March 14, 2010
Opinion
Not green enough
The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group that monitors the voting records of state lawmakers, is not at all happy with Rep. Ted Moukawsher. The 40th District lawmaker, representing the towns of Groton and New London, scored a failing 60 percent grade on the group's latest environmental report card.
Moukawsher has the lowest score of any state legislator in the region. In a recent meeting with The Day Editorial Board, conservation league Executive Director Lori Brown and David Bingham of Salem, co-chair of the organization, appeared downright flummoxed why the Groton Democrat, who is the House assistant majority leader, would be so anti-environment. In contrast, Moukawsher's fellow Groton state representative, Elissa Wright, also a Democrat, scored a green-star worthy 100.
But the thing is, when you take a closer look, it is hard to see Moukawsher's low environmental score hurting him very much politically. In fact, it is hard to see how it makes him anti-environment.
For his part, Moukawsher, who sits on the Environment Committee, said he could care less about the poor score.
"My vote on every issue is based on how I evaluate (the issue) individually. I don't consider them the ultimate arbiter of what is a good environmental law and what's not," he told me.
What kinds of things did Moukawsher vote against that earn him a dismal score? He voted against the law that for the first time imposed a fishing license requirement on salt water anglers. The fee was set at $10 for residents, but within months the legislature boosted it to $20, $50 for combined salt and freshwater licenses.
The governor, who signed the license law, said new federal regulations forced the state's hands. The justification is that licensing will help the government better monitor the amount of saltwater fishing. The money was supposed to go for conservation and preservation programs but - surprise - it ended up in the general fund instead.
As a legislator representing a coastal community, I don't think opposing this stinky fish of a bill is a political detriment for Moukawsher.
He also voted against legislation that imposes a 5-cent deposit on every water bottle. The logic of the new requirement is that getting back 5 cents will motivate more people to recycle. A motivation for lawmakers was the reality that many people will still toss the bottles and the state will get to keep all those nickels, adding up to an expected $17 million in annual revenues. The state used to let the distributors keep the unclaimed money.
But the new deposit also raises the price of buying bottled water and adds another burden on grocers and distributors during a time of economic stress, while taking away the uncollected nickels to help pay for it, Moukawsher said. It is better, said the representative, to promote aggressive recycling programs.
Was voting against the bottle bill anti-environment? Debatable. Maybe, as Moukawsher argues, it's a pro-business vote. Will it cost him votes? Probably not many.
The Groton representative also voted against a bill that would have made it a violation, punishable by a fine up to $25, to let a car idle for more than three minutes. While it is a waste of energy and bad for the environment to idle a car for very long, it seems ridiculous to try to enforce an anti-idling law. How would police do that? And, I'm sorry, when it is 5 degrees outside in mid-winter it might take four minutes to make a car habitable. Moukawsher earns a gold star for commonsense on this one. The bill failed, with 100-percent green Rep. Wright voting in favor.
Other votes by Moukawsher clearly favored the interests of business and commerce over the environment, but given the current economic situation that may help him as much politically as hurt him, if not more.
He opposed a bill that would have extended wetlands protection to vegetation within 100 feet of a wetland or watercourse and a companion bill giving inland wetlands the same stringent protection against development as tidal wetlands. Moukawsher argues that Connecticut already has strict laws to protect wetlands and waterways. Is now a good time to make business more difficult for builders? It's a persuasive argument. In any event, both bills failed.
Moukawsher also opposed a bill, ultimately approved by the General Assembly, granting tax credits for buildings meeting conservation friendly LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards.
"I made a vow not to support any more tax credits. They cost money because the revenue has to be made up somewhere, and that usually comes from the average middle-class person," he said.
And, not wanting to impose new taxes on home buyers, he voted against a bill that would have allowed towns and cities to create a "Municipal Green Fund" to pay for local environmental programs by imposing an additional tax on property transactions. That bill also failed.
Of course, despite the failing grade, Moukawsher voted with the conservation league more than half the time - in favor of land-value taxation that can be used to encourage urban development instead of suburban sprawl; to reduce the use of pesticides; to help preserve state dairy farms and maintain open space; to encourage the use of solar power and promote municipal recycling strategies. He is hardly an environmental ogre.
Voters should look skeptically at anyone who scores 100 percent on the scorecard of any special interest group, be it business, labor, education, environment or other interest. Voting how one group wants, in every instance, does not display the kind independent thinking many voters say they value.
http://www.theday.com/article/20100314/OP04/303149979
