/
Has!
tal Ethic:
'//
* ^'
-------
An Environmental Ethic:
Has it Taken Hold?
Earth Day and the creation
of EPA'in l<)70
symbolized the increasing
concern of the nation about
environmental values. Xmv,
Hi years later, has an
environmental ethic: taken
hold in our society? This
issue of h'PA /f an
environmental ethic in
America. A Jouniiii ioruni
follows, with five prominent
environmental observers
answering the question: has
the ethic taken hold? EPA
Administrator l,ee VI.
Thomas discusses whether
American individuals have
gotten serious about
environmental protection as a
practical matter in their own
lives, and a subsequent
article; iiruilyx.es the findings
of recent public, opinion
polls.
Next are two art ides
through the looking glass
since Earth Day, one by
former Democratic Senator
(laylord Nelson, who
founded Karth Day, and one
by John (',. U'hitaker. who
w;is an environmental staffer
in President Nixon's White
I louse.
Two articles about industry
and the environmental ethic
follow. The first is by Kent
Ciilbrealh. an educator and
member of (be Dallas federal
Reserve Hank Hoard.
discussing industry's
environmental attitudes
generally. The second is by
W.R.O. Aitken, Hxeculive
Vice President of the
International Nickel (!o. (Incu
Limited], explaining his
company's environmental
experience; and views.
On Staten Island, Fresh Kills Landfill—the world's largest garbage dump—receives waste from all
five of New York City's boroughs. Here a crane unloads waste from barges and loads it onto
trucks for distribution elsewhere around the dump site. William C. Franz photo, Staten Island Register.
Broadening the issue's
perspective. Giro Harlem
Brundtland, the Prime
Minister of Norway and a
world environmental leader,
explains the imperative for a
global environmental ethic.
An editorial by the editor ol
the /oirnicil, John Heritage.
follows,
Next an "environmental
literacy test" is offered to
assist readers in evaluating
their own environmental
awareness.
A special section is
included on environmental
education, a subject which
received a boost in national
priority from the public
concern which flowered in
the early l!)7()s. In the first
article, Jack Lewis, who
writes for the Journal, traces
the evolution ol
environmental education in
this country up to the
present; a box provides a
summary report on
educational activities in the
states. The role of
environmental education in
the future is tin; subject of an
article by educators John
Pauik and Lynn Hodges.
Two teachers. Belva
Peterson of Outline Center.
Iowa, and Melvin Marcus of
Brooklyn, New York.
describe the school projects
they directed that won
President's Environmental
Youth Awards. Then writer
John Falk explores the
question, are children getting
an environmental protection
message outside the
classroom?
Concluding this issue's
coverage of environmental
ethics and education is an
Environmental Almanac
feature with author and
bird-watcher Lola Oberman
reporting on the return of
waterfowl to the Potomac
River in the nation's capital.
On another environmental
issue, the Journal notes that
EPA recently proposed new
standards for the protection
of agricultural workers from
pesticide exposure. In a
point/counterpoint feature
that follows, two
observers—Claudia Fuquay of
the United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Association and
Dr. Marion Moses, a
physician who is actively
involved in farm safety
issues—comment from
different vantage points on
the adequacy of EPA's
proposal.
This Journal concludes
with a regular feature.
Appointments, and a report
on the EPA winners of the
1988 Presidential Rank
service awards. Q
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 14
Number 6
July-August
vvEPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
R.A, Edwards, Acting Director, Office of Public Affairs
John Heritage, Editor
Ruth Barker, Assistant Editor
Karen Flagstad, Assistant Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
Marilyn Rogers, Circulation Manager
EPA is charged by Congress to
protect tin; nation's land. air, and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and
implement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of EPA
has determined that the
publication of this periodical is
necessary in the transaction of the
public business required by !axv of
this agency. Use ol funds for
printing this periodical has been
ap iroved by the Director of the
Of ice of Management and Budget.
Views expressed by authors do not
necessarily reflect KI'A policy.
Contributions and inquiries should
be addressed to tin- Editor (A-107).
Waterside Mall. 401 M St.. SAY.,
Washington, DC 204BO. No
permission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
What Is an Environmental
Ethic?
by Robert Cahn 2
Has the Ethic Taken Hold?
A Forum 5
Speaking Frankly
by Lee M. Thomas I)
Environmental Polls: What
They Tell Us
by Frederick W. Allen and
Roy Popkin 10
Earth Day Recollections:
Where We Were And Where
We Are
by Gay lord Nelson 12
Earth Day Recollections:
What It Was Like When The
Movement Took Off
by John C. \Vhitaker 14
Industry's Environmental
Attitudes
by Kent Gilbreath IH
A View From Inco
by W. R, O. Aitken 21
Seeking A Global Ethic
by Gm Harlem
Brundtland 23
An Editorial
by John Heritage 25
An Environmental Literacy
Test 2tt
Environmental Education:
Past and Present
by lack Lewis 30
Environmental Education:
The Future
by John Paulk and Lynn
(lodges 3(i
What They're Learning:
Guthrie Center, Iowa
by Belva Peterson 38
What They're Learning:
Brooklyn, New York
by Melvin Marcus 3<)
Is It Cool To Worry?
by John Falk 41
Environmental Almanac:
Good News On The Potomac
by Lola Oberman 43
On Another Subject:
Agricultural Workers and
Pesticides 44
Appointments 47
The Presidential Awards 4H
Front Cover: Earlh Day, 1970, svin-
hol of a national environmental
awakening. A scene in Meiv York
city is pictured in this phofo by
/ason Lei lire. Wood/in Gump. Inc.
Anmiunccmenls:
fi{'ginnjn« ivitji (he next issue. El'A
Journal ivil! be published
bimonthlv, or six times u your.
The next issue ol 1-,1'A Journal "'ill
be on environmental priorities for
the nation as seen by different
observers.
Correction: The back cover
photograph in the last issue of
El'A Journal ivus incorrectly
identified lo the nujgci/ine slul' l>\
(i photo rental house us being un
aerial picture of (,'upc May. \.J. In
fact the pholo is of a nearby
section of shoreline. The Keillor
and the photo house, Woodfin
Camp, Inc., regret the error.
The annual rate for subscribers in
the U.S. tor the KPA Journal is
$11.00. The charge to subscribers
in foreign countries is SKi.75 a
year. The price of a single copy of
the EPA /nurnri! is $1.75 in this
country and S2.HJ if sent to a
foreign country. Prices include
mail costs. Subscriptions to the
EPA Journal as well as to other
federal government magazines are
handled only by the U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Anyone wishing to subscribe to the
I'.'PA Journal should fill in the form
at right and enclose a check or
money order payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. The
requests should be mailed to:
Superintendent ol Documents,
GPO, Washington, DC 20402,
EPA Journal Subscriptions
Na
ne
Firs
1, L
ist
|
PI
.EA<
;E P
RIN"
Co
Sir
npa
3et
ly N
<\ddt
am«
ess
i or
Add
tion
3\ AC
id re
is L
ne
Cit
(
Sta
te
Zip
Coc
ie
Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
What is an Environmental Ethic?
by Robert Cahn
Pilgrims to Yellowstone Park,
established in 1871 as the first U.S. national
park. This late 1920s photo shows throngs
arriving at the Gardiner, Montana, train
station, near the northern entrance to
Yellowstone. National Park Service photo.
Throughout 20 years as an
environmental journalist and during
the period from 1970 to 1972 when I
was a member of the newly formed
President's Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), one concept that has
particularly interested me is the
nurturing of a genuine environmental
ethic in America.
What is an "environmental ethic?"
Perhaps ecologist/writer Aldo Leopold
says it best in his essay "The Land
Ethic;" from A .Sand Count)' Almanac
(Hid Sketches Jien; and There (1949):
All ethics .so far evolved rest upon
a single promise: that the
individual is a member of a
community of interdependent
parts. The land of hie simply
enlarges tin: boundaries of the
community (o include soils,
waters, plants, and animals, or
collectively, the land ... a land
ethic changes tin; role of Humu
sapiens from conqueror of the
land-community to plain member
and citi/en of it .... It implies
respect for his fellow-members,
and also respect for the;
community as such.
Reading Leopold's essays in the late
1960s, and realizing that the word
"land" implied the total environment,
made me aware of the urgent necessity
for every dti/.en to have; a feeling and
awareness thai the earth i.s not here for
humans to manipulate, but that
humanity exists as part of an
interrelated world. "We abuse land
because we regard it as a commodity
belonging to us," Leopold also wrote.
"When we see land as a community to
which we belong, we may begin to use
it with love and respect."
Researching a series of articles on
America's national parks at about that
time also brought an awareness of how
the environmental ethic could be put
into practice. It was just such an ethic
that led to the starting of national parks
in the world. An early explorer of
Yellowstone, Cornelius Hedges, stated,
"It is impossible that any individual
should think he can own any of this
country for his own in fee. This great
wilderness does not belong to us. It
belongs to the nation. Let us make a
public park of it and set it aside never
to be changed but to be kept sacred
alwavs."
Each individual—corporate
executive, public official, or
aware citizen—must make
fewer demands on non-
renewable resources ..
While visiting the national parks I
came to recognize that people felt the
parks belonged to them, as a part of
their heritage, and they felt fiercely
protective of them ... that to harm or
threaten a national park is to touch a
sensitive nerve in the American public.
Many visitors and park employees
seemed to live by a set of values rarely
seen elsewhere. They were not seeking
economic benefit, but instead seemed to
feel that they were part of a whole
natural system. Most of them behaved
as if they did not want to leave that
system any worse off than they found it,
so that others, and even future
generations, could share and enjoy it.
After being disappointed by finding
little of an environmental ethic
practiced in government and business
during my almost three years as a
member of CEQ. my journalistic
curiosity led me in 1974 to start looking
into the existence of the ethic and
resulted four years later in a book,
Footprints on the Planet: A Search for
an Environmental Ethic (1978).
