Cousin Mervin fancies himself an independent thinker but he's, in fact, hopelessly misinformed. He acts like a know-it-all, but by sticking to basics, you can effectively cut through his specious arguments and put him in his place.

Cousin Mervin says: One of the things you environmentalists have to acknowledge is that you've won. The air and water are cleaner now than they were just a few decades ago. You've won, and now you're trying to go too far.

So you say:
Well, Merv, it's true that the nation's cornerstone environmental laws -- the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act -- have all had a great impact, but I don't think anyone can honestly claim that the job is done. To give just one example: At the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, 75 percent of Americans lived within 10 miles of a polluted waterway; 40 percent of our waterways failed to meet adequate standards; and we were losing wetlands at a rate of 60,000 acres per year. With figures like that, it's hard to argue that everything is as it should be.

Cousin Mervin says: But we have laws in place to combat these problems. Why don't you let government just do its job and enforce them?

So you say:
Laws aren't much good without enforcement. All too often, public interest groups have to sue to get the regulatory agencies to do their job. And it certainly doesn't help that the Bush administration made deep cuts in the enforcement budget at the Environmental Protection Agency or that it has worked so hard to roll back some of the fundamental environmental protections that account for the progress we have made.

Cousin Mervin says: President Bush believes in public-private partnerships to accomplish his goals. You environmental groups are simply interventionist.

So you say:
Look Burt, we're all for corporate participation in environmental progress, but the kind of voluntary compliance that President Bush likes to tout works about as well as voluntary taxpaying. It's not realistic.

Cousin Mervin says: You talk about welcoming corporate involvement, but tell me what was wrong with Vice President Cheney consulting with industry in crafting our energy policy? Why did the Sierra Club sue?

So you say:
It's simply a matter of open government. Why wouldn't the formation of national energy policy be a matter open to public scrutiny? What's more, when the corporations invited to the table involve such nefarious players as disgraced energy trader Enron, the public has a right to be suspicious. If the Vice President has nothing to hide, he should make the details of his secret Energy Task Force public.

Cousin Mervin says: Ahh, now you sound like one of those conspiracy theorists, obsessed with backroom dealings and secret cabals.

So you say:
This administration's disdain for environmental protection is no secret. And you don't need a conspiracy theory to understand that Cheney was doing the energy industry a favor when he instructed the EPA to ease up on New Source Review. Here's a law that required old, dirty power plants to upgrade pollution controls if and when they ramped up production. It's easy to see how industry would oppose a rule like that. It's harder to see how it benefits the public health to do away with it.

Cousin Mervin says: Well, we have to build the economy. People need jobs. You can't have it both ways.

So you say:
Why not? This supposed tradeoff between economic progress and environmental priorities is a false choice. We can have both. Take auto manufacturing, for example. There are just as many jobs involved in building fuel efficient hybrids as there are building gas guzzlers, and the more efficient cars will save consumers money. Those savings would help drive, not hurt, the economy. Similarly, cleaner, more efficient factories are more profitable factories. We need to redefine progress so that we can measure it in terms of both affluence and environmental well-being. Up to Top