May 22, 2006

The perfect storm is a meteorological term that has become an overused metaphor for mutually reinforcing phenomena that lead to dramatic consequences.

OK, so let's use it one more time. The week of May 15 was a perfect storm for conservationists that do battle in Congress. One piece of pro-conservation legislation after another swept to bipartisan victory in the House, a highly partisan, hierarchical, toe-the-line body that is usually "here, be dragons" territory for the green team.

A remarkable series of amendments to a 2007 appropriations bill for the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection agency won the day.

Ban subsidies for new logging roads in the Tongass National Forest. Passed.

Eliminate language that would open virtually all coastal areas to natural gas drilling. Passed.

Bar EPA from implementing a policy directive narrowing the scope of the Clean Water Act. Passed.

Block an EPA proposal to reduce the frequency and requirements of Toxics Release Inventory reports. Passed.

The perfect storm was the confluence of political alliances that were favorable to conservation interests. Which is usually the most effective way to get good environmental legislation passed.

Take, for example, passage of the Tongass amendment. Despite fuming and frothing threats from Don Young, the powerful Alaskan and Transportation Committee chairman who's about as subtle as a biker bar, 68 Republicans signaled "aye" to the bipartisan amendment. Thanks to last year's dustup over the "Bridge to Nowhere," the word's been getting out about the generous dollops of federal money that go to Alaska, which is sitting on a $33 billion Permanent Fund of oil royalty revenue. With no end in sight to federal deficits, budget hawks in the Republican caucus have had enough of subsidizing a socialist paradise in the 49th state. Fiscal concerns and conservation made for a winning combination.

A fair number of those supporting the amendment may not have thought much about the effects of logging roads on streams and wildlife habitat in the spectacular Tongass. No matter. One "aye" vote is as good as another.

The "aye" side of the ledger on the amendment to block coastal gas drilling was top heavy with Californians and Floridians from both parties. That's understandable. Both states have fabulous beaches. The good burghers running beach towns such as Clearwater and La Jolla don't want derricks and hydrocarbon fumes chasing away sun-loving tourists or their money. Even the thought of tarry blobs ruining the golden sands of Santa Cruz or Fort Myers is unbearable. Local economic considerations and conservation made for another winning combination.

Local considerations also helped win the day for the amendment to keep Toxics Release Inventory reporting requirements unchanged. Two dozen states and many communities opposed an EPA proposal to change reporting frequency from once yearly to every two years, and to raise the threshhold of emissions releases that trigger the reporting requirement. Forty-eight Republicans joined the winning side on this amendment.

EPA took another punch with passage of an amendment blocking the agency from implementing a policy directive that has reduced Clean Water Act protection for so-called "isolated" wetlands and ephemeral streams. Hunters and fishermen were part of the coalition that persuaded a House majority to support the amendment. EPA's directive stemmed from a 2001 Supreme Court decision that the Clean Water Act does not apply to isolated bodies of water that may serve as habitat for migratory birds. The court did not require EPA to implement a directive broadening the ruling. Nor is there universal support among scientists for the notion that any wetland is truly isolated.

Regardless of the legal and hydrology questions, sportsmen know that "isolated" wetlands such as vernal pools support fish and wildlife. That's enough for hook-and-bullet groups to keep the phones ringing on Capitol Hill. Thirty-seven Republicans voted "aye." There's a lesson there for environmental groups on the power of an aroused community of conservative sportsmen.

Not everything turned out well last week. A "Sense of Congress" resolution to acknowledge the need for capping greenhouse gas emissions was stripped out of the appropriations bill. Even though the resolution was just a statement of opinion that didn't require Congress to do anything, that was too much for the forces of medievalism. Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, a strong supporter of dealing forthrightly with global warming, pointedly observed that for some of his colleagues, science is not "sound" unless it comports with their political agendas.

But the denial lobby's victory may be Pyrrhic. More congressional leaders, perhaps grudgingly, are coming around to the idea that the United States cannot avoid dealing with climate change forever. And the perfect storm that may win the day will be the growing sense in the business community that Congress must face the inevitable and adopt a climate policy that offers both economic opportunities and regulatory certainty.

The political weather forecast is that the House will see this debate again.