Specifically, 1 sought to discover what
impacts the actions of each citizen were
having on the environment of which
man is a part. What responsibility did
we—as writer or banker or government
official or corporate executive or worker
or homemaker or student or architect or
scientist—have to tread lightly wherever
we go and leave footprints that do not
mar the planet, or better yet, no
footprints at all.
My search was for practical, not
merely philosophical, evidence of an
environmental ethic, and for ways to
develop new structures or types of
institutional organizations through
which environmental concerns could be
raised, considered equally with
economic and other social concerns,
and listened to at high enough levels to
make a difference in decisions and
actions. I was seeking executives who
asked—before giving a go-ahead for a
new product or development—"What is
the cost to our neighbors, to our
surroundings, and to future generations
of not adequately considering the
environmental impacts of these
decisions?"
Most of the research was aimed at
determining whether environmental
concerns were really a factor in
management decisions. I neither
anticipated finding an environmental
ethic to be the dominant factor nor
expected altruism. But I did hope to
find executives who understood that the
environment, in addition to being a
social responsibility, is a legitimate
component of the pool of information
on which to base their decisions, as
important a factor in its way as market
research, current technology, and the
cost of materials and labor.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
*>*
What I found was that America's free
enterprise system had not yet adopted a
true environmental ethic. Most business
decision-makers seemed to feel they had
done enough if they simply stayed
within the letter of the law. Some
evaded, resisted, and delayed complying
with environmental laws because they
found doing so more profitable than
compliance.
Although I found no corporate model
of excellence where environmental
concerns were adequately considered in
all parts of the decision-making process,
there were some commendable
examples. The Cummins Engine
Company of Columbus, Indiana, for
example, used what it called a
"stakeholders" concept of corporate
responsibility. Instead of putting
priority on the concerns of just the
shareholders —the investors for whom it
was supposed to show a profit,
Cummins applied a process of trying to
give adequate attention to all of the
company's stakeholders. These included
investors, employees, customers,
suppliers, cities in which they operated,
regulatory agencies with jurisdiction
over products, and the various general
publics involved with the products,
such as people in areas in which
Cummins truck engines emitted exhaust
gases, or people who might be impacted
by the location of a new plant.
In 1975, for instance, Cummins split
away from the solid position of other
major makers of heavy-duty truck
engines who were opposing a proposal
by a Congressional committee to adopt
tough target goals or standards for
emissions. Most of the industry felt the
proposals were unachievable and
unworkable. Cummins sent a
representative to Washington to work
with the committee to help develop
standards and compliance procedures
that took into account human health
and yet could be met by manufacturers;
this effort helped to provide a
compromise that became a part of the
Clean Air Act Amendments passed by
Congress in 1977.
In the private sector I also discovered
non-profit organi/.ations such as The
Nature Conservancy and The Trust for
Public; Land, which in cooperation with
dedicated citizens or environmentally
concerned corporations and foundations
were involved in protecting land for
future generations. They all practiced an
environmental ethic in preserving
wetlands, open space, and potential
park and wilderness lands that were
threatened by development.
In the corporate world, as well as in
government, there were a few
organizational structures through which
environmental effects could be factored
into decisions before actions were taken.
But those structures proved effective
only when some person with
influence—a business leader, lawmaker,
public official, or local activist — was
sufficiently imbued with an
environmental ethic to give force to
environmental concerns and who cared
enough to lead the way. Those
environmentally caring decision-makers
showed a kind of enlightened
self-interest. Instead of acting only in
their own personal or corporate
interests, they considered their
neighbors, their community, and the
natural world in their decisions. And
they were concerned with the future as
well as the present.
Since doing the research for tin- book
a decade ago, I have seen an increase; in
the understanding and application of
the environmental ethic by Individual
citi/.ens and some limited progress in
the corporate sector and in government.
But there has not been enough to
overcome the seven; national and global
threats now becoming apparent.
Without doubt, the development of a
true, widely practiced environmental
ethic will he increasingly important as
the global consequences of population
growth, loss of rain forests, impacts on
the ozone layer from excessive burning
of fossil fuels and from the use of
JULY/AUGUST 1988
-------
Illustration by Leslie Kouba. From Of
Time and Place, by Sigurd F.
Olson. Copyright < 1982 by the
First National Bank of Duluth as
Trustee of the Sigurd F. Olson
Trust. Reprinted by permission of
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
chlorofluorocarbons, pollution from
toxic wastes, and depletion of natural
resources become increasingly acute.
Kadi individual—corporate executive,
public official, or aware citi/.en—must
make fewer demands on nonrenewable
resources, replacing a self-only.
short-range outlook with long-term and
broader—even global—values, and
exercising the Golden Rule by behaving
toward others as they would desire
others to behave toward them.
Practicing an environmental ethic
should not interfere with economic and
other social responsibilities or
obligations. It must be integrated into
overall systems of belief and
coordinated with economic systems.
Environmental advocates, in turn, need
to consider the full consequences ol
their objectives just as they demand of
others the consideration of the
environmental consequences in
decision-making. It makes no sense; to
preserve the environment if that
objective produces national economic
collapse. Nor does it make sense to
maintain stable industrial productivity
at the cost of depriving the country of
breathable air, drinkable water, wildlife
species, parks, and wilderness.
"I incline to believe we have
overestimated the scope of the profit
motive," wrote Aldo Leopold. "Is it
profitable for the individual to build a
beautiful home? To give his children a
higher education? No, it is seldom
profitable, yet we do both. These are, in
fact, ethical and aesthetic premises
which underlie the economic system.
Once accepted, economic; forces tend to
align the smaller details of social
organization into harmony with them."
"No such ethical and aesthetic
premise yet exists for the condition of
the land these children must live in ....
There is as yet no social stigma in the
possession of a gullied farm, a wrecked
forest, or a polluted stream provided the
dividends suffice to send the youngsters
to college."
The belief held by some that
technology can solve all problems is
incompatible with the environmental
ethic. Technology that does not provide
adequate protection against
environmental and social impacts often
brings more problems than solutions.
Time and again in recent years, what
looked like a technological panacea has
brought unforeseen and undesirable side
effects and as yet unknown future
consequences.
The belief held by some that
technology can solve all prob-
lems is incompatible with the
environmental ethic.
One thing is certain. Decisions and
actions by individuals faced with
ethical choices collectively determine
the hopes and quality of life for
everyone. As ecological knowledge and
awareness begins to catch up with good
intentions, it will be essential for people
in all walks of life to live by an
environmental ethic so that our world
can be brought back into balance. 0
fCcihn is a Pulitzer prize-winning
environmental journalist, a former
member of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality, and a long-time
environmentalist who has received the
U.S. Department of the Interior's
Conservation Service Award.)
(This article has been adapted by Cahn
from his book Footprints on the Planet:
A Search for an Environmental Ethic
(Island Press 1978).)
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Russell E. Train
Michael Frome
Has the
Ethic Taken
Hold?
A Forum
Has an environmental ethic
really taken hold in
America? EPA Journal asked
five observers who hare
different viewpoints to
respond to this question.
Their answers follow:
Has the nation gone far
enough in adopting an
environmental ethic?
If progress in the past
20 years is any indication,
we've come a long way. In
many U.S. cities, the air is
cleaner and water quality has
held its own, on balance,
despite substantial economic:
growth. Large acreage has
been added to our parks and
wilderness systems. Backing
these achievements are
unwavering support by
Americans and sizable
expenditures for cleanup.
Yet as scientists and
policy-makers learn more
about pollution, they are
seeing a new generation of
environmental problems,
typically involving less
visible pollutants and highly
diffuse sources. Toxics
leaking from waste situs into
ground water, incinerated
PCB residues settling from
the air into Great Lakes'
water, greenhouse gases
accumulating in the;
atmosphere—these are
current problems that Largely
escape existing controls.
To address them, we will
need to reinvigorate our
already strong environmental
ethic, for some of the issues
we face will surely test our
commitment to
environmental progress and
require changes in attitudes
and actions:
• Reducing ivastes before
they enter the air or wafer or
are deposited in the ground.
This is the most important
approach to cutting
pollution, especially toxics; it
may mean revamping
environmental laws and
changing consumer attitudes
about packaging, recycling,
and paying the true costs of
goods and services.
• Stopping piecemeal
degradation of the American
countryside as population
and development spread out
across the landscape.
Americans are still seeking
ways to reconcile long-held
preferences for single-family
homes, surrounded by a plot
of land and coupled with
widespread use of
automobiles, and the
consequences—ioss of
wetlands, farmlands, historic
sites, and other productive
lands; traffic jams:
overloaded public facilities;
and so on—as development
• Making choices in what ive
buy and support that reflect
the imperative of saving
biologically rich rain forests
in distant lands. Like local
people who benefit
economically from the
forests, we, too, depend on
their sustained yields for
products useful in
agriculture, medicine, and
industry. Moreover, rain
forests may be a stabilizing
influence on regional,
perhaps even global, weather
patterns.
How we respond to these
problems will test whether
the nation's environmental
ethic is up to the challenge
ahead.u
[Train, formerly
Administrator o| Kl'A. is (lie
Chairman of the Board of
Workl Wildlife Fund and The,
Conservation Foundation.)
Despite promise and
positive signs, our society
has a long, long way to go in
accepting the environmental
ethic as a part of life. As I
observe the scene, we are
still losing ground, rather
than gaining. I say this
without despair, for
Americans have the capacity
to tackle and lick tough
challenges. Once the needs
are explained clearly and
boldly, people will respond
to them. That is as much the
American way as the chronic
concept of the modern
"throwaway society."
The 1960s were rich in
landmarks, like the
Wilderness Act, recognizing
in law the value of saving
substantial fragments of the
original America. That the
National Wilderness
Preservation System, which
came into being with passage
of the act. should now
embrace nearly 90 million
acres of federal land clearly
demonstrates public concern
for our natural heritage and
desire to save it for the
future.
