 |
 tates with the best environmental records also offer
the best job opportunities and climate for long-term economic
development. That's the conclusion of a study released last month
by the Institute for Southern Studies, a nonprofit research center
in Durham, North Carolina.
 "In
the 2000 elections, political leaders were still debating about
whether protecting the environment will cost jobs," says
Chris Kromm, a coauthor of the report and Director of the Institute.
"What this study finds is that the trade-off myth is untrue.
At the state policy level, efforts to promote a healthy environment
and a sound economy go hand-in-hand."
The study,
entitled Gold and Green 2000, uses two separate lists
of indicators to evaluate each state's economic performance,
and the stresses on the natural environment. The 20 economic
indicators include annual pay, job opportunities, business start-ups,
and workplace injury rates; the 20 environmental measures range
from toxic emissions and pesticide use, to energy consumption
and urban sprawl. [For complete results, please visit www.southernstudies.org]
Keith Ernst, J.D., Research Director at the Institute, Chris
Kromm, Director of the Institute, and Jaffer Battica, a research
associate, were the other coauthors.
The report
ranks states on each indicator, and the sum of ranks produces
a state's final score. Comparing the two lists reveals remarkable
correlations:
- Seven states rank in the top 15 for both
economic and environmental health. Vermont, Rhode Island and
Minnesota rank in the top six on both lists. Other "top
performers" with high marks on both scales are Colorado,
Maryland, Maine, and Wisconsin.
- Conversely, 10 states -- mostly in the South
re among the worst 15 on both lists. For example, Louisiana ranks
48th on economic performance and 50th on the environment. Others
in the cellar are: Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Indiana,
Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, and South Carolina.
California
ranks high with a Green Rank of 10, but with a low economic Gold
Rank of 36. Our Gold Rank in 1994 was 19 and the Green was 13.
(Note: rankings range from 1-50 in each category).
Gold and
Green 2000 is an updated version of a similar study authored
by the Institute in 1994. The original study had similar findings,
and the authors observe that comparisons of the 1994 and 2000
reports offer a useful yardstick for gauging which states are
improving -- or falling behind on their environmental and economic
records. For example:
- While there was some jockeying among "bottom
performers" -- those ranking in the lower 15 on both environmental
and economic scales ince the 1994 edition of the study, only
two states managed to escape from the bottom of the barrel in
2000: Ohio and Oklahoma.
- Since 1994, the list of environmental and
economic "top performers" -- those with high environmental
and economic scores as seen more turnover, with Rhode Island
and Maine adding themselves to the honor role. While New Hampshire
and Massachusetts continue to post strong economic numbers, greater
environmental threats removed them from the top of the list.
Similarly,
the strong environmental records of Hawaii and Oregon could not
offset these states' subpar economic performance. "Now we
have two similar studies that point to the same conclusion: states
can have a strong economy and protect the environment,"
coauthor Ernst says. "And states that sacrifice their natural
resources for quick-fix development aren't improving their long-term
economic prospects."
The study
comes at a time when battles have broken out over the supposed
conflict between jobs and the environment. For example, in June
of this year, national African-American and Latino labor leaders
released a widely-reported study -- commissioned by the coal
industry-backed Center for Energy and Economic Development --
opposing the Kyoto global climate treaty due to a perceived threat
to "Black and Hispanic jobs." Across the country, local
conflicts have pitted environmentalists against logging businesses,
chemical companies, and other industries, who in turn raise the
specter of job losses due to environmental standards.
But Gold
and Green 2000 joins a growing chorus of experts who argue
that, while businesses may invoke the "jobs versus the environment"
trade-off to resist regulation, the myth is unfounded. For one,
environmental regulation comes at a small cost.
"Even
in the most highly regulated industries, the cost tops out at
two to three percent of total operating costs," says Dr.
James Barrett, environmental economist at the D.C.-based Economic
Policy Institute. "Clearly, when industry says its going
to shut down or move, it's not the environmental laws that are
causing this."
Barrett also
observes that steps can easily be taken to prevent economic dislocation.
When environmental standards do impact industry -- most frequently,
companies that are already in decline the answer is not to prolong
the life of polluting or unsustainable businesses, but to ensure
a "just transition" of workers to new jobs.
"Many
people are talking about 'just transition' today, but there's
been little effort to devise policies that work," Barrett
says. As a model, he points to the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Act, enacted in the 1960s and designed to assist workers laid
off due to trade agreements. The Act has been little-used by
workers, mostly because it provides no income support to supplement
the training it offers to employees seeking new jobs -- an oversight
that could be easily fixed.
"This
study shows that sustainable development is a matter of political
will," says Kromm of the Institute. "States that protect
their natural resources also cherish their human resources. And
states seeking quick-fix, unsustainable development end up sacrificing
both workers and the environment." 
|
