AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION A F T E R 20 Y E A R S O F C U R E
T h e time has come for a new course-to
emphasize pollution prevention, not pollution control. To think of pollution as a necessary evil, a natural result of growth, is plainly a backward idea.
By Michael R. Delond In 1990, Americans celebrated the 20th anniversary of the myriad events that marked 1970 as a watershed in the history of U.S. environmental policy. Anniversaries are by definition times of reflection. It is an appropriate moment, therefore, to review the past 20 years and to recognize the tremendous progress we have made in blending economic and environmental goals. The question is no longer whether our environmental ethic is strong and enduring-it is. The challenge today is to find ways to achieve new progress in protection through more efficient and effective means. This arlicla not subject lo US. copyright. Published 1991 American Chemical Society.
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Val. 25, NO.4, 1991 561
Broken linkage The president’s Council on Environmental Quality ( C E Q is actively helping to define that mission. Lastsummer, I had the privilege of presenting CEQs 20th anniversary Report on Environmental Quality to President Bush, the Cabinet, and Congress. Because 1990 was the 20th anniversary of CEQ and EPA, of Earth Day, and the Clean Air Act, we felt it was an appropriate time to look back at the goals of 1970 and evaluate the progress we as a nation have made in reaching them. We found that just 20 years ago most people believed that economic development must inevitably lead to environmental degradation. By the same logic, stronger environmental protection was considered likely to hobble the economy. This “zero-sum” linkage was assumed to be strong and unbreakable. Happily, that presumed linkage proved to be false. For example, since 1970, while America’s population grew 22% and our gross national product expanded nearly 75%, our energy use, thanks to investments in energy conservation and efficiency, rose less than 10%. During this period of social growth, levels of airborne lead, soot, carbon monoxide, a n d sulfur dioxide dropped sharply, and other emissions leveled off. Our rivers and streams, several of which were literally aflame in the 1970s, were rendered largely fishable and swimmable. Studies of the United States and other nations found the net economic effect of stronger environmental laws to be small. In short, one of the great achievements of the past 20 years was to demonstrate that a growing economy a n d a clean, safe environment are not incompatible. They can-indeed they must-go hand in hand. Generally speaking, the laws of the 1970s prescribed technology and tough deadlines to treat-at the discharge end of the pipe-the most glaring pollution problems of the day: municipal sewage, wastes from power plants, automobiles, and industry smokestacks. This “command-and-control” approach was embodied in all of the major environmental statutes and produced measurable improvement in environmental quality. That progress must continue. For the foreseeable future, our attack on pollution must continue to rely on control technologies, regulation, and strong law enforcement. 562 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 25,No. 4,1991
Command and control vs. pollution prevention Even so, command-and-control statutes have shortcomings that are all too familiar, not the least of which is the tendency to move pollution from air to land to water and back. The time h a s come for a n e w course-to emphasize pollution prevention, not pollution control. To think of pollution as a necessary evil, a natural result of growth, is plainly a backward idea in a competitive world where wastes can be eliminated by design or even recaptured as valuable products or resources. Companies that practice pollution prevention can enjoy warm public relations, yes. But just as impressively, they can lighten the burdens of regulation and litigation. At a time when government and corporate budgets are tight, we cannot afford temporary solutions. Our resources should be focused on the only truly permanent solutionnamely, on pollution prevention. Happily, there is a new emphasis in the business community, especially in the chemical industry, toward preventing pollution at the source rather than on spending millions and billions to clean it up after the fact. Pollution prevention is especially valuable during an economic downturn, since 100% of every dollar saved goes directly to the bottom line. This is a business opportunity-and the success stories abound. One of many examples is Dow Chemical’s pollution prevention program, “WRAP” (Waste Reduction Always Pays). In one year alone, 1989, WRAP led to an 11% decline in losses to air (ponder that phrasing: losses to air). WRAP also led to a 22% drop in losses to water and a 35% drop in losses to land. The savings over several years were even more impressive. Indeed, waste reduction has paid for Dow, saving the company millions of dollars for more profitable uses. Pollution prevention works for small companies as well. When I was the New England regional administrator of EPA, a small electroplating company faced heavy penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act, By changing its production process to recapture materials that were once routinely discharged into the local river, and by sharply reducing water usage, the company realized a net gain of $100,000 within a year. Just as important from the company’s perspective, it gained a
cost advantage over local competitors and, by completely eliminating discharges into the river, it also eliminated its need for an EPA permit. Need more evidence? Monsanto, the 3M Company, and Chevron all have found ways to cut their toxic discharges and save money. In agriculture, some farmers are experimenting with low-input farming, and a 1989 review of case studies by the National Academy of Sciences found those farmers reaping greater profits than their heavily chemicaldependent neighbors. In the electric utility industry, managers from Pacific Gas & Electric in the west to the New England Electric System in the east are champions of improved energy efficiency i n commercial buildings and homes. They have found that energy supplies gained through efficiency are far less costly and less damaging to the environment than building new power plants. Concurrently, business consultants who preach “total quality management” are broadening the concept to include the worldwide competitive challenge of responsible environmental management. (The CEQ 20th Annual Report includes an in-depth discussion of pollution prevention techniques and case studies in various economic sectors, federal departments and agencies, state and local governments, and households.) A global challenge
As America’s economy grows more global in character, industry leaders find yet another reason to practice pollution prevention: to position themselves more competitively in the global market. It’s no coincidence that our toughest competitors in world commerce are nations such as Japan and West Germany, which use significantly less energy per unit of output than we do; which produce a fraction of the solid waste per capita that we do; and which recycle up to 50% of their solid waste, while we languish at about 1 0 % . The demand for “greener” goods and services, already valued at $50 billion to $60 billion a year by the U.S. Department of Commerce, is growing not only in the United States and Europe but also worldwide. We cannot afford to let this market pass us by. American business must make pollution prevention a priority at all levels: management, engineering, and day-to-day operations. Within