The 1970s began with
Earth Day and the National
Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). and I don't think
there has been any retreat
from the principles implicit
in either of them. With both
Earth Day and NEPA.
national environmental
organizations emerged as
prominent influences in
shaping popular attitudes
and government policies. 1
think, for instance, of a group
like Defenders of Wildlife,
which has helped people to
understand the beauty and
value of predators like the
wolf and raptors like the
golden eagle, so that we are
now inclined to protect
rather than to destroy these
superlative critters with
which we share the
continent.
But we all have still to
come to grips with issues of
growth, greed, and
JULY/AUGUST 1988
-------
George M. Keller
Quentin N. Burdick
overconsumption. We need
to live within our means.
using less and enjoying more.
Professions need to
re-examine their purposes.
Architecture, as I see it, is at
its best in restoring sites, not
developing them while
destroying them in the
process. Journalism, too, is
better in my view when it
explains values to be lost as
well as gained from the
arrival of any new industry
or the construction of another
suburban mall.
I picture the community in
which I lived at the (urn of the
century, then envision it with
overlays marking each
decade since. I see little
change until the end of
World War II, and
accelerated change ever
since. The same, I daresay, is
true of almost every
community. And the change
is simply not for the better.
More people, congestion,
pollution, open space
gone—you can fill in the rest.
The environmental ethic
won't cure it all, but we
cannot have the cure without
it. Laws and regulations have
their place, but people make
things work. Once Americans
have the environmental ethic
in their hearts, their minds,
pocketbooks, and voting, and
business and political
institutions will respond.
That day will come and I
plan to be around for it. a
(Frome is Environmental
Journalist in Residence at
Huxleer College of
Environmental Studies,
Western Washington
University, Bellingham,
Washington,]
The United States has
made remarkable progress
in protecting the
environment during the past
25 years. We have adopted
scores of increasingly strict
programs to clean up the air
and water and to safeguard
scenic and other
environmental values. But
the job is certainly not
finished by any means.
In fact, I believe the next
few years will be a critical
test of our society's ability to
deal effectively with
environmental concerns on a
long-term basis. To develop
intelligent, informed, and
workable environmental
solutions will require a broad
consensus among all parts of
our society. It will also
require the kind of
problem-solving technical
leadership that is the special
genius of America's
industrial system,
Unfortunately, at the very
time when the battle for
environmental awareness has
been largely won, the public
dialogue on this subject has
become; increasingly
polarized.
Our nation cannot afford
this kind of political
stalemate. To establish a
more constructive
atmosphere, I believe all the
constituencies
involved—government,
industry, and the
environmental
leadership—must do a much
better job of communicating
with each other.
We also need to develop a
credible system of risk
assessment, to make certain
that our environmental
decisions are based on
scientific fact, not political
rhetoric. To do otherwise
could impose unnecessary
financial burdens on U.S.
industry at a time when
American business faces
tough international
competition.
Industry is ready to do its
part. Business recognizes the
need for a more cooperative
approach. If the interested
parties work together, we can
solve the complex
environmental challenges we
face—at a price our nation
can afford, Q
[Keller is Chairman of the
Board, Chevron Corporation.]
Representing such a
relatively pristine state as
North Dakota, I find that
environmental quality can
easily be taken for granted.
The Peace Garden State is
but one of a handful of states
in compliance with the
ambient air quality standards
established by the Clean Air
Act. We have very few
Superfund sites, and our
water quality is second to
none. North Dakotans have
been willing to pay a steep
price to maintain a high level
of environmental quality. In
the past decade alone, nearly
three quarters of a billion
dollars have been expended
for air pollution controls on
facilities in our small state.
For example, over the years
there has been overwhelming
and consistent public support
for a broad array of programs
designed to protect the
environment and public:
health. In almost two decades
since the establishment of
EPA, we Americans have;
made tremendous strides in
improving the quality of our
environment. In many
respects we have completed
the easy initial tasks
involving environmental
protection.
However, the emerging
environmental concerns that
bombard us dink in
newspapers and on television
are much more complex,
interrelated, and global in
nature. The greenhouse
effect, global warming, toxic
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Lester W. Milbrath
contamination of our air and
water, ozone depletion, and
the safe disposal of our
waste, are all issues looming
on the horizon.
Paradoxically, the solutions
to these problems are vastly
more dependent upon
decisions made by each of us
individually. The countless
collective actions of
individuals have a significant
impact upon our global
environment. Unlike simpler
times when we could easily
identify the major polluters,
distinguish the "bad actors,"
and dramatically point the
finger at offending parties,
these emerging
environmental problems are
more pervasive and insidious
and less conducive to simple
solutions.
Personal decisions made by
individuals are at the root of
whether or not we choose to
purchase only substitutes for
CFCs, decide to share rides
under transportation controls
designed to help our
communities attain clean air
standards, or separate and
recycle our household solid
waste. Much more can and
should be done to educate
the public regarding the
relationship between
individual actions and
collective impact on our
environment.
As an old country lawyer, I
can only say that the jury is
still out on whether or not
America has developed an
environmental ethic. One
thing is certain. You and 1
can make a difference. While
the environmental problems
we face are numerous and
intricate, I continue to be
optimistic:. Only when we
implicitly understand that we
all occupy one planet and
that our individual actions
do indeed directly affect our
environment, will we
establish a uniquely
American environmental
ethic. D
(Senator Burdick (D-NDJ is
Chairman of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment
and Public Works.)
Nearly everyone prefers a
safe, clean, and beautiful
environment. Ethical
questions arise when our
preference for such an
environment conflicts with
other values such as jobs or
wealth.
I recommend Peter Wenz's
Environmental Justice (SUNY
Press, 1988) and Kristin
Shrader-Frechette's
"Environmental Ethics and
Global Imperatives" (in
Robert Repetto, ed., The
Global Possible, Yale
University Press, 1985) to
readers who wish to inquire
more deeply than is possible
here. Both demonstrate that a
rationally consistent new
environmental ethic; is not
feasible. Rather, we need to
systematically apply the
egalitarian ethics (we are our
brothers' and sisters' keepers)
that we already accept. Our
moral obligation to care for
other people, future
generations, and other
sentient creatures is
sufficient to justify
rejuvenation and continual
stewardship of our
ecosphere.
Most of us perceive
ourselves as being morally
responsible; we avoid
inflicting injustice. Yet if we
simply go on doing what we
have always done (and
believed to be morally
correct), we will so injure the
ecosphere that our own lives
will be diminished and we
will unjustly injure future
generations and other
species. Even if people are
thoughtful and caring, and
even if government
splendidly carries out
clean-up programs, our
environment will continue to
deteriorate. The problem lies
more with our way of
thinking, our beliefs about
how the world works, than it
does with our ethics.
Therefore, the meaningful
question is: How far huve we
come in recognizing that our
dominant ways of thinking
and behaving have unjust
consequences that we would
not desire, or believe to be
moral, if only we were able
to foresee the long-run
outcomes of our behavior?
Surveys I conducted in the
early 1980s showed that
about 20 percent of
Americans believe our
present societal trajectory is
wise and sustainable. In
contrast, another 20 percent
are convinced that in order to
avert environmental
catastrophe we must
transform our society into a
more sustainable, harmonious
relationship with nature. The
majority of people have less
clearly worked-out beliefs.
Most people know that we do
many seriously wrong things
to the environment. However,
they do not comprehend the
long-run dire consequences
of continuing to do what we
have always done.
Our environmental
stewardship is not adequate.
The impact of our swiftly
growing numbers (world
population will double to 10
billion in 50 years) and the
awesome power of our
science and technology will
so drastically injure physical
systems that they will no
longer work the way we have
always counted on them to
work. Nature will be our
most powerful teacher
(witness the painful lessons
from the drought this
summer). We must connect
our ethical principles to a
much broader and deeper
understanding of how the
world works if we hope to be
morally responsible in our
thinking and actions. ^
(Dr. Milbrath is Director of
the Research Program in
Environment and Society at
the State University of Xcu
York at Buffalo and author of
several books, including
Environmentalists: Vanguard
for a New Society.)
JULY/AUGUST 1988
-------
Speaking Frankly
by Lee M. Thomas
If a nation's laws and institutions
reflect its ethical character, then an
environmental ethic has been evident in
the United States since early in its
history. Even as our fledgling nation
explored a vast expanse of territory that
eventually would he admitted into the
Union as new states, it was concerned
ahout conserving natural resources for
future generations. We completed the
land purchases that would create the
continental United States in 18R7; in
1871 we set aside two million acres to
create Yellowstone, our first national
park.
Our national conservation ethic was
voiced hy President Theodore Roosevelt
in 1908 when he said: "The wise use of
all our natural resources, which are our
national resources as well, is the great
material question of today." The
creation of our extensive national park
and wilderness system over the past
century demonstrates that the people of
this country have long understood the
need to balance economic development
with the wise stewardship of natural
resources.
Our national environmental ethic was
demonstrated again during the decade
of the 1970s, when a wave of
environmental legislation was passed to
protect human health and the quality of
natural ecosystems. In 1970 President
Richard Nixon established the
Environmental Protection Agency, and
C.ongress required that environmental
impacts he explicitly considered when
planning federal actions, Over the next
10 years Congress enacted a do/en
major laws affecting air quality, water
quality, endangered species, pesticides,
drinking water, toxic substances,
hazardous wastes, coastal zones, and
ocean pollution. These actions reflected
deeply held environmental beliefs that
had been expressed by writers like
Rachel Carson and were an important
part of the value system of the
American people.
These public expressions of our
national environmental ethic have
measurably improved the quality of life
of the American people, and they have
set an example that other nations often
study when they act to preserve their
We have to recognize that
each of us is responsible for
the quality of the environment
we all live in .
own natural resources or protect their
own people's health. In short, our
national environmental ethic has led to
the enactment of laws and the creation
of institutions that are an invaluable
legacy to future generations, both here
in tin; United States and in other
countries as well.
