters are afraid to show.

"Enlibra" is a new word coined by Western governors that they hope will someday become part of the currency of American political culture, much in the same way "perestroika" came to symbolize the political and economic reforms of the Soviet political system.

The Western Governors' Association endorsed a policy statement earlier this year that rejects the polarization which increasingly has dominated the debate over how to best protect the environment. Instead of seeking a common ground, businesses and environmental groups too often stake out extreme positions on issues that are heavy on emotion and light on facts.

These polarized positions also are reflected in our nation's capital. Democrats reflexively argue that environmental policy should be tougher while Republicans counter that current standards are too stringent.

The reality is that most Westerners, and for that matter most Americans, don't have such extreme views on the environment. They simply want a clean environment that also respects the need for jobs and recreation. "The dilemma we face over and over is there is no symbol for the middle," Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt told the Sun's editorial board last week.

The word Western governors have created to represent their belief in a balanced approach to successfully managing the environment has appropriate roots. Supporters of the idea note that the word "en" is Latin for "moving forward" and "libra" means "balance."

There are basic principles that incorporate this realistic approach to dealing with environmental issues. The Western governors acknowledge that the federal government still should have the responsibility for setting environmental standards for national efforts.

But while the federal government sets the goals, states should have the option of developing the plans to meet those standards and making sure they are met. If the states don't want or fail to develop a plan to meet these nationally established standards, however, the Western governors believe that the federal government should then get involved.

Leavitt provides an example of how this new approach is working for one of the most revered natural wonders. Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990 to require that the vistas over the Grand Canyon be cleared of haze. Instead of imposing Environmental Protection Agency mandates, the federal government established a commission of governors, Indian nation leaders and business representatives to devise a plan.

In effect the federal government told the commission's members that if they couldn't come up with a plan, then a plan would be forced upon them. Through its investigation and dialogue with federal agencies, the commission identified the sources of pollution -- interestingly enough the largest source was wildfires set by the U.S. government to reduce old, dead forests -- and came up with a plan. Leavitt says it's expected that the plan's tenets are likely to be incorporated into the new haze rules the EPA is developing.

While no one thinks enlibra will become a household word anytime soon, embracing the principles behind the word could change radically for the better the way environmental policies are viewed. The problem is getting national policy-makers, and that includes both Democrats and Republicans, to actually listen to this common sense.

Too often the debate in the nation's capital resembles television's version of political mud wrestling, CNN's "Crossfire." Histrionics and hype seem more important than reason and rationality. The federal government should take a lesson from Western state governments where results, not rhetoric, are more important in establishing environmental policy.

archive