Issue 124: Environmental Policy, Public Opinion, and the Role of RFF

Americans are busy collecting information and impressions during this campaign season as we prepare to cast our votes in the upcoming presidential election. RFF thought readers of Resources would like to know what the two leading candidates for the presidency think about several important environmental policy questions—so we asked them. We're pleased that President Clinton and Senator Dole accepted our offer to address the three policy questions posed to them, and we hope you will find their responses illuminating and instructive.

I firmly believe the candidates took the time to respond to us based on Resources's long record of providing impartial analysis of environmental issues and on the stature and seriousness of its readership. You should share our satisfaction over their appearance here. Americans across all classes and social groups now care deeply—if not always loudly—about the fundamentals of environmentalism, according to Everett Carll Ladd's and Karlyn Bowman's analysis of the polling data they present in the lead article of this issue of Resources. Indeed, it would be hard to gather much support for opposing the notions of, say, safe drinking water, clean air, or safeguarding natural treasures.

But—how safe is safe, how clean is clean enough? Ladd and Bowman discern, within the generalized support for environmental well-being, a growing national concern over the impact that pursuit of environmental goals is having locally on matters relating to land use and economic growth. Increasingly, Americans are looking for ways to make careful decisions about the use of natural resources and the environment.

Well, RFF's charter is to provide just the kind of information needed to make such decisions. Our commitment to take seriously threats to the basic integrity of the global environment is reflected in our work on climate studies, as can be seen in this issue's feature article on the latest U.N. report about global warming. The issue's third feature article—on the growing crisis within the world's fisheries—carries forward work begun here decades ago to identify equitable, effective ways to realize economic benefit from a delicate resource.

Whether it's pointing out the manner in which pollution control costs can be overestimated, figuring out ways to translate into monetary terms some of the physical results from improved air quality, or puzzling through the regulatory maze that hinders effective cleanup of the nation's nuclear weapons sites, this issue of Resources illustrates clearly RFF's ongoing commitment to finding ways to balance conscientious protection of the environment with social well-being.

— Paul R. Portney