I lowever, as we approach the last
decade of the 20th century, that legacy
may not be sufficient to protect the
health and well-being of people living
here and around the globe in the 21st
century. As human populations and
economic activity continue to grow both
nationally and internationally, we are
facing a number of environmental
problems that threaten not only human
health and the productivity of
ecosystems, but in some cases the very
habitability of the globe. Those
problems—like waste disposal, loss of
species and habitat, ocean pollution,
and global wanning—are not caused
solely by specific sources of pollution
like cars or power plants. Rather, they
are linked to our personal and
community patterns of behavior. They
are the accumulated result of individual
actions that may seem insignificant by
themselves, but in the aggregate pose a
threat to the overall quality of life of
people everywhere.
If we are to respond to those problems
successfully, then our environmental
ethic must express itself in broader and
more fundamental ways. We have to
recognize that each of us is responsible
for the quality of the environment we
all live in, and our personal actions
affect environment quality, for better or
worse. This recognition of individual
EPA JOURNAL
-------
responsibility must then lead to real
changes in individual, family.
community, and business behavior:- In
other words, our environmental ethic
must begin to express itself not only in
federal and state law. but also in subtle
but profound changes in the ways we
all live our daily lives.
For example, the problem of ocean
pollution has received front-page
attention this past summer. Some
people have called for stronger federal
laws, and stricter enforcement of
existing laws, to stop the
ocean dumping of wastes. There is no
doubt that we have to stop using the
ocean as a waste-disposal alternative.
Over the last several years, in fact, we
have strictly limited the number of
communities that can dump sewage
sludge in the ocean, and we have
reduced the ocean dumping of
industrial wastes by over 95 percent.
However, even if the federal
government completely eliminated all
ocean dumping of wastes tomorrow, our
marine water quality problems would
not disappear. Estuarine and
near-coastal areas still would he
polluted by the fertilizers and pesticides
that are washed off farms and lawns far
inland. Ocean waters and beaches still
would be degraded by the trash that
individuals throw overboard or leave
on streets and parking lots to be washed
through storm sewers into the sea.
As a nation, we demonstrated an
early concern for natural resources by
acting to create a national park system.
Established in 1899, Mount Rainier National
Park in Ashford, Washington, encompasses
the greatest single-peak glacial system in
the United States,
Marine wetlands and other fragile
ecosystems still would be threatened by
the wastes and contaminants that result
from extensive population and
economic growth along all three U.S.
coasts and around the Great Lakes.
Environmental laws will not
be effective unless they are
supported by a widely
accepted environmental ethic.
Our response to ocean pollution, like
our response to a number of other
current or emerging environmental
problems, must involve a personal
commitment from each of us to live
environmentally ethical lives—not
because it is a requirement of law, but
because it is an essential component of
our inherent responsibility to ourselves,
our neighbors, our children, and our
planet. In fact, environmental laws will
not be effective unless they are
supported by a widely accepted
environmental ethic. Thus the legacy we
leave for future generations must
include not only the laws and
institutions of which \ve are so
justifiably proud, but also the net
environmental effects of our daily lives.
In the long run, that may be the most
valuable gift of all. D
(Thomcis is Administrator of J'.'PA.)
JULY'AUGUST 1988
-------
Environmental Polls:
What They Tell Us
by Frederick W. Allen
and Roy Popkin
National polls consistently show a
strong and broadly held interest in a
cleaner environment. This suggests the
presence of a strong environmental
ethic. But is this the whole story? When
one looks beyond the available polling
data, it is clear that people frequently
oppose the specific measures needed to
achieve this goal, especially when such
measures involve personal sacrifice. The
attitude seems to be, "Someone else
should bear the burden." This is a
recipe for frustration for both
government officials and the public they
serve.
The most recent Roper poll data show
that Americans continue to be quite
concerned about environmental issues
and favor greater efforts by both
government regulators and the business
community to protect the environment.
These data are consistent with many
other national polls taken during the
past two decades.
What the people are telling
the pollsters is important, out
it is only part of we story on
the present state of the
environmental ethic.
As a priority for increased spending,
the environment ranks fifth on a list of
13 national problems surveyed by
Roper, exceeded in concern only by
health, education, drug abuse, and
crime, and above such activities as
energy, public transportation, space,
military expenditures, and foreign aid. It
ranks in the middle of another list of
issues that people are considering in
voting for president.
This support is broad-based. The poll
results show relatively little difference
in response according to sex, family
size, income, education, job level, or
geographic location. The only notable
variations are that the concerns of
people in the Northeast are often
stronger than those of the South, and
respondents at the lowest educational
and economic levels appear less
concerned (but not unconcerned) about
some issues.
Moreover, respondents with divergent
political beliefs do not differ
significantly in supporting increased
expenditures and regulation. The levels
of such support are just about as high
for Republicans, Democrats, and
independents, and for respondents who
described themselves as conservatives,
moderates, or liberals. When the polls
separate out "PSAs," people who are
"politically and socially active" (and
who, as a result, represent a certain
amount of community influence and/or
leadership), the percentages reflecting
environmental interest are even higher
than those for the general public.
The results of some of the other
questions asked by Roper show a
consistent story. Over half (54 percent)
of the respondents feel that the United
States spends too little on the
environment, an increase from a decade
ago. In contrast, 31 percent say we are
spending about the right amount, and
only 7 percent say we are spending too
much.
Do people feel that business is
meeting its responsibility to clean up its
own pollution? While 78 percent feel
that business has a definite
responsibility in this area (exceeded on
a list of 12 responsibilities only by
making safe products and providing
good quality products and services), just
37 percent feel that business is meeting
the responsibility. A bare 11 percent
believe business would clean up its own
air and water pollution without
governmental oversight. In fact, 85
percent of Americans (and 90 percent of
those in the PSA category) feel that
government must "keep an eye out to be
sure that business cleans up any air and
water pollution it creates," says Roper
Vice President Richard Baxter, adding,
Neglect of the environment—
polluting air and water—stands in first
place as a criticism of business
management, showing a striking
increase in mentions from 1976 to
1982 to 1987. It is named by many
more people than the runner-up—
inattention to product quality. In 1987,
73 percent of the public (84 percent of
the PSAs) held this view.
Asked whether they feel that each of
22 special interest groups has too much,
too little, or about the right amount of
influence, only 13 percent thought
environmental groups are too
influential, ranking them 17th on the
list.
Large numbers of people
oppose many of the specific
measures needed to improve
environmental quality ....
With evidence of such widespread
support for environmental protection, it
might seem that the issue ought to be
pretty well decided. However, it is
obvious to even the most casual
observer of environmental regulation
that large numbers of people oppose
many of the specific measures needed to
improve environmental quality,
especially when such actions affect
them as individuals.
In a recent speech before the Air
Pollution Control Association, EPA
Administrator Lee M. Thomas
commented that many people favor
clean air but oppose mandatory auto
inspection, and favor clean water but
oppose construction of new sewage
treatment plants in areas near their
homes. They want wetlands protected,
but frequently oppose restrictions on
waterfront development. He noted that
even though polls may reflect vast
public support for a clean environment,
large numbers of people oppose many of
the specific measures needed to achieve
this goal. "The public tends to balk,"
he added, "if they find they've got to
do something differently."
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The possibility of risky levels of radon in some homes is
presenting a big challenge for environmental specialists to
communicate their concern to the public. Photo by Peter
Garfield, Folio, Inc.
This observation is supported by the
polling data cited earlier about business,
the environment, and the role of
regulation. Many people simply feel that
environmental quality is a problem and
someone else ought to take care of it.
This attitude is also illustrated by the
manner in which people rank tin:
seriousness of different environmental
problems. There are great variances in
the way the public: and professional
experts rank these problems, and there
is a variety of reasons for the
differences. (See "The Situation: What
the Public Believes; How the Experts
See It," J'JPA /out-mi], November 1987.)
Just a quick look at the public: ranking
shows one of the interesting patterns.
The problems at the top of the public
concerns list—hazardous waste sites,
worker exposure to toxic chemicals,
industrial water pollution, etc. — tend to
be problems for which companies
("someone else"), especially with
perceived "deep pockets," are presumed
to he responsible, and for which there
are "technical fixes" that should not
affect personal routines. The records
from public hearings at many waste
sites suggest that the public: is not
willing to accept any risks at all.
In contrast, the public downplays the
seriousness of vehicle exhaust, the first
problem listed about which many
individuals understand that they
themselves can do something. The
public ranks this problem 17th out of 28
problems covered in the survey. By
contrast, scientists rank this problem as
relatively quite serious. Indoor air
pollution and indoor radon, two other
problems on the list about which
individuals can take direct action, are
also considered high risks by the
experts, hut are ranked 25th and 27th,
respectively, by the public:. Not
surprisingly, in view of these rankings.
society at large is spending
comparatively little for mitigation of
indoor air pollution and radon. In fact,
other EPA data show that even in the
areas shown to be most affected by
radon, fewer than 25 percent of
homeowners have even tested their
homes to see if they have a radon
problem.
The positive support tor a cleaner
environment, at least in the abstract,
and the frequent lack of support for
individual action to achieve that goal
raise difficult issues and frustration
levels for all involved.
Many of the issues that experts find
most serious in terms of health and
environmental effects do require actions
on the part of individuals. The
emergence of indoor air pollution and
radon as important "new" issues
suggests a trend in this direction. How
should a democratic government
proceed under these circumstances?
When individual actions are needed, is
the communications approach enough
(as is being tried in the case of radon) or
are more forceful measures justified,
such as mandatory testing of homes in
the manner of automobile inspections?
In this connection, it is interesting to
consider the possible effects of the new
emergency planning and community
right-to-know regulations. While there
has been much speculation about the
degree to which these provisions will
make people more adamant about
environmental protection, very little, if
any. attention has been paid to the fact
that the information being collected and
made public relates entirely to the
activities of organizations and does not
include the more individually oriented
environmental problems mentioned
above.
