A legacy of Environmental Quulity
Thereis every reasonto believe that the April 22 teach-in on Quality Control of Environment will generate much more frustration than satisfaction, and considerably greater confusion than enlightenment. The principal reason for this is the ahsolute enormity of the problem-its incredible complexities, ambiguities, and extreme defiance to manage ment, its unalterable fusion with self-interest, the insufficiency of pertinent scientific and technological knowledge concerning it, and the horrendous intensity of the passions toward it. However, none of this could possibly justify diminished interest in the teach-in, nor encourage anyt,hing less than the most thoughtful and ohjective approach to this vital and critical issue. Despite the complexities two sobering maxims emerge. The first is: To exist is to pollute. Continued pollution is as inevitable as increasing population and as indomitable as man's desire to improve his lot. Both pollution and increasing population, if not controlled, will soon make the planet unfit for human life as we know it. The second maxim is: The ingenuity of man cannot rewrite the laws of nature. That there are finite limitations on the stress that can be tolerated by the hiogeochemical cycles of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, sulfur, and other elements, cannot he doubted by any scientist; that we continue to exponentially intensify the stress on these cycles with virtually no knowledge of what the limitations are, does appear to be asking for extermination. Granted that nature repeatedly has demonstrated her superiority to man in adaptability and resiliency, the fossils of extinct animals are clear testimony to her indiierence to life forms. Yet the life expectancy of man continues to rise, and the extent of his ability to manipulate nature seems barely tapped. Do we then dare to proceed with abandon until nature gives us a stronger distress signal? Should we instead attempt to delude nature as many spokesmen for industry have sought to delude the public in the past with soothing assurances of abatement, all-the-while allowing pollutant levels to rise? Or would we be wise to pay the price for a pollution control system that would reduce air and water pollution to levels that would significantly lessen the dangers to human health and the stress on the biogeochemical cycles? Unfortunately, this latter course is somewhat less appealing to those who pay the bills each month, or who struggle day by day with the economic facts of life, than to those not blessed with these privileges. The head of a household who must agree to hand over five to seven percent of his after-taxes income to control pollution wants to know if the promised improvements are worth the sacrifice. The pollut,ion-sensitive manufacturer is concerned lest his competitor not have to add to production costs by instituting costly pollution control pro-
I
speaking
cedures. .He wonders how much profit the pollution control industry is making, how strong its lobby is and what new gimmick its think-tanks will come up with next. The public adminstrator asks if pollution abatement should have tax-dollar parity with urban renewal, poverty programs, educational needs, with needed reforms in police and other government agencies. If i t should, and if the funds and control legislation were provided, is the know-how sufficient to effect a significant improvement in the quality of the environment in five years or less? Unless and until many of these questions can be answered satisfactorily, i t is doubtful that a massive environment control effort can be mobilized. I n the past few years all levels of governmenf with cooperation from industry have addressed themselves to this problem. Despite many deficiencies, the knowledge gained is so extensive and the legal and administrative measures are so refined that many experts believe this country can now consider a major move to clean up the environment with strong promise of success. The crucial requirement is that sufficient energy and support be committed to this task. The report, "Cleaning Our Environment, The Chemical B h s for Action," prepared by the ACS Committee on Chemistry and Public Affairs provides both a documented, objective account of the current status of the science and technology of environmental improvement and an analysis of this information with seventy-three recommendations for action. It is recommended reading for all. Congress has recognized the urgency of pollution control in the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Air Quality Act of 1967. While these acts require communities to clean up the air on a relatively short schedule, the decision as to pollutant levels is left. largely to regional communities where the judgments made thus far at least appear to be less influenced by prudent imperatives than by expediency and passion. There is no viable alternative. We must and can safeguard our environment. The-hard choices center on the question: According to what priorities and at what cost? If, however, our civilization were compelled by prudence to limit its legacy to posterity to a single bequest, would we choose freedom, or peace, or security from hunger, or universal education, or equal opportunity, or protection under the law, or clean air to breathe and pure water to drink? This country now is in a position t,o make nnprecedented advances toward a legacy of environmental quality by developing the means for maintaining quality control of the surroundings in the most difficult of circumstances-a highly consumer-oriented, excessively polluted ecosystem. The know-how produced here in the next twenty years could he as important to the future of the world as any development in history. WTL
Volume 47, Number 4, April 1970
/
245.
