Part: 1234         Session: 12345         Page 473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512 of 512

Yes. Because wasn't that the twentieth anniversary of the Stockholm one? And Stockholm, I think, was '72.

You're right. It was '92.

I was editor of the editorial page at that time. And one of the things I've always deeply regretted was that although I could have gone to the Stockholm Conference -- I'm pretty sure 1972 was the year -- but I felt I just couldn't take the time away from the office to do that. So I sent one of my editorial board members, whom I was encouraging to do environmental editorials--Bob Bendiner is his name. I sent Bob -- of course he was delighted -- to the Stockholm Conference instead of me going. Although it was a great thing for Bob -- and I think it was good for the page, because he was doing environmental stuff to some degree already and he did more of it after that -- I've regretted not going there ever since, because it was a seminal thing.

Absolutely. Well, you wrote a piece about Bush, around the Rio summit, called, “An Environmental Bush? Forget It.” And it was about --

I didn't have any confidence in Bush being a real environmentalist. Bush, unlike Reagan, did know something about environmental problems. Unlike Reagan, very much so, and probably cared somewhat, but not enough to have the environmental problem affect his basically conservative policy, in my view. I thought then and I still think. In my view, Bush was sort of superficially interested. He at least knew more about the problem than his predecessor, than Reagan did, but Bush, in my view, did not consider this a major priority of policy. And if it conflicted with what he perceived to be the economic interests of