In a broader context, there is the issue
of how government officials and the
public they serve should deal with the
inevitable frustration that occurs when
"more" is wanted, as indicated by the
polling data, but some of the necessary
measures are deemed unacceptable by
the same public if they, as individuals,
are required to take action.
Good communications and increased
public: understanding are obviously a
key. Administrator Thomas's answer to
tbi! dilemma is quite forceful. "They're
going to have to change their habits by
sorting their garbage for recycling
instead of just throwing it out. They're
going to have to change their habits by
properly maintaining their auto
emissions systems, maybe even riding
with a friend to work. They're going to
have to change their habits in
determining whether they want to
protect coastal wetlands or live in a
beachfront development,"
(Nearly, what the people are telling
the pollsters is important, hut it is only
part of the story on the present state of
the environmental ethic:, a
(Allen is Associate Director in the
Off ice of Policy Anuiysis of KPA'.s
Office of Policy. Planning, and
Evaluation. Popkin is a Writer/Editor for
/•PA's Office of Public Affairs.]
JULY/AUGUST 1988
11
-------
Earth Day Recollections
Where We Were
And Where We Are
by Gaylord Nelson
Of all the issues that challenge
mankind on the planet, the one that
stands out above all others concerns
man and his environment. No other
issue is more relevant to our physical
well-being than the status of our natural
resources.
Unfortunately, we are preoccupied
with responding to pressures of daily
events, postponing hard decisions on
pervasive, long-term problems under the
delusion that delay won't cost very
much, and that we can address the
problem at some other time. Until we
understand that the problems of the
environment are urgent—that every
delay exacts a price, levies a hidden tax,
imposes a cost which will ultimately
impoverish us—until we understand
that, and believe, and are willing to act
on the proposition that the highest and
first priority of our society must be to
preserve the integrity and viability of
those ecosystems that sustain us and all
other creatures: until then, we will
continue to delude ourselves with the
seductive notion that we are addressing
the heart of the matter when, in fact, we
are merely tinkering at the periphery of
the problem.
I don't mean to suggest that we
haven't made significant progress in the
last decade and a half or so. Indeed we
have come a long way, much more
quickly than I thought possible in 1970
and '71. A whole series of legislative
initiatives have been adopted involving
air pollution, water pollution,
pesticides, hazardous wastes. We have
designated 90 million acres of public
lands a wilderness. We have made
extensive additions to our National Park
System and Wildlife Refuges. We have
an endangered species protection act
which is a modest success but needs to
be improved. We are close to agreement
on a national program on acid rain
control.
Most important of all, there has been
a revolutionary change in the public
The Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 was one event that helped catalyze the new
environmental consciousness of Earth Day and the 1970s. The full measure of social and
ecological costs to be borne in the wake of environmental contamination is not easily
quantifiable in cost-benefit terms. Santa Barbara News-Press photo.
attitude and understanding of
environmental issues. For the tirst time.
the environment is part of the political
dialogue of the nation. No politician can
totally ignore it. Even those who have
no serious interest in the issue pay lip
service to it because they need to
respond to the concerns of their
constituents. But one more revolution is
needed. That will come when our
President, the Congress, and the public
put this issue on the agenda of top
national priorities along with the
economy and war and peace.
That is bound to happen, but will it
be soon enough? We still have to deal
with those powerful forces in the
country who do not believe the problem
is serious, and therefore that the
environmental laws and standards are
unnecessary and should not be
enforced. There are others who think we
cannot afford a clean environment, and
there are those who oppose any
governmental interference in the
marketplace. They believe good
intentions and competition will
somehow resolve this problem in due
time.
12
EPA JOURNAL
-------
We have come a long way,
much more quickly than I
thought possible in 1970 and
1971.
We still have to deal with
those powerful forces in the
country who do not believe the
problem is serious ....
There are those—"supply side
environmentalists"—who believe that
self-help, free market, do-it-yourself
environmentalist!! will work if we all
just calm down and give it a chance for
a decade or two. If you go into the free
marketplace to buy some fresh air and
none is available, just hold your breath,
and as the demand increases, the price
will rise and the classic forces of supply
and demand will take over. Then there
will be an abundant supply, the price
will fall, and even the poor people will
be able to buy some. It all sounds pretty
good if you don't think about it too
hard.
•Over the past lour or five years we
have, ever more frequently, heard the
argument that high environmental
standards cost too much. They put an
excessive and unnecessary burden on
business and industry. The costs exceed
the benefits. They want to institute a
system that weighs benefits against costs
to provide ammunition in support of
proposals to weaken environmental
standards. And on the other hand, (here
are others who support such assessment
because they believe that the
overwhelming weight of the evidence
will demonstrate that most
environmental mandates need to be
strengthened.
The reason the two parties roach
opposite conclusions while appearing to
support the same proposition is that
they, in fact, are not supporting the-
same kind of benefit-cost assessment.
Those who want to use the benefit-cost
approach to weaken .support for
environmental mandates do not include
all societal costs and benefits, only
those that are easily quantifiable in
current dollar costs to the polluter and
measurable on the consumer price
index. They do not include the societal
cost of a polluted river, a lake or forest
destroyed by acid rain, an aquifer
poisoned by toxic chemicals, or a
wildlife refuge destroyed by selenium.
If all such costs and benefits are
included, the case is clear beyond
question that preserving a clean
environment is a profitable investment.
Litter in Yosemite National Park. National
Park Service photo.
This arguement is aimed at a major
proposition being advanced by some
environmental critics who insist that at
some point we must make a choice
between a prosperous economy and a
dirty environment, or a clean
environment and a poor economy.
Those who would dramatically
weaken environmental protection claim
we must, indeed, make a choice
between the two, assuming the two are
separable and must be addressed as
discrete entities standing alone. They
are wrong by every rational standard of
measurement. I assume we are using the
word "environment" in its broadest
context to include all physical
resources. They are all part of the
environment. The appropriate
generalization to be made is that the
economy and the environment are
inextricably intertwined; a degraded
environment and a poor economy travel
hand-in-hand. While you can have a
country rich in resources with a poor
economy, you cannot have a rich
economy in a country poor in its
resources or its access to them. Each
incremental degradation of nature's
resources—the air. the water, the soil,
forests, scenic beauty, habitats—is a
dissipation of capital assets which will
ultimately be paid for by a lower
standard of living and a lower-quality
environment.
Can anyone tell us what the economic
and recreational loss to the nation will
be unless we move now to save our
lakes from acid rain? What is the
economic value of the protein sources
in the oceans and the water in our
rivers? If we continue to destroy the salt
water marshes and pollute the estuaries
and the shallow waters of the
continental shelf which provide the
breeding habitat of most marine
creatures, we ultimately will destroy the
productivity of the oceans. Has that
been factored into the economic
equation in the debate over clean water
standards?
These and other questions can be
asked and every time the answer will be
that it is far better for the economy and
cheaper to maintain a clean
environment than a dirty one. In the
short run, some very modest temporary
benefit to the economy might result
from relaxed air and water quality
standards, but it would be dangerous
and enormously expensive. If we do
that, it simply means we are borrowing
capital from future generations and
counting it on the profit side of the
ledger.
Quite apart from the ethical questions
involved, there is simply no way that a
future generation could replace the
capital we borrow from them, because
we cannot restore a polluted ocean or a
polluted lake. The ultimate test of a
man's conscience is his willingness to
sacrifice something today for a future
generation whose words of thanks will
never lie heard, u
(Nelson, a former U.S. Senator/rom
Wisconsin, was the founder of Earth
Day, which jirst took place in ApriJ
1970. Ho is noiv Counselor of the
Wilderness Society and associated with
the University of Wisconsin at Stevens
Point.)
JULY/AUGUST 1988
13
-------
Earth Day Recollections:
What It Was Like
When The Movement
Took Off
by John C. Whitaker
nn:ci students wore masks and decorated garbage trees to
pay homage to Earth Day, 1970. Where are they now?
Don Hogan Charles photo, NYT Pictures.
When President Nixon and his staff
walked into the White House on
January 20, 1969, we were totally
unprepared for the tidal wave of public
opinion in favor of cleaning the nation's
environment that was about to engulf
us. If Hubert Humphrey had become
President, the result would have been
the same.
During the 1968 presidential
campaign, neither the Nixon nor
Humphrey campaign gave more than lip
service to environmental issues. Rather,
their thoughts focused on such issues as
Vietnam, prosperity, the rising crime
rate, and inflation. Nixon made one
radio speech on natural resources and
the quality of the environment, which
seemed adequate to cover an issue that
stirred little interest among the
electorate.
During the 1968 presidential
campaign, neither the Nixon
nor Humphrey campaign gave
more than lip service to
environmental issues.
In the Humphrey camp, things were
just as quiet. He dedicated a park in San
Antonio, Texas, and the John Day Dam
in Oregon, using both occasions to
discuss the environment and
conservation. Otherwise, Humphrey
said nothing on the issue.
If the candidates showed little interest
in the issue, so did the national press
corps. In fact, Nixon staff members do
not recall even one question put to him
about the environment.
Yet only 17 months after the election,
on April 22, 1970, the country
celebrated Earth Day, with a national
outpouring of concern for cleaning up
the environment. Politicians of both
parties jumped on the issue. So many
politicians were on the stump on Earth
Day that Congress was forced to close
down. The oratory, one of the wire
services observed, was "as thick as smog
at rush hour."
A comparison of White House polls
(done by Opinion Research of Princeton,
New Jersey) taken in May 1969. and just
two years later in May 1971, showed
that concern for the environment had
leaped to the forefront of our national
psyche. In May 1971, fully a quarter of
the public thought that protecting the
environment was important, yet only 1
percent had thought so just two years
earlier. In the Gallup polls, public
i i
EPA JOURNAL
-------
concern over air and water pollution
jumped from tenth place in the summer
of 1969 to fifth place in the summer of
1970, and was perceived as more
important than "race," "crime," and
"teenage" problems, but not as
important as the perennial poll leaders,
"peace" and the "pocketbook" issues.
