Our economy is based on natural resources, yet many "conservatives" are unwilling to conserve these resources to ensure a steady economy for our children and grandchildren.  They fail to see the obvious economic threat created by the rapid depletion of fuel, water, soil, forests, fisheries, land and minerals.  They also fail to understand the economic value of genetic diversity in wild plants and animals. 

These attitudes must change, to encourage planning for a sustainable future.

In addition, it's important to remember that recreation is not a frivolous past-time - it's big business in Wisconsin.  Residents and tourists enjoy the waters, woods and wildlife, and our special environmental qualities also help to attract and keep talented business leaders and investment in our state.  "Quality of Life" is a major selling point to entrepreneurs considering a move to Wisconsin.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, outdoor recreation activities have an enormous impact on Wisconsin's economy:
 

Fishing, hunting and wildlife watching activities generate $8 billion in economic output in Wisconsin, nearly half as much as the dairy industry. These activities support 110,300 jobs and generate $262 million in General Purpose Revenues to the state.  An estimated 400,000 people come to our state each year to watch wildlife.  Wisconsin sells more non-resident fishing licenses than all other states except Florida.  Great lakes fishing generates $200 million for local economies.  Horicon Marsh goose watching generates $11 million to local communities -- 33 times that invested in the annual management of the National Wildlife Refuge.  Boaters spend $450 million a year related to boating excursions.  Wisconsin's hunters and anglers spend $69 million in annual license fees and tax dollars.

Public Interest   Surveys show Wisconsin citizens place a high value on natural resources management and outdoor recreation, rating it over 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. 

• 89% believe conservation for future generations is very important. 

• 72% believe conservation for public recreation is very important. 

• 72% believe that everyone benefits from conservation programs, not just hunters and anglers. 

• A majority of the public ranked conservation a higher priority in the state than road building and maintenance, Wisconsin Works, rural development loans and grants, and building prison facilities. 

• 1.651 million of Wisconsin's 5.2 million residents actively participate in outdoor recreation activities (includes adults only). 

• A much higher proportion of Wisconsinites participate in outdoor recreation activities than the national average. 

• More Wisconsin adults participate in fish and wildlife related recreation than any of the ball sports, including golf. 

• The number of outdoor recreators has grown and is expected to grow in Wisconsin. The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment showed that over the decade preceding 1994-95: 

• Birdwatching increased 155%, one of the fastest growing U.S. recreational activities
• Hiking increased 94%, while golfing increased only 29%. 
• Camping increased 25%. 
• Hunting decreased 12% and fishing decreased 4% nationally. 
• Between 2000 and 2040, wildlife observation and photography are expected to increase 50%; backpacking and day hiking are expected to increase 90% and 124% respectively, and canoeing and kayaking are expected to increase 50%. 

• 50% of Wisconsin adults participate in fish and wildlife related recreation. 

• 74% of 6 to 15-year-olds participate in fish and wildlife related recreation. 

• Statewide boater uses of lakes and rivers include fishing (58%), cruising/sailing (20%), skiing (6%), swimming (1%), and other uses (15%). 

• Surveys on five wildlife areas show hunting accounted for only 6% to 58% of the total use. Wildlife areas were also used for hiking; wildlife watching; berry, nut, and asparagus picking; photography; education activities; skiing; sight-seeing; and school field trips. 

Business leaders often claim that strict environmental regulations are bad for Wisconsin's economy, but several studies indicate the opposite.  [Besides, our regulations are not all that strict...]

Study #1 --- The data show that states 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 by the Institute for Southern Studies, a non-profit research center in Durham, North Carolina.  Chris Kromm, a co-author of the report and Director of the Institute says "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, used 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.  The report ranks states on each indicator, and the sum of ranks produces a state's final score. Comparing the two lists reveals 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.

• In contrast, 10 states - mostly in the South - are among the worst 15 on both lists.  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.

• While there was some change among "bottom performers" (those ranking in the lower 15 on both environmental and economic scales) since the 1994 edition of the study, only two states rose from the bottom in 2000: Ohio and Oklahoma.

• Since 1994, the list of environmental and economic "top performers" - those with high environmental and economic scores - has seen more turn-over, with Rhode Island and Maine adding themselves to the honor role.  New Hampshire and Massachusetts dropped in rank because of increased environmental threats. 

• The strong environmental records of Hawaii and Oregon could not offset these states' sub-par economic performance.

Study #2 --- In a series of studies over a decade's time, Professor Paul Templet has analyzed all 50 states of the U.S. and found that states with lax environmental enforcement are the poorest states in the union, economically.  He also found that corporate subsidies and tax breaks distorted the economic picture.  Dr. Templet served as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality from 1988 to 1992, and is now professor of environmental studies at Louisiana State University.  For more information, visit Subsidizing the Destruction of the Commons

Study #3 --- A report issued in Sept. 2003, by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, concludes that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean-air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules. The value of reductions in hospitalization and emergency room visits, premature deaths and lost workdays resulting from improved air quality were estimated between $120 billion and $193 billion from October 1992 to September 2002. By comparison, industry, states and municipalities spent an estimated $23 billion to $26 billion to retrofit plants and facilities and make other changes to comply with new clean-air standards, which are designed to sharply reduce sulfur dioxide, fine-particle emissions and other health-threatening pollutants. 

The Cost of Regulations

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pollution control costs run a modest 1 to 3 percent of sales in most industries. And, a focus on reducing waste costs has led industrial leaders to adopt new manufacturing processes that are increasingly efficient, thereby reducing waste and increasing profits. 

Clearly, when an industry announces it is shutting down a local mill, it's not due to pollution control costs.  In Wisconsin, the paper industry has allowed its mills, many of which are more than 50 years old, to gradually degrade without capital investments in new, modern equipment.  They've simply repaired the old machines to keep them running.   The corporations took their profits elsewhere, to other countries and regions, and are now on the verge of closing several Wisconsin mills. 

When paper companies move production to the southern U.S. several factors are influencing this shift.  Trees grow faster down south.  The U.S. population has shifted to the south and west, causing the industry to move closer to its markets.  Southern ocean-going ports can receive much larger ships directly from South America, where many pulp operations have relocated, making pulp imports more direct.  Some states are in bidding wars, offering huge incentives to lure investments.  In some cases, southern workers are willing to accept lower wages and benefits, or work without union representation.

When paper companies move overseas, labor and benefit costs drop drastically.   Employee wages and benefits are a major percentage of total production costs, making it very difficult for American workers to compete.  Environmental regulations have little influence over this choice.   

In addition, the U.S. is facing serious competition from Chinese manufacturers because China has kept the value of its currency artificially low, making Chinese imports artificially cheaper than American products.   The U.S. government has called on the Chinese to end this unfair manipulation and to allow Chinese currency to fluctuate naturally with the international monetary market.   Environmental regulations are not relevant to this problem.

Benefits of Regulations

Clean air, clean water and the safe use and disposal of hazardous chemicals produce enormous economic, as well as environmental, benefits, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Clean water efforts result in a boon to the economy. In addition to health care savings, clean water is the backbone of the nation's $45 billion commercial fishing and shellfish industry, and a key component of the $380 billion tourism industry. 

• Pollution control has become a major growth industry of its own, this year generating a whopping $300 billion worldwide market for environmental technology and producing 1.3 million U.S. jobs. Pennsylvania alone has 6,243 environmental companies generating $9.1 billion in revenues and 67,332 jobs in the Keystone State. 

• Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules - Washington Post
• Study Disproves "Jobs vs. Environment" Myth
• Let's clear the air on jobs vs. environment debate
• Subsidizing the Destruction of the Commons
• Jobs vs. the Environment: Do We Have to Make a Choice?
• National Center for Environmental Economics