Editor's Page
Regulation: a tangled issue Much of this issue of C&EN is devoted to a five-part debate on the question "Has environmental regulation gone too far?" Or, in other words, how is the cost-to-benefit balance shaping up for the mass of relatively new legislation aimed at protecting human health and the environment in this country? Such regulations have come in for a lot of strident criticism lately. As associate editor Richard Seltzer, who organized this presentation, points out, they have been accused, among other things, of eliminating jobs, diverting capital investment, reducing productivity, and impeding innovation. They have also been linked with inflation. Indeed, as part of his antiinflation program, President Carter has established an interagency council to monitor government regulations. Of course, those favoring government regulation see the issue quite differently. To them industry is constantly "crying wolf" in its protestations. They also generally maintain that the benefits derived from regulations exceed the cost and that, in fact, stricter regulation is needed in many areas. As Seltzer writes (page 24), "In an attempt to clarify these complex issues, C&EN has invited prominent figures representing five distinct vantage points to present their contrasting views. They include a staff attorney for one of the most active environmental advocacy groups, an economist who formerly helped run the federal Council on Wage & Price Stability, a high EPA official, two economists who have made extensive joint efforts to estimate the benefits of environmental control, and a chemist who directs environmental assessment for an industry-sponsored research institute." Authors were asked to use air pollution issues as case examples and each was given the opportunity to rebut the views of the others (page 47). The entire exercise has been informative. But it is questionable if it has really done much to clarify the issue. For instance, it is unlikely that there will ever be universal agreement on the value of being able to live and work in a smog-free environment, of lakes being still full of fish and free of airborne pollutants, and even of prolonging human life. And as long as there is no agreement on what resources society should devote to seeking such social goals, and as long as the true role of environmental regulations in such quests remains unclear, the current rather frantic confrontation approach to regulation, with much of it ending up in the courts, will continue. As one of the contributors to this debate points out, judgments involving risks or effects associated with technological options should be made on society's behalf, ideally, by a Constitutionally appropriate body. "But no such public decision-making process exists. We make do with disparate efforts of individuals, special interest groups, self-appointed public interest groups, and legislative, judicial, and regulatory systems. Thus, we have not yet developed the philosophical framework, the societal traditions, or the institutional mechanisms to deal holistically with the risks that we now increasingly identify or create." He makes an excellent point. But maybe the mechanism for handling these issues in a more rational way—it is not logical to have a court of law decide what limit should be put on the amount of ozone in the atmosphere—already exists, in the traditional methods of settling all political issues in this country. But these methods are not working well for regulatory matters at the moment because there is no solid, central constituency on these issues. These regulatory issues are largely in the hands of groups that tend to polarize—hence the confrontations. One day, possibly soon, the importance of environmental regulations will become apparent to the electorate at large. When that happens, environmental and regulatory issues will likely be settled more smoothly and they will be settled in favor of those special interest and advocacy groups in which the public has the greatest faith. Such groups might do well to remember that today. Michael Heylin, Editor
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
April 23, 1979 C&EN
3