In the White House, we pondered this
sudden surge of public concern about
cleaning up America and providing
more open spaces for parks, and a
heightened awareness of the necessity to
dedicate more land for wildlife habitat.
Why, we asked, after it was so long
delayed, was the environmentalist
awakening so much more advanced in
the United States than in other
countries? What motivated millions to
so much activity so long after
publication of Rachel Carson's SiJent
Spring in 1962? Many factors seem to
have been involved.
First, the environmental movement
probably bloomed at the time it did
mainly because of affluence. Americans
ha.ve long been relatively much better
off than people of other nations, but
nothing in all history compares even
remotely to the prosperity we have
enjoyed since the end of World War II,
and which became visibly evident by
the mid-fifties. An affluent economy
yields things like the'40-hour week,
three-day weekends, the two-week paid
vacation, plus every kind of labor-saving
gadget imaginable to shorten the hours
that used to be devoted to household
chores. The combination of spare money
and spare time created an ambiance for
the growth of causes that absorb both
money and time.
Another product of affluence has been
the emergence of an "activist" upper
middle class—college-educated,
affluent, concerned, and youthful for its
financial circumstances. The nation has
never had anything like this "mass
elite" before. Sophisticated, resourceful,
politically potent, and dedicated to
change, to "involvement," it formed the
backbone of the environmentalist
movement in the United States.
Other factors included the rise of
television and the opportunities it
provides for advocacy journalism.
Also, science contributed another
dimension to the national agitation. To
the obvious signs of pollution that
people could see, feel, and smell,
science added a panoply of invisible
threats: radiation, heavy metal poisons,
chlorinated hydrocarbons in the water,
acidic radicals in the atmosphere, all
potentially more insidious, more
pervasive, and more dangerous than the
familiar nuisances. This could happen
only in a country able to support a
large, advanced scientific community
with an immense laboratory
infrastructure, rnarvelously sensitive
instruments, intensive funding,
computers, data banks, and vast
interchanges of information able to
isolate and trace the progress through
the ecosystem of elements and
compounds at concentrations measured
in parts per billion, and to establish
their effects upon living organisms in
the biosphere.
In the Gallup polls, public
concern over air ana water
pollution jumped from tenth
place in the summer of 1969 to
fifth place in the summer of
1970 ..
The press served the pollinating
function of a honey bee, transporting
the latest scientific: findings to the
public, which reacted with fear and
misgivings. These in turn were relayed
by the press back to the scientific
community, which was stimulated by
public concern to intensify its
investigations, leading to more
discoveries of new perils, and so on,
This in itself provided a climate in
which support for environmentally
related causes could IK; elicited.
The feverish pitch of Earth Day 1970
passed, but the environmental
movement did not go away. Instead, the
drive for a cleaner environment became
part of our national ethic. Now it is
taken for granted, the; best possible
testimonial that progress is being made.
Our nation's thinking has changed.
Endorsing growth without regard to the
quality of that growth seems forever
behind us. The failure of the economy
to take into full account the social costs
of environmental pollution is being
rectified. Not only are environmental
considerations now factored into federal
government decision-making but over
and over again Americans pay for
Photo courtesy of The White House.
JULY/AUGUST 1988
15
-------
I
S. Capitol. Washington Convention and Visitors Association photo.
low-polluting or pollution-free products
like low-sulfur heating oil, unleaded
gasoline, and coal from fully reclaimed
strip mines, for automobile emission
controls, for electricity from cleaner
fuels, and for more parklands and
wildlife refuges. More fundamentally,
we are beginning to understand that the
environment is an independent whole
of which man is only a part.
Hut in the early 1970s it was clear
that the executive branch could not
respond to public: demand to clean up
the environment without first creating
an organization to do the job. Better
coordination of federal environmental
programs was needed. There were 44
agencies in nine separate departments
with responsibilities in the field of what
was then loosely described as "the
environment and natural resources." No
department had enough expertise to
take charge.
At cabinet meetings, MEW Secretary
Hob Finch, responsible for air pollution
controls, and Transportation Secretary
John Volpe, argued over which
department should take the lead in
developing a research program for
unconventional low-polluting
So many politicians were on
the stump on Earth Day that
Congress was forced to close
down.
automobiles. On pesticides, Walter
Hickel at Interior and Finch argued for
tighter pesticide controls, while
Agriculture Secretary Clifford Hardin
emphasized the increased crop
productivity resulting from the
application of pesticides. And Secretary
of State Bill Rogers weighed in
expressing concern on whether a ban on
DDT in this country might restrict the
supply of DDT to the developing
countries. Hickel, who at the time
handled water pollution control over at
Interior, wanted more money for sewage
treatment control; Bob Mayo, director of
the Bureau of Budget would have none
of it. Maurice Stans at Commerce was
wary of tighter pollution controls and
what effect this might have on corporate
profits. Paul McCracken, Chairman of
the President's Council of Economic
Advisors, worried that we would be
uncompetitive in international markets
if our product prices reflected the costs
of pollution abatement standards that
were more stringent than those of other
countries. There was hardly a Cabinet
officer who did not have a stake in the
environment issue. Even the Postmaster
General joined the debate, offering to
use postal cars to test an experimental
fleet of low-pollution cars.
The cabinet meeting left President
Nixon dissatisfied. There was no overall
strategy, too many unanswered
questions. Should enforcement be done
by regulation, or by user fees, or a
combination of both? What were the
overall costs to industry and the
consumer in terms ot both the increased
price products for various pollution
abatement schedules under varying
standards and regulations? Finally, what
would the various clean-up scenarios do
to the federal budget? Nixon clearly
needed a "pollution czar" and one
agency to look to for the answers.
First, Nixon discarded the option of a
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources as well as several other
reorganization plans. In July 1970 he
submitted to Congress the
Environmental Protection Agency plan;
the new agency came into being on
December 2, 1970. Meanwhile, I had
interviewed a number of candidates to
run the new agency and recommended
Bill Ruckelshaus to the President. I've
missed the mark on lots of things in my
life, but Ruckelshaus was a "bull's eye."
Now, years later, the
accomplishments of the Nixon years are
plain to see. New clean air, water, solid
waste, and pesticide laws, coastal /one
management planning seed money, new
national parks, including the great
urban parks in New York City and San
Francisco harbors. In addition, Nixon
ordered federal agencies to shed spare
federal acreage that would be converted
into parks and recreation areas,
especially in urban areas. More than
82,000 acres in all 50 states were
converted into 642 parks, the majority
of them in or very close to cities, really
bringing parks to the people.
More money was dedicated to buying
wildlife habitat; Congress passed
Nixon's controversial proposal to
protect endangered species. Nixon's
executive orders restricted ocean
dumping and tightened environmental
standards for off-shore oil drilling. To
quell the insatiable development
instincts of the Army Corps of Engineers
he cancelled construction of the
Cross-Florida Barge Canal.
it,
EPA JOURNAL
-------
What Nixon—and subsequent
presidents—couldn't accomplish is
to address in a rational way the cost of
pollution abatement control: how fast
should the nation clean up and at what
cost? In the early 1970s, our polls
clearly showed the public demanded a
cleaner environment, but data on the
public's willingness to pay was
ambivalent. Our initial Opinion
Research polls showed that about
three-fourths of the public supported
more government spending for air and
water pollution abatement programs,
that support existed in all population
groups, and that it was particularly high
among the young. But this did not mean
that taxpayers had committed
The feverish pitch of Earth
Day 1970 passed, but the
environmental movement
did not go away.
themselves to spending their own
money to improve the quality of the
environment. Spending for government
programs never seems to equate in the
public's mind with spending their own
money. Opinion Research reported that
in May 1971, three-fourths of the public
would pay small price increases for
pollution control, but six out of 10
opposed large price inreases for that
purpose.
A Harris poll in October 1971
indicated that 78 percent of the public
would be willing to pay (how much was
not specified) to have air and water
pollution cleaned up, and 48 percent
would accept a 10-percent reduction in
jobs for a cleaner environment. Poll
editor Hazel Erskine indicated that
individuals were not "personally
anxious" to foot the bill for correcting
pollution damage, although willingness
to pay for pollution control was
growing.
Congress received even stronger
messages. Twenty-two congressmen, in
a survey of 300,000 Americans in
varying kinds of congressional districts,
asked constituents if they were willing
to pay more for pollution control.
Respondents in all but three districts
answered affirmatively. Representative
Gerald Ford asked his Michigan
constituents, "Should the federal
government expand efforts to control air
and water pollution even if it costs you
more in taxes and prices?" The answer:
68.3 percent yes, 27.5 percent no.
Subsequently, Ford voted to override
President Nixon's veto of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. (Nixon vetoed it
largely because of the very heavy federal
expenditures, particularly for sewage
treatment plants.) Not surprisingly,
because the perspective almost always
changes inside the oval office,
President Ford later tried unsuccessfully
to hold down sewage treatment
expenditures, as has every president
since then.
Nixon knew he would pay a political
price by not proposing the "toughest"
and costliest pollution control
standards, but after looking at the
federal budget and the macro-economic
impact, he chose a more moderate
course. As it turned out, Congress,
fanned by the political hurricane of the
environmental movement, enacted
deadlines that could never be met, like
the 1977 deadline for secondary
treatment of municipal waste, and an
$18 billion appropriation over the
three-year life of the law, which
couldn't even be dispensed under the
law's cumbersome grant system.
Similarly, Congress legislated
technology that didn't exist by setting
emission standards for automobiles that
couldn't be met and later had to be
postponed. The missed 1987 year-end
ozone deadlines is another glaring
example of Congress' tendency to
legislate non-existent technology.
