"Growing Greener doesn't produce money for farmland preservation or open space preservation"
About this Quote
“Growing Greener” sounds like one of those bipartisan miracle phrases: upbeat, practical, faintly virtuous. Rendell punctures that sheen with a blunt accounting claim: whatever environmental glow the program projects, it doesn’t actually generate money for the two things voters most often imagine it funds - saving farms and protecting open space.
The intent is political triage. Rendell is separating branding from budget, warning that feel-good environmental initiatives can become symbolic stand-ins for hard, expensive commitments. In Pennsylvania, where development pressure collides with a deep attachment to pastoral identity, “farmland preservation” and “open space” aren’t abstractions; they’re emotional geography and local economics. By insisting the program “doesn’t produce money,” he frames preservation as a financing problem, not a values problem. That’s a strategic move: it shifts the argument away from whether the public cares and toward whether leaders are willing to pay.
The subtext is a critique of policy laundering - when a popular green label absorbs public goodwill while the underlying funding streams stay thin, redirected, or one-time. Rendell’s phrasing also hints at the limits of growth-based optimism. “Growing” suggests expansion can solve everything; he’s saying preservation requires more than growth rhetoric. It requires dedicated revenue, sustained political risk, and the unsexy machinery of bonds, taxes, or appropriations.
Context matters: Rendell governed in an era when states marketed environmental stewardship while juggling tight budgets and competing priorities. The line functions as a reality check aimed at constituents and legislators alike: protection isn’t a mood, it’s a line item.
The intent is political triage. Rendell is separating branding from budget, warning that feel-good environmental initiatives can become symbolic stand-ins for hard, expensive commitments. In Pennsylvania, where development pressure collides with a deep attachment to pastoral identity, “farmland preservation” and “open space” aren’t abstractions; they’re emotional geography and local economics. By insisting the program “doesn’t produce money,” he frames preservation as a financing problem, not a values problem. That’s a strategic move: it shifts the argument away from whether the public cares and toward whether leaders are willing to pay.
The subtext is a critique of policy laundering - when a popular green label absorbs public goodwill while the underlying funding streams stay thin, redirected, or one-time. Rendell’s phrasing also hints at the limits of growth-based optimism. “Growing” suggests expansion can solve everything; he’s saying preservation requires more than growth rhetoric. It requires dedicated revenue, sustained political risk, and the unsexy machinery of bonds, taxes, or appropriations.
Context matters: Rendell governed in an era when states marketed environmental stewardship while juggling tight budgets and competing priorities. The line functions as a reality check aimed at constituents and legislators alike: protection isn’t a mood, it’s a line item.
Quote Details
| Topic | Nature |
|---|
More Quotes by Ed
Add to List
