Will Economics Reverse Progress? There is increasing evidence that segments of the American population are beginning to realize the full impact of the green revolution. Undoubtedly the same is true in other developed countries where decisions based on environmental and public health protection are beginning to have visible economic impact. This awakening is inevitable but disturbing. The simple fact is that economic well-being will be affected by the costs of environmental protection, and the general public has yet to fully appreciate how much. What impact this will have on the environmental “movement” is not clear, bu.t it will not be favorable, at least in the short term. To avoid a backlash that may have long-term effects on the planet, enlightened leadership and cooperation will be needed from industry, government, educators, and public interest groups. Recent news stories relating to the beef and lumber industries vividly illustrate the conflict between economic well-being and environmental protection. Lately it appears that the beef industry has realized just how much it could be affected if environmentalists and public health advocates have their way. For example, in a recent syndicated news story in the New York Times, Jeremy Rifkin, author of Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, contends that the federal government’s “giveaway program [subsidizing the cattle industry] has resulted in the destruction of native habitats, wildlife, and the erosion of land.” Rifkin and others are calling for the Department of Agriculture to “shift its priorities from promoting beef consumption to promoting a more balanced diet with less saturated fat” to protect the environment and to reduce cardiovascular disease in the American public. The meat industry is fighting back through its trade associations, and one can only wonder what will be the effect of this battle on the attitudes of cattle ranchers, meat packers and distributors, and their families and friends toward the entire environmental movement. The protection of the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest created a similar confrontation between environmentalists and the lumber industry. No doubt tempers flared in the public meetings that were held to discuss this issue, repeating the drama that city councils, county commissions, and state agencies have witnessed again and again 001 3-936Xi92i0926-843$03.00/0G 1992 American Chemical Society
during the past few years. Nowadays the lines are drawn more and more clearly during these confrontations. On one side one usually finds dedicated individuals whose position is based on ecological or public health protection, and on the other, equally dedicated proponents of economic development. Compromise is often possible, but unfortunately is seldom achieved, and when it is, as in the case of lumbering on public lands in the Northwest, the compromise does not seem to heal the battle wounds suffered by both sides. It would be interesting to know how the attitudes of the lumberjacks, construction workers, and lumber dealers in the towns of America outside the Pacific Northwest were affected by that fight. How were their attitudes toward global warming, the ozone layer, and preservation of their local watersheds affected by their nowclearer perception of how environmental protection affects their personal pocketbooks? How will this new perception affect their positions on local environmental issues? What do they say at the dinner table before their children, and how will that affect the young ones’ perception of their environment? The economic trade-offs of ecological protection seem to become acutely real only when it is one’s own pocketbook that is affected. What then lies ahead for the environmental movement? Will the support of the public be slowly eroded, followed by the abandonment of the Congress and other government officials? Will industry reverse the excellent progress it has made in the last decade toward waste reduction and environmental stewardship? And will the degradation of the planet resume at a faster pace as the number of industrial nations increases and the leadership of developed nations wanes? This is a sad scenario that we hope does not happen, but it is possible. How to avoid it is a challenge for us all.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 26, No. 5, 1992 843