Early in the process we recognized
that Congress and the executive branch
mistrusted each other's cost impact
figures for various pollution reduction
strategies. Even in executive branch
meetings, the EPA staff repeatedly
seemed to minimize pollution costs,
while other agencies weighed in with
high costs to meet the identical
pollution standard. Often, we halved the
difference, relaxing the standard more
than EPA wanted, but keeping it much
tighter than Commerce, for example,
found acceptable.
We might have missed a chance in
those early days to help resolve the
debate. Russ Train, chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality, and
1 proposed setting up a national body
with think tank funds plus matching
federal, funds to study cost-benefit
analysis for pollution controls. We
hoped that if a body removed from
Congress and the executive branch did
the number crunching, then perhaps the
results would be more acceptable to all
parties inside the beltway. The idea
never reached the President, largely
because Chuck Colson opposed our
candidate to head this study group, and
Colson beat me out in the White House
staff warfare that goes on in any
Administration.
Today Americans spend $77 billion
annually for environmental
improvements and that cost could easily
reach $100 billion by the end of the
century. Rather than ask where the next
billion dollars can be spent, we must
pause and again ask how clean and how
fast? Today we have infinitely more
scientific capability and sophisticated
cost-benefit analysis to steer a course
toward a cleaner environment. The
question is, will our elected officials
and executive branch regulators be
willing to lean into the political winds,
as we did, and act on the basis of
objective information? D
(Whitaker was President Nixon's
Cabinet Secretary (1969); associate
director of the White House Domestic
Council for environment, energy, and
natural resources policy (1969-1972);
and Undersecretary of the Department
of the Interior (1973-1975). He is now
Vice President, Public Affairs, for Union
Camp Corporation.]
JULY/AUGUST 1988
17
-------
Industry's
Environmental
Attitudes
by Kent Gilbreath
The environmental debate of the late 1980s
is notably less adversarial than in the early
70s, but confrontations between
environmentalists and industry still occur.
In this photograph, Greenpeace activists
plug a waste outfall pipe discharging
into Fields Brook in Ashtabula, Ohio. Fields
Brook has been named to EPA's National
Priorities List under Superfund. Greenpeace
photo.
If there were ever a time when the
business community held the attitude
of "damn the environment—full speed
ahead," such an attitude no longer
characterizes the vast majority of
business-people. On the other hand, it is
equally wrong for the business
community to stereotype
environmentalists as being dogmatic
and hostile to compromise. There are, of
course, individuals in both groups who
tit traditional stereotypes, but they now
constitute a rapidly diminishing
minority.
In the last few years, the debate over
the environment has moved away from
adversarial rhetoric: toward a more
reasoned discussion of the issues. While
emotions have not disappeared from the
conflict, the sharp philosophical
differences that characterized the debate
in the l()s and 1970s have
diminished.
Movement Has
Public Support
In a way, the environmentalists won the
first round of the debate. Public opinion
polls show that there is overwhelming
support for environmental protection on
the part of the American people,
Perhaps tin: support was always then:
and the environmental movement
simply brought the issues to the
attention of the nation. Hut then; is little
doubt that a strong environmental ethic
permeates American society today, and
the American business community and
individual business leaders have not
been immune to the emergence of this
ethic.
The strong public support tor
environmental protection has been
reflected in recent public: policy issues.
The Reagan administration has
discovered that any attempt to
substantially alter basic environmental
protection laws is likely to receive little
support in Congress and even less
support from the public in general.
Direct administrative methods of
decreasing environmental protection
activities are also difficult to achieve,
as the departures of President Reagan's
secretary of the interior and director of
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) demonstrated. There is just no
consensus in the United States for
diminishing environmental protection
today, and attempts to change direction
really have no significant political
constituency at the present time.
Part of the genius of American
society has been its ability to reconcile
conflict through democratic processes.
The environmental debate is but another
success story in the history of conflict
resolution. The final chapter of the
debate has not yet been written and is
not likely to be written as long as
environmental problems exist, but it is
clear that a consensus has emerged.
While there are differences concerning
how deem the; air, water, and land
should be, there is little real
disagreement over basic environmental
goals. The focus today is on determining
the best way to achieve environmental
protection, and the proper balance
between environmental protection and
economic growth.
Voices on the fringes still urge, at one
extreme, removal of environmental
protection laws and, at the other, a
radical restructuring of society to avoid
an environmental Armageddon. But
these voices are growing less and less
influential. To those seeking less
rhetoric, focusing on specific: issues, and
moving toward a pragmatic search for
solutions, the news is heartening.
Toward
Common Ground
Without doubt, the American business
community has accepted the challenge
of environmentalist!!, it is now trying to
respond to the challenge; of giving us a
clean environment while, at the same
time, sustaining the nation's economic:
health.
The spirit of compromise and
pragmatism that has succeeded so well
in American society would be violated
if, after essentially winning the debate
over the importance of
environmentalism, the environmental
community were not to cooperate in
establishing environmental policies that
also recognize the need for maintaining
a viable economic system. Fortunately,
the American environmental community
is also pragmatic:, and numerous
cooperative efforts between business
and environmental groups are emerging.
There will, of course, never be total
agreement on issues and policies. Some
members of both groups still see the
other group as the enemy and believe
that the only proper relationship is an
adversarial one. Fortunately.
uncompromising, adversarial attitudes
are decreasingly significant in the
mainstream ot both groups.
The search for common ground is a
search for compromise. The theme of
the desired compromise is "how can we
have economic growth and affluence
and. at the same time, protect the
environment?" Environmentalists must
continue to foster awareness and help
ensure that environmental concerns are
kept high on the nation's agenda. But
they must also develop policies that
bring the goal of environmental quality
into harmony with other social and
economic goals. Thus, the necessary
tactics and methods are far different
from those dictated when the only
challenge was to increase public
awareness of environmental problems.
Those environmentalists who
advocate a de-emphasis on technology
and de-industrialization of our society
are not likely to play a leading role in
the mainstream of the environmental
movement during the remainder of this
century. In fact, it is unlikely that the
'-
EPA JOURNAL
-------
current level uf public: support for
environmentalism would be so great if it
were perceived that the only way to
achieve a clean environment is
through a substantial deterioration in
the nation's standard of living.
A New
"Bottom Line"
The business community, on the other
hand, is faced with a different
challenge. Taken as a whole, there is no
more powerful private entity in
American society than the nation's
business community. But for business to
maintain its profitability, influence, and
freedom, it must be sensitive to the
concerns of the public—not just in
terms of the price and quality of the
goods it produces but also in terms of
public approval of its social and
political influence.
Paradoxically, the environmental
movement has been enormously
effective in influencing public opinion
and in moving the powerful business
community toward an ethic: of
environmentalism. Such success can
only be attributed to the power of the
environmentalists' ideas and the belief
of a large majority of the public that
these ideas are, in general, correct.
The result of this changing view ol
the responsibilities of business will
greatly complicate business decision-
making in the remainder of the
twentieth century. More complex
demands by the public and a
broadening of horizons on the part of
business will be the dominant theme of
corporate life during the next few years.
That business is accepting this
challenge is reflected in the: statements
of a number of the nation's business
leaders. One senses no hesitancy or
reluctance in their attitudes. While they
do plead for a recognition that achieving
our environmental goals will take time
and will be costly, they are not opposed
to the objective.
People in business like to refer to the
"bottom line" or the profitability of their
enterprises. In the United States, a new
bottom line has been defined for society
during the past two decades. It
recognizes the importance not only of
the level of national income but also of
producing that income in a way that
preserves our natural environment,
protects human health, and provides for
the right of future generations to enjoy a
similar level of affluence, health, and
natural amenities.
America is a pluralistic: society and.
as any biologist will tell you, there; is
strength in diversity. However, diversity
also means that we are never likely to
achieve unanimity of opinion on
public issues. Thus, in the quest for a
clean environment it will be necessary
to accept a progressive;
compromise—progressive in tin; sense
of moving continually in tin; direction
of improvement while at the; same time
balancing tin; diverse goals and interests
of our society.
On some environmental issues,
continued conflict is inevitable;, and
there are some pollutants that an;
potentially so harmful to human he;alth
that there- will hi; no room for
compromise. Hut absolutist attitudes,
attitudes of "all or nothing," are; no
longer viable and are; not likoly to have;
a dominating influence! on either side;.
It is still too early to say that we; have
won the war against pollution, but it is
not too early to say that \ve; have made a
beginning and achieved numerous
successes in the; battle;. Most people
have decided they are willing to pay for
environmental quality. We have made
progress, but then: is still a m;e;d for
further reconciliation—for greuiter
cooperation between business and
JULY/AUGUST 1988
19
-------
environmental communities. All the
signs suggest that this reconciliation
will continue during the next decade
and that the commitment to a clean
environment will grow stronger in our
society.
The Search
for Solutions
The environmental issues on which we
focus our attention are a shifting target.
Environmental issues almost never
totally disappear from public
discussion, but they change in the
degree of importance attached to them.
For example, the issues of acid rain and
toxic waste disposal have risen in
importance in the last few years relative
to such issues as energy production and
potential natural resource limits to
economic growth. Since pollution takes
many forms, from the chronic problems
of carbon dioxide to the acute problems
of dioxin and heavy metals, an
enormous range of complex policies
must be established. And, much room
for conflict obviously exists between the
business and environmental
communities in their attempts to
establish pollution guidelines.
Since there is no absolutely correct or
indisputable standard for most forms of
pollution, environmental policy
decisions will ultimately be political
decisions. This reality has brought
environmental issues into the political
campaigns of individual candidates and
political parties. In turn, politicization
has leant itself to compromise, as
candidates, parties, lobbyists, and
private individuals seek to find
solutions to environmental problems.
A key challenge in policy-making
involves selecting policy instruments
that give the best combination of
effective control at the lowest possible
cost. Should governmental bodies levy
pollution taxes, set physical limits on
emissions, establish markets in
pollution rights, require environmental
audits of firms, or institute other
policies to control pollution? The fact is
that we are still in the infant stages of
designing policy tools for achieving our
environmental goals. Each new problem
requires a pioneering effort in policy
making.
