U.S.-Soviet cooperation in environmental protection to most governmental agencies in the
By David McClave
In the United States, new warnings about the depletion of the Earth‘s ozone layer and the accelerating disappearance of tropical rain forests, the scorching summer of 1988, and water pollution bad enough to close major bathiig beaches in the northeastern part of the country are dramatic reminders of mounting environmental problems. Similarlv, in the Soviet Union. the 1986 David McCIave nuclear accident at Chernobyl, the near destruction of the Aral Sea. and the he- r fouling of ~ a k e~ a kiiey the ~ideological myth that environmental degradation is a byprcduct of capitalism only. In this new age of ghnost (openness), these disquieting events and a host of other environmental horror stories have triggered astonishingly uninhibited discussions and debates among Soviet officials, scientists, and the public. By now, in the third decade of our environmental movement, Americans have become accustomed to hearing urgent pleas to “Save the Chesapeake Bay” or “Stop Seabrook Nuclear Power.” What is new on the environmental scene in the Soviet Union are almost identical appeals to “Spasti Aral kkoye More ” (‘‘Save the Aral Sea”) and to rescue many imperiled key national water resources: the lower Volga and the Dnepr rivers, the Caspian Sea, and Lake Ladoga. Spurred on partiaUy by media exposure and public outcries, the Soviet government has responded with a series of measures aimed at repairing a huge and complex ecosystem diagnosed as in critical condition. As of January 17, 1988, the Soviet Union has an EPA equivalent in the tion and cotlservation of resources a p State Committee to Protect Nature pear to be in place. Roughly equivalent (Goskompriroda). national level agencies have been estabThus, at long last, huildiug blocks for lished to monitor the quality of air and productive and sustained bilateral coop water as well as the handling, storage, erative efforts in environmental protec- and disposal of toxic wastes. In contrast ~
~~~
~
~
266 Environ. Sci. Technol.. MI. 23, NO.3, 1969,
two countries, the mandates and agendas of EPA and Goskompriroda largely coincide. Citizen-capitalists and citizen-socialists alike preEr clean water and air over polluted water and air; given the choice they would preserve the sable, the sturgeon, the timber wolf, and the bald eagle rather than preside over their extinction. Never has there been a more propitious time or a greater need for superpower cooperation to preserve the habitabiiity of our planet. In l i e with a general agreement on cooperation in environmental protection, and building upon the foundations provided by several promising joint ventures already underway (e.g., working groups on climate and ozone protection, and joint research expeditions in the Bering Sea), specific cooperative endeavors should be initiated between the two countries’ agencies responsible for environmental protection and resource conservation. An incredible concentration of responsibility rests with these offices. As the first and fourth largest countries in the world, the Soviet Union and the United States together are custodians of almost one-quarter of this fragile Earth’s inhabited area, the air above it, and large portions of the seas surrounding it. Much of the world‘s supply of fresh water is found on or below Soviet and American temtory. Moreover, although their combined population is only 10% of the world’s total, the two countries are in many economic categories the primary producers, consumers, and polluters of the global resource base. For example, in 1985, the superpowers alone accounted for about 40% of all carbon dioxide emissions-the primary cause of the alarming greenhouse effect. The management, therefore, of these two countries’ environments has a profound impact far beyond their national
0013g36W89/0923M66$01.50/0 @ I969 American Chemical Societv
boundaries and affects the quality of the biosphere as a whole. It is a safe and comforting assumption that the entire globe will benefit if the superpowers can forge a prudent and visionary bilateral trusteeship. The Soviet Union and the United States should move beyond bilateral relations, as the global ecological crisis fully warrants, and exercise as never before their powerful leadership roles among their allies and in the United Nations to ensure that the ecological record for the next century will be a vast improvement over that of this century. In the interests of enhancing joint trusteeship, this essay advocates focusing on selected pressing clean-up projects, most of which will positively affect the global commons, that is, the shared resources of the Earth. Some of these endeavors could be administered by jointly staffed environmental protection offices in the capitals of the two countries. Related activities would include taking the ecological “vital signs” of each country at various bases-monitoring, for example, ambient air quality in industrial centers, or pooling scientific and technical expertise in an attempt to make accurate and timely predictions of earthquakes. Problems associated with water use and abuse in the arid regions of both countries are serious enough, especially in the Soviet case, to merit emergency corrective measures. The fate of one of the world’s great inland water resourcesthe shrinking Aral Sea-might well depend upon it. Prospects for mutually assured protection of wildlife and conservation are bright, as the dramatic joint effort to free the icebound whales off Point Barrow so poignantly showed. The 56year-old U.S.