Return to Op-eds Index

Remember "Growing Greener II"

by Sandy Moser, President of REPs Pennsylvania Chapter
published in the Daily Local (West Chester, PA) on April 7, 2005

It seems to be going .. going ..gone for Growing Greener II, a comprehensive approach to correcting some long-term environmental problems, revitalizing initiatives, addressing Pennsylvania’s loss of land to development, and watershed protection.

In an article titled, "Growing Greener may be on spring primary ballot" (DLN, April 4), it was disheartening to read state Sen. Robert Thompson’s comment that in terms of the distribution of funds for environmental conservation, county block grants could be preferable to bulk funding.

Growing Greener II is a big-picture program, while a county block grant program is not. Counties have already received significant funding under Growing Greener I. Over the last six years, $300 million-plus has gone to county agricultural preservation boards and county conservation districts. Millions more have gone directly to county governments for trails, land acquisition, parks, and more.

Growing Greener II’s objectives are important to Pennsylvania’s future, especially in regard to cleaning up the environmental damage done to waterways and land because of our industrial past. Members of the House Republican Caucus understood the need and developed their own proposal, Green PA, when Growing Greener II stalled. Green PA has some significant merit and honest debate could have taken place.

However, debate on the merit or overlap of particular programs won’t happen if the Senate Republican leadership chooses to ignore Growing Greener II and Green PA. Is it politics? Or, is it industry lobbying for protection? Pennsylvania’s been doing it this way for more than a decade in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The results? A state going nowhere fast with one of the lowest growth rates in the nation, a stagnant, aging population, and a future that isn’t very promising. This despite the fact that state government programs hand out about $200 million every year on job creation and business expansion and millions more for job training.

Growing Greener II was about new business, new jobs, clean air and clean water; it was about help for the state’s decaying towns, mine-contamination cleanup, wildlife habitats and state parks, and recreational opportunities for all state residents. It would have provided much-needed support to ensure that Pennsylvania’s two largest industries -- agriculture and tourism -- remain viable.

Shortchanging the environment in the past has proved to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, greatly damaging public health, the environment, and Pennsylvania’s economic competitiveness. Other regions recognize that an investment in environmental restoration and conservation makes fiscal and economic sense. Why can’t Pennsylvania’s lawmakers?