We are still trying to decide which
characteristics of air and water we
should measure, and we have only the
beginning of a body of historical data by
which to measure our progress in
controlling pollution. The measurement
and interpretation problems become
even greater when international
environmental issues are involved.
The remainder of the twentieth
century is likely to be a time of
"learning by doing" in the area of
environmental policy development.
There certainly is no monopoly on
truth, and there is a lot of room for
experimentation. The type of pollutant
being dealt with will determine the
policy flexibility available to us. Some
pollutants are so deadly that zero
emissions must be the standard. The
vast majority of pollutants, however,
allow for substantial flexibility and
experimentation.
In most cases, the wisest policies will
be those that limit the levels of
emissions or tax them but leave the
means of control up to individual firms.
This will encourage innovation and take
advantage of the creativity and incentive
systems of the marketplace. More
flexible, localized decision-making is
the direction in which policy is moving
in the mid-1980s.
Success Depends
on Public Support
It is common to think of environmental
policy as an area in which government
will make most of the decisions, but
this is certainly not the case. The vast
majority of pollution control decisions
are made by thousands, perhaps even
millions, of business-people, engineers,
consumers, and other private
individuals who, on a day-to-day basis,
pull the levers, inspect the filters, tune
the engines, and handle the chemicals
and materials that make the difference
between a clean or polluted
environment.
Laws, regulations, and guidelines
matter, but there will never be a large
enough environmental police force to
ensure environmental protection in an
economy and society as decentralized
and individualistic as the United States.
For environmental protection to work,
there must be a widespread ethic or
belief in its importance and a feeling
that the rules and guidelines are
reasonable, necessary, and not
economically crippling to individuals or
firms. If government policies are too
stringent or too far ahead of public
opinion, cheating and non-observance
will render them meaningless. If they
are perceived as being fair and
reasonable and the public supports
them, the need for government
enforcement will be greatly diminished.
One of the themes that emerges in the
search for acceptable environmental
protection policies is the importance of
"selling." The business community has
to be "sold" or convinced that
pollution-control devices will not ruin
their profitability. Plant engineers have
to sell the EPA on the idea that they
sometimes have superior ideas and
techniques for achieving environmental
goals. Labor unions have to be sold on
the idea that pollution controls will not
result in the exportation of jobs. And
the public has to be sold on the
importance of the whole process to its
long-term welfare. Selling has always
been a critical ingredient in the political
and economic processes of democratic
capitalism. It is one aspect of American
society with which those in the
nonprofit sector often feel
uncomfortable, but it is an aspect of our
system that policy-makers at all levels
must not ignore if they wish to see their
policies succeed.
Undoubtedly, the next few years will
see a great wave of innovation in
environmental policies at all levels.
New means of measurement will be
developed, new technologies of
conservation and materials flow will
emerge, new environmentally benign
products will be created, and new and
cleaner production techniques will
appear. Hopefully, the inertia and
dynamics of change that are so evident
today will not be restricted by an
inflexible regulatory structure, o
(Dr. Giibreath is Associate Dean of the
Hankamer School of Business at Baylor
University in Waco, Texas, and a
member of the Board of Directors of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.)
(Copyright © 1988, BUSINESS Magazine. College
of Business Administration. Georgia State
University. Atlanta. Georgia. Reprinted by
permission.)
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
A View From Inco
by W. R. O. Aitken
W. H. O. Aitken, Executive Vice
President of International Nickel Co.
(Inco Limited], served as Vice Chairman
of Canada's National Task Force on the
Environment and the Economy. The,
following article was exerpted from a
speech he delivered to the World
Resources Institute on April 29, 1988, in
Washington, DC.
While the environment is dourly u
matter of great public importance
in the United States, it is of
overwhelming importance in Canada.
That fact is the backdrop for the work
and thinking of Canada's National Task
Force on the Environment and the
Economy.
An October 1987 opinion survey
reported that 80 percent of Canadians
are concerned about the impact of
pollution on human health and safety,
and 70 percent are concerned about the
impact on wildlife. A remarkable 87
percent are disturbed by lack of action,
and 88 percent believe that an
environmental cleanup is within our
technical knowhow. While 92 percent
believe that corporate executives should
be held personally responsible for
polluting the environment, 78 percent
are willing to pay for the cleanup
through higher prices or higher taxes.
This is not the preoccupation of a
small group of activists but u national
consensus, embracing persons of all
political persuasions and from all walks
of life.
The National Task Force is an
expression of this consensus. It was
Canada's response to the report of the
World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED), established in
1983 by the United Nations "to propose
long-term environmental strategies for
achieving sustainable development by
the year 2000 and beyond."
Membership on the National Task
Force consisted of seven environmental
ministers, seven representatives from
industry, a representative of the Ecology
Action Centre, and the Vice President
for Research of the University of British
Columbia.
Like WCED we felt the need to
We talked about what was
meant by "conservation," a
concept that to industrialists
sounds suspiciously like a
"shut down."
establish common ground. We found it
by moving to the view that, in order to
attain sustainable economic growth, we
must have decisive political action to
manage and conserve environmental
resources and, by the same token, to
succeed in conserving the environment
we must have sustainable economic
growth. Our decision was to look
forward. We didn't want to forget the
errors of the past. We are determined
Inco's smeiter stack at Sudbury,
Ontario, was built in the 19/Y
an interim miMsuio to Jispi>isr
sulfur dioxide emissions .
newer control technoioiik-s \\-
being developed. At 1,250 feet, it is
the tallest smelter stack in the
world. Inco photo
not to repeat them. But we need to put
the history of environmental
degradation behind us, recognizing that
regulations are in place to deal with
those problems, so that wo can move
beyond "react and cure" methods,
which are necessarily adversarial, to
"anticipate and prevent" systems which
are cooperative and constructive.
We talked about what was meant by
"conservation." a concept that to
industrialists sounds suspiciously like a
"shut down." The position that the Task
Force ultimately took was thai a
conservation strategy is a sot of
principles for development, designed to
ensure that the consumption of
resources today will neither deny future
generations the prospect of maintaining
or improving their standard of living,
nor deny those less fortunate today in
the undeveloped world the opportunity
to improve their lot. Long-term
economic growth depends upon a
healthy environment, we said, and the
maintenance of a healthy environment
JULY/AUGUST 1988
21
-------
requires continued development. The
two are inseparable.
What do these beautiful words mean
in practice? What a conservation
strategy means to Inco—and this view
seems to have been accepted by the
Task Force—is: Don't exploit the
resources at a rate which exceeds your
ability to develop another or develop a
substitute product. The fundamental
message is: Don't compromise the
sustainability of the host environment,
the air, the water, and terrestrial
resources.
From philosophy, the National Task
Force moved on to concrete
recommendations. In the governmental
area, we recommended that integration
of the environment and the economy
should be a regular agenda item at
Canada's First Minister conferences, no
less important than tax reform and free
trade. Major government economic
development documents should be
required to demonstrate that they are
both economically and environmentally
sustainable. Formal mechanisms should
be established to hold development
ministers accountable for the
environmental soundness of their
projects and environmental ministers
accountable for the economic impact of
their proposals. Governmental funding
programs should be conditioned on
meeting environmental standards.
Governmental processes for evaluation
of economic development projects
should include socio-economic and
environmental analysis.
On the industry side, we
recommended that both the Business
Council on National Issues, which
consists of the chief executive officers of
Canada's 150 largest businesses, and the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which
includes many smaller companies,
establish environment/economy task
forces. We urged that industry
associations endorse, support, and
promote environmental assessment and
that individual companies adopt clear
environmental policies, including
annual reviews of environmental
performance by corporate boards of
directors. We recommended that
companies behave outside Canada as
they are required to behave inside
Canada. In Inco's case, I was able to tell
the group, when we established a mine
and smelter in Indonesia during the
early 1970s, although there were no
environmental regulations affecting us,
we designed to Ontario standards.
We called attention to the need for
improvements in analytical
methodologies. In the area of
cost-benefit analysis, traditional
methods of determining Return On
Investment (ROI) do not work in
relation to the environment. For
example, Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)
ROI renders insignificant benefits
arising more than five or six years out,
but environmental impact goes on for
generations. In the free enterprise world,
Inco believes it is in our
interest to pursue sound
environmental practices.
we compete for investment capital, and
unless we provide returns that satisfy
investors, we don't get it. So we need to
find better ways to analyze and evaluate
environmental risks and impacts.
We need carrots as well as sticks. I
don't much care for contaminant charge
schemes and tradeable
emission/discharge rights. To me, they
smack of buying the right to pollute. We
also hear about such devices as
performance deposits. In our view,
thought also needs to be given to
investment tax credits, credits for
improving on environmental standards,
reduced interest bonds, and other such
incentives.
We need to upgrade environmental
education at the elementary and junior
high school levels and to include
courses in environmental economics at
the high school and college
undergraduate levels.
These recommendations were
accepted at the First Ministers' meeting
in December 1987, and the Business
Council on National Issues has written
the Prime Minister endorsing the
National Task Force's report and
recommendations.
Some members of the environmental
community may regard Inco's
participation in this effort with
suspicion. The waste landscape
surrounding our operations in Sudbury
and the Inco superstack are familiar
environmental nightmares. Practices
dating back to the turn of the century
may well have justified the image of the
Sudbury region as "the backside of the
moon" or "Pittsburgh without the
orchestra," although 1 would point out,
the technology used even then was
state-of-the-art for that period. Heavy
lumbering by others to construct
railways and to rebuild Chicago after
the great fire had denuded Sudbury's
hills, and eliminating sulfur from our
ores to get at the nickel killed what few
trees and vegetation that remained.
Erosion completed the process.
By the time the world came to
understand that the environment could
be exhausted and destroyed, Inco had
already begun to turn the corner. During
the 1950s, we developed our oxygen
"flash furnace" smