ere November's election outcome to hinge solely on the volume of words the two candidates have generated on environmental issues, Al Gore would beat George Bush handily. Gore's extended soliloquy in his book, ''Earth in the Balance,'' is a monument to his ideas on the topic. George Bush, by contrast, has only lately in his campaign begun to outline in any detail his views and plans.
But the election, and appraisal of Bush and Gore on environmental concerns, extend well beyond words. The issues confronting the country run far deeper than verbal commitments. Furthermore, the recent furor over the cost and availability of energy has become a vivid reminder of the interconnection between economics and the environment - extending its implications well beyond saving the whales.
The emerging Bush approach to environmental issues stresses what he calls cooperation among all levels of government rather than just federal actions. ''Protecting our environment must be a shared responsibility,'' he told a campaign audience in Monroe, Wash., last Wednesday.
During that speech, Bush reiterated his opposition to dismantling federal dams in the Columbia and Snake river basins that have sharply reduced the number of salmon spawning in the upper reaches of the rivers. But he wants to help Washington state and Oregon improve salmon habitats in other unspecified ways. The issue of eliminating four of those dams and losing about 4 percent of the region's electric generating capacity has stymied the Clinton administration, which ducked a decision until after the election.
Bush used the occasion to announce a $4.9 billion, five-year program to rehabilitate facilities in national parks around the country. In doing so, he criticized the Clinton administration for ignoring those facilities while it added acreage to federal lands, further cutting back on funds for maintenance.
Gore's approach to environmental issues has been broader. His book concentrates heavily on global warming as the consequence of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere coupled with degradation of the environment through careless disposal of toxic materials and aggressive denuding of natural assets like Amazonian rain forests.
Gore has for years advocated sharp improvements in the efficiency of automobile engines, and the Clinton administration worked out a general agreement with the industry to seek 60-miles-per-gallon performance on conventional-sized cars - a key improvement, if realized, to improving air quality. But Gore has been disappointing in his reluctance to push the Kyoto global warming agreement through the US Senate, after making a splash at the Kyoto summit in 1997.
Gore advocates much more extensive recycling of materials to relieve overburdened landfills. He has proposed taxation of virgin materials at the point of manufacture in order to encourage recycling, balanced by tax credits for purchase of recycling equipment. He would revamp measurements of economic output to include the concealed costs of disposing of products at the end of their useful lives. He favors increased assistance to developing countries to help them avoid poisoning the atmosphere.
Bush, as governor of Texas, has the disadvantage of presiding over a state with low marks on air quality. Supporters, however, point out that its oil refineries and chemical plants, generators of unpleasant and sometimes dangerous emissions, were not adequately addressed by Bush's predecessors. Bush, they point out, has added to steps launched by his predessor, Ann Richards, like the Clean Industries 2000 program, leading to lower nitrogen oxide emissions. They also point to reductions of 43 million tons of hazardous waste. Voters can take these gains as an indication of Bush's willingness to deal pragmatically with existing problems.
Less clear are the implications of Bush's proposals for sharing policy roles with state and local governments on federal lands. Local officials are far more sympathetic to demands for commercial development and intrusion into pristine natural settings. Recent controversies in Utah over access to wilderness areas, and across the west over new roads in forest areas, illustrate the problem.
Most dramatically, the issue could emerge in the effort to open the Alaska Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and ultimately development - the nexus of competing economic and environmental interests. Bush has registered support for increased domestic production of petroleum, and the Republican platform complains that ''vast areas of the continental US have been put off limits to energy leasing.''
Both Bush and his vice presidential running mate, Dick Cheney, have deep roots in the oil business. Less important than the millions of dollars going to Cheney from his days with Halliburton Corp. may be the intellectual mindsets that almost inevitably go with prolonged careers in the field.
Voters concerned about the environment will have to decide whether Bush's small but useful practical steps in dealing with Texas problems outweigh his views on energy development and his natural allegiance to the industry to which he was allied for years. Similarly, they have to measure Gore's high-toned rhetoric against the fact that, as senator and vice president, he had little opportunity to launch practical initiatives. Gore has been endorsed by all three of the national environmental groups that publicly support national candidates: the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and Friends of the Earth, considered the most demanding of the three. The lower risk to the earth lies with Gore.
