Comment M The human footprint he environmental movement of the past 40 years has been a reaction to the degradation of the environment caused by years of waste and neglect. Environmental protection, broadly defined, seeks to restore the environment, to the extent possible, to a state as near to the unperturbed natural world as possible. The belief driving this policy has been expressed by many philosophers and nature writers, including Thomas Berry, who in The Dream of the Earth (Sierra Club Books) speaks of how we “are (now) returning to our native place” after being “entranced with our industrial world”. Few would disregard this as mere romanticism. The appreciation for nature and its services to us is apparently deeply imbedded in human beings. That we are now leaving our tracks all over the planet is therefore of great concern to almost everyone who has the time and energy to contemplate it. The role of environmental science is to document those tracks carefully and, if possible, to describe how the natural world worked in our absence, so that policy makers and the general public can make decisions to achieve its protection and restoration. The role of environmental technology is to give us the tools to accomplish this goal. This includes the technology to minimize pollution in the first place and a society that, in general, leaves a “soft footprint” on the planet. All of this may sound obvious and pedantic, but it is to draw attention to one of the most fundamental underlying assumptions of the environmental movement: The “natural” way that evolved before humans became dominant is best, and we should return to it to the best of our ability. There are some scientific and practical problems with this goal that are becoming more obvious as human civilization continues to grow. First, we can never really go back. Short of a catastrophe that destroys human civilization, the plains of the U.S. Midwest, the Amazon forest, or the Gulf of Finland will never be restored to their pristine state. And of course, species that are lost are lost. Moreover, we have created materials (metallic aluminum, synthetic drugs, electronic motherboards, etc.) and whole environments (cities, large monoculture farms) that never existed before. So, specifically, what is being proposed? Are we to quit making aluminum, drugs, and computers? Perhaps, it is sufficient to set aside some
T
© 2001 American Chemical Society
wilderness areas where human interlopers will be minimized or forbidden—a curious, somewhat contradictory concession by a society that is proceeding pell-mell to develop the rest of planet as quickly as possible. Second, it is not clear that humans really want to go back, although they may agree in principle with Berry, Carson, and others. The evidence clearly supports the observation that world development, and with it environmental change, is not slowing down as a result of the environmental movement; in fact, it is accelerating. The recent movement to incorporate green manufacturing and sustainable management practices into our enterprise is not an attempt to return to nature; it is an attempt to control the way we are changing nature. Finally, it has been clear from the beginning that another, equally important driver of the environmental movement has been profoundly anthropocentric—our health, our children, our property values. When there is a conflict between these values and the protection of nature, nature seldom wins. How then can we reconcile this apparent contradiction in behavior with the deeply held feelings for nature that we all seem to share? Perhaps it would be instructive for environmental designers—that is, all of us, according to William McDonnough—to ask again, what are we trying to accomplish through environmental protection? What drives an elegant country such as the Netherlands? It cannot be to return to “our native place”, yet few developed nations are leaving a softer footprint than the Dutch. Is our preoccupation with returning to a pristine environment actually preventing us from achieving a system of environmental protection that is most effective? Are we fooling ourselves into thinking that a restored natural world will result? Indeed, what type of society are we attempting to create? One that is as close to the former natural world as possible, or one that is designed and configured by some other model? If and when we go to Mars to build a new society, what principles will we follow?
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected])
JULY 1, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
I
273 A