-Canadian Waterton Glacier International Peace Park could serve as a model for a U.S.-Soviet nature preserve, a potential UNESCO World Heritage Site spanning the Bering Strait and encompassingparts of Alaska and the Chukchi Peninsula. This project would be an ecological workshop emphasizing wilderness and wildlife preservation. Additional projects could also be launched to further cooperation in other spheres. Monitoring airborne pollutants and ozone layer damage involves space research, in which both countries excel. A good start has been made in this direction with the discussions about placing an American monitoring device on a Soviet satellite. But bolder steps should be taken. Joint shuttle missions using both countries’ orbiters, for example, should be dedicated exclusively to studying the most critical global environmental problems, including the greenhouse effect, deforestation, and
desertification. Resolving the common and vexing problem of safe disposal of nuclear waste would draw upon decades of experience each country has had in the peaceful uses of the atom. The warning signs of impending disaster have gone up at various points around the world: ,death and infertility among Baltic Sea seals, extensive impoverishment of the tropical rain forest’s biological diversity, the probable extinction of Africa’s great animals, and rampant soil erosion and destruction. Consciousness of the gravity of the situation is moving out of the laboratories and the realm of environmental scientists and ecologists. Ecologically oriented political parties have had considerable impact in some European countries. As air and water become increasingly
unfit for human consumption, political and social movements addressing environmental concerns wjll surely grow in influence. Thus there are many compelling reasons for the superpowers to reassess mutual interests and common causes brought to light by the ecological crisis taking place on and around their territories. A gradual shift toward policies and programs based not on destroying the environment but on deep respect for and appreciation of both national and global ecosystems could be brought about through collaborative Soviet-American efforts. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and should not be construed as representing the views of the Library of Congress or the U.S. Government.
~
Environment and energy: An odd duo By Stanton S. Miller Some people believe that environmental policies will drive energy needs. Others believe that energy issues in the lOlst U.S. Congress will be determined by environmental concerns. But whatever may turn out to be the case, neither the demands of energy or of the environment can be met without consideration of the other. Environmental progress must be wed to energy issues such as efficiency and technology. Traditional approaches to our environmental problems always run into energy considerations, to be sure, but one way to avoid this collision of environmental and energy demands is to take an alternative, nontraditional approach. Such advice was the message heard at the recent congressional meeting on global environmental concerns and energy policy. Sponsored by the Council on Alternate Fuels (Washington, DC), the meeting was held in early December 1988 in Washington. In the traditional approach, solutions to environmental problems such as global warming, acid rain, and nonattainment (e.g., the violation of national
0013-936X189/0923-0267$01.50/0 0 1989 American Chemical Society
ambient air quality standards by 100 U .S . urban areas) make energy-using demands, run into budgetary restraints, cost money, and include a command and control approach. The latter is based on the theory that by commanding acid rain control, for example, in legislation, the acid rain problem can be controlled. Many of the proposed solutions conflict, to be sure. For example, transportation accounts for 62% of the energy used in the United States. More than 40 % of our crude oil is imported. Ethanol, an alternative automobile fuel, costs twice as much as oil; methanol use causes the formation of formaldehyde, an ingredient in smog. If and when we choose to move ahead, command control techniques certainly will be avoided; rather, the market place will sort out the conflict between this odd duo of environmentenergy issues. The past summer was the driest and hottest in U.S. history. But the public will not pass judgment on the global warming issue until they go through next summer. If the weather is a repeat of last year’s, the public will become Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 23, No. 3, 1989 267
