Everybody wants clean air Legislative solutions are not the sole choice
needed to afford this same management and conmls, if there is to be subsequent quality of life. The recent report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Norwegian prime Minister Brundtland, stated emphatically that the greatest pollution is poverty and that environmental quality can be assured only through sustainable economic develop ment.
By Harvey Alter Pollsters oRen report that 87% or so of the public wants clean air or clean water, inferring that 13% want it dirty. I doubt that any of us have ever met such people. Why, then, are there always arguments in this country, especially in legislatures, as if the country were divided between those who want the environment clean and those who do not? Environmental concern is not a twentieth-century phenomenon. In the mid1500s. Agricola wrote of concerns in Italy brought about by its intensive mining and smelting activities. He expressed what today would be termed a preservationist or -environmental viewpoint; when industrial activity is in conflict with nature. the activity should be curtailed. This was before technology could control or clean emissions, and after 400 years’ additional experience. few would disagree that there is more benefit than detriment from metal extraction and beneficiation. The arguments in the United States near the turn of century between preservationists and conservationists are legendary. There is a bit of each in all of us when we seek some preservation of nature’s beauty as a retreat from the cacophony of modern life. We also want the economic development and employment that provide the physical and intellectual necessities and amenities that constitute the quality of life. How to achieve each fuels the battle of “isms” among conservationism. preservationism, and environmentalism. In brief, preservationism is a “don’t,” or inaction; conservationism is a “do,” or action toward growth with concern for posterity’s welfare. The challenge is achieving the “do” while protecting Md preserving the environ84a Envim. Sei. Technol.. MI. 21. No. 9.1987
Harvey A k r
ment. This choice applies as much in develooed as in develooine countries. For exhnple, the United Nitions Environment Program (UNEP) calls the “do” the “mowth imwrative” for developing nations, stiil with environmental protection. The polarization in the press and in legislative debates is rooted in history. wherein lie the debaters on the spectrum of “isms.” Environmental depictions i n the popular press illustrate that public judgment of resources and environmental manaeement is s h a d bv arguments at the extremes. These arguments, which are not necessarily by experts, often emphasize horror stories or speculation. Stereotypical images are that all environmental proponents are good, that none work for the private sector, and that all large companies are uncaring, if not actually evil. Cartoons still show black, belching smokestacks and the like, which are relics of the past, virtually unknown today in the United States. Ignored is the fact that quality environmental management and restoration are costly and can be afforded only by large companies and affluent governments. We are forced to see the paradigm that economic and industrial development, which require environmental management and controls, generate the wealth ~~
~~~
-
. ,
. The polarization and arguments at the extremes are caused by gross misunderstandings of environmental legislation and regulation and by confusion about goals and strategies. I suggest that we change our vocabulary in this debate to clearly differentiate between goals and strategies. to understand which health and well-being g d s we want to achieve and what kinds of strategies we wish to use to achieve them. When EPA was created. a few influential political scientists suggested that the new agency should have great restrictions placed on decisions made at its discretion (I). Others have contended that at the time, environmentalist groups wanted to avoid legislative abdication (2). The result forced legislation to become more specific to avoid the usual administrative discretion in setting regulations. Now Congress writes environmental legislation that is almost regulation (e&, the Clean Air Act and recent amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act). Furthermore, the required fresuent reauthorizations of environmental statutes have not had the intended salutory effect of improving solutions by learning from experience, but rather they have given ex-
WI~~Xl87109216848501.50m0 1907AmericanChemical Society
tremisrs opportunities to persuade Congress io “ratchet down,” use “hammers” to force unrealistic deadlines, and give members of Congress an easy environmental vote, There is little disagreement in the country about the goals: Everybody wants high standards of public health and a clean environment. The disagreement is on how to get there and which strategies to use. Some want activities regulated to minutiae, believing this gains control. However, convoluted and complex strategies are an inefficient use of human and financial resources, and they delay goal fulfillment. Those who are impatient with the rate of pragress toward environmental quality should be the strongest advocates of strict goals and simple strategies or regulations so that the goals can be achieved sooner. The professional pro-environment lobby argues conversely. There is 8 perception that once a law is passed, the environment will be cleaner. For various reasons, ~ Q O lengthy ta unravel here, this perception is far from reality. The progress toward cleaner air and cleaner water is well documented. There are those in Congress and elsewhere who expect new laws and regulations to be effective within the modern time frame of a three-minute music video or a 30-minUte TV sitcom. There is a paradox to modern environmental management. The more that is known trbgut a particular environmental ef€wt, the more the public qussrime it and objects to it. This tendency is particularly true of some chemical emissisns, even in the nanogram range, A related paradox is the success modern society has had in managing risks, whiek heightens the impact of small or sudden environmental releases and ignores the day-to-day successful management of hazardous or dangerous substances such as, for example, the transport of gasoline‘
Establishing policy Too little is known or understood about the process of establishing environmental policy. Common policy mdels do not account for the feedback loop of technologicial experience and new medical knowledge, nor for the complexities of the policy life cycle. The former Dutch Minister of Housing, Physical Planning, and Environment, Pieter Winsemius, described the environmental policy life cycle as consisting of four phases: recognizing, gaining control, solving, and maintaining control of an environmental problem. During the first two phases, new laws are put in place and the regulatory process begins.
Both sides of the issue call for information; proponents generally are satisfied with less and opponents generally call for more, All sides make a high investment in expertise to define or oppose solutions, as is happening during current debates on acid rain. This phase is marked by an escalating polarization between environmental activists and those groups-primarily industrialthat are financially affected. Politicians and the press increasingly are leaning toward the former. The public may perceive this phase as ending when legislation is passed, but laws do little ta control an effluent; this phase extends until well after regulations are promulgated and compliance begins, Time becomes essential to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the new control structure; environmental change is slow. Congress and part of the public have little patience, and when an environmental law is reauthorized, the program is often declared laeking and additional amendments and ratcheting regulations are implemented, if only to seemingly gain more and tighter control. Treating environmental policy making like any other variety ignores the contribution of science and engineering and returns us to nonproductive agruments over “isms.” Industrial activities with environmental consequences require the rational consent of an argumentative public, which is often difficult to achieve because it involves the weighing of risks, The body politic must cope with uncertainties and make ethical judgments about potential harm to some unknown members of the population. These judgments are often made without reference to other and established anthropogenic activities that may bear greater risk of harm. Policy makers have a heavy obligation to steer a course that permits informed discussion rather than emotion, Scientists and engineers have an equally heavy obligation to avoid emotion and focus their intellect on how to differentiateand choose goals and strategies. To do otherwise obviates the growth imperative for all and reduces the resources available for environmental improvement and control.
p
References (1) Daneke, G. A. Public Administration Rev. May-June, 1982, p. 227. (2) Marcus, A. In The Politics of Regulation; Basic Books: New York, 1980; pp. 267-85.
Harvey Alter is manager of the Resource Policy Deparment in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D. C. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 21, No. 9, 1987 849
