Comment ▼ Where to go from here? ou may recall the story of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll in which Alice is lost and strikes up a conversation with that grinning Cheshire cat. “Would you tell me, please,” Alice pleaded, “which way I ought to go from here?” “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the cat. Alice replied, “I don’t much care where.” “Then,” the cat retorted, “it doesn’t matter which way you go.” Such might be viewed the current state of environmental policy, particularly in the United States, where it seems we don’t know where we want to go or how to get there. Things have changed from the halcyon days of the 1970s, when seemingly everyone believed that environmental protection was a major priority for government and society. Through command-and-control regulations, we thought (naively) that most environmental problems would be alleviated. Unfortunately, the major causes of these problems, growth in consumption and population, are part of the very fabric of our society, and their solution requires a more sophisticated, international approach. It is clear that the environment is an issue still important to people, but the movement has been largely unsuccessful in defining where we ought to go from here. In his book Earth in the Balance (Penguin Books, 1992), Al Gore stated, “Now we must face the truth. The task of saving the Earth’s environment must and will become the central organizing principal of the post-Cold War world.” Why hasn’t this happened? Perhaps, Bill Clinton was right, inscribing the message on the wall of his campaign headquarters, “It’s the ECONOMY, stupid!” People have needs or wants that sometimes take precedence over environmental protection, and Congress, for the most part, reflects the will of the people. A national consensus has not emerged on major priorities and how best to protect and preserve the environment. Nonetheless, the political landscape has changed. Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, paramount issues have emerged: globalization and trade, eradicating global poverty, and sustainable development. It is no longer possible to negotiate trade agreements without discussing impacts on human rights and the environment. Also, it is widely accepted that global poverty is the greatest impediment to social progress. Without eradication of poverty in developing countries, it is not possible to ameliorate global warming or species loss, because the cooperation of the developing world is crucial to protect habitats and pre-
serve forests. Whether the political will exists in the developed world to help developing countries with their problems is not clear. Europe and Japan do not seem quite as conflicted about the environment as the United States. They have embraced the concept of sustainable development as a guide, encompassing a long-term view of the environment and their economies. They seem to believe that a good environment and a good economy can go hand-inhand, but it requires a long-term perspective, a systems approach, and market incentives. Indeed, the European Union is experimenting with the precautionary principle as a legislative instrument for political change. As stated in Principle 15 of the June 1992 Rio Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Sustainability and the precautionary principle are elusive concepts, which are difficult to define and even harder to legislate. At least, Europeans have a framework for political action to protect the environment for future generations. Environmental Science & Technology must help to answer the deceptively simple question, “Where do we go from here?” Both in the front pages and the technical journal, we strive for the highest-quality articles to approach this question. With policy papers, we can address it head-on. In features and rigorously peer-reviewed articles, we seek to lay a scientific and technological foundation. This year, I have asked Editorial Advisory Board member Paul Anastas to serve as guest editor for a special issue of ES&T on green chemistry and engineering, an important contribution to sustainability. How to protect the environment is a crucial question and mission for ES&T, and we solicit your viewpoints, features, and research articles.
© 2003 American Chemical Society
FEBRUARY 1, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 45 A
Y
Jerald L. Schnoor
[email protected]
