he 1992 presidential election was won by the slogan, ''It's the economy, stupid!'' Economics will probably always be in the forefront of campaigns, but tomorrow, on Earth Day, we can also demonstrate the important role that the environment plays in providing our economic prosperity.
Growing concerns about global warming, tropical deforestation, and groundwater pollution include not only the usual environmental effects, but also their impacts on the economy.
A new field of study called ecological economics has made great strides in the 1990s in estimating the monetary effects of both good and bad management of the environment.
For example, government subsidies that create perverse incentives for environmental destruction were recently estimated to cost taxpayers of the world $1 trillion annually, while the beneficial services provided by ecosystems have been valued at $33 billion annually.
If voters understood the crucial role that the environment plays in providing the prosperity that pads our pocketbooks, the winning slogan in the 2000 presidential race might be ''It's the environment, stupid!''
It might be, but so far it hasn't been. Some of the most long-lasting and risky environmental problems, like extinction of species and climate change, seem far enough removed from daily life that, unlike our pocketbooks, they are often forgotten.
An economist once argued, in all seriousness, that we need not worry much about the effects of global warming on the economy, because the only sector of the economy that he considered strongly influenced by the climate is agriculture, which contributes only 3 percent of the US gross national product.
This view of how the world works seems to suggest that if the crops fail, the people can still eat the 97 percent of the GNP that remains.
Our wealth and our comfort are derived from a combination of natural resources - soil, water, air, forests, oceans, mineral deposits, climate - and the skill and ingenuity with which we utilize and manage those resources. Neglect or abuse the environment, and we undermine our own prosperity.
Too often economic and environmental concerns are pitted against each other in the political arena as choices between spotted owls or jobs in mill towns, less air pollution or cheaper electricity, prevention of further global warming or higher GNP.
In fact, the prosperity of mill towns often increases when their economic base is expanded to include ecotourism and desirable rural residential property.
Similarly, lead was taken out of gasoline, ozone-eating CFCs were replaced, and acid-rain producing sulfate pollution was curtailed without dire economic consequences. Shell International and BP/Amoco have found it in their own economic best interests to recognize the threat of global warming and to take real steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Once we get over the ''we can't afford to clean up mentality,'' we usually find technological solutions that solve environmental problems while also contributing to economic prosperity.
Environmental issues should not be and in many cases are not politically partisan. Democrat Al Gore's proposals to avert global warming are opposed by fellow Democrat, Senator Robert Byrd of coal-rich West Virginia.
Several conservative Republicans, fearing damage to the GNP, oppose even the simplest actions to improve energy efficiency of refrigerators and other appliances that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while equally conservative Republican Senator Connie Mack is building a bipartisan consensus for energy conservation tax credits.
Not coincidentally, Mack represents the state of Florida, much of which is only a few feet above sea level and very susceptible to damage from rising sea levels caused by global warming. Rising sea level may not appear to be of immediate concern to West Virginians and their senator, but their immediate self-interest is linked both to their coal mining jobs and their dependence on soil, water, air, forests, and climate for their everyday well-being.
All of us, West Virginians and Floridians, Democrats and Republicans, need jobs to buy food, but we can't eat GNP. Do Al Gore and George W. Bush understand the underlying and inescapable reasons why a healthy environment is needed for a healthy economy? The polluted air and water of Texas suggest that Bush doesn't see the long-term economic benefit of cleaning up; he needs to prove otherwise in the remaining months of the campaign.
Gore's book, ''Earth in the Balance,'' proves he understands that the planet's health is essential for a prosperous economy, but the Clinton administration's actions on the environment have been disappointing. Will Gore reorder priorities if he is in charge?
Earth Day 2000 is a good time for candidates, voters, business leaders, and consumers to move beyond old myths that economic and ecological principles are in conflict. To the contrary, they are inextricably linked to our long-term prosperity.
Eric A. Davidson is a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center and is the author of ''You Can't Eat GNP.''
