Keeping in touch with the grass roots The green movement continues worldwide. I attended a Green Day celebration in Chester, England, recently, and was reminded of similar fairs in North America. There were booths representing county and city governments; wildlife protection groups; and the local political action groups, in this case, the Green Party. There were organic farmers selling their produce, herbalists promoting home remedies, and T-shirts galore. By and large, the booths were staffed by what appeared to be average citizens who seemed to be seriously concerned about worldwide and local environmental protection. All of it reminded me again that the relative prosperity of this journal and the professionals that it services are tied to a grass-roots movement. Ultimately, we derive our popular support and, to some extent, our justification from the ordinary people who have come to believe that protection of public health and the natural environment are important and inextricably intertwined. It is important, I feel, that all environmental professionals, especially those who are technically trained, examine these expressions of popular support periodically, if for no other reason than to keep in touch with the grass roots. Highly specialized environmental scientists and engineers are sometimes critical of popular environmentalists, especially if we find that they are not rigorous in their attention to scientific accuracy. We find fault in their reliance on hearsay information, in their adoption of popular causes without scientifically based scrutiny, and in the use of scare tactics that seem to blend radical politics with environmentalism. We are repulsed by the wholesale categorization of “chemicals” as toxic; by the proposals of zero risk and zero discharge, which we know to be physically impossible; and by the remnants of naturalism that are often found within their philosophy. Perhaps there are even feelings of resentment, that these amateurs should leave such matters to professionals. It is sobering to remember, however, that not too many years ago there was no such movement evident in our culture, and that without the support
001 3-936X/91/0925-1803$02.50/0 0 1991 American Chemical Society
of popular environmentalists there would not be the current level of interest in environmental protection by industry and by government. We all applaud industry now for the progression of environmental protection from the back lot to the board room, but we sometimes forget that this is essentially an expression of the will of the people. Without popular support, there is no guarantee that we would have environmental legislation, or enforcement, or that the courts would enforce liability against polluters. History suggests that without popular demand, industry would revert to practices based only on economic gains and government would focus on other priorities. The environmental decay that has occurred in Eastern Europe is another example of how a stressed economy deals with environmental concerns. So, we should periodically give credit to the common people who make up the environmental movement, organize the Green fairs, attend the neighborhood meeting, and vote their conscience. We are not, in so doing, accepting all that they say or endorsing all of their methods. Indeed, if we believe in the common goals of sustainable development and environmental and public health protection, we should work with these groups to enhance their credibility. We should offer technical assistance to them and we should attempt to give them our views on the role of science in the process of environmental protection. Perhaps in this way, there will be a continuing evolution of the Green Movement into the mainstream of human consciousness and a merging of economic, human, and natural philosophies into a coherency that will benefit all.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 25, No. 11, 1991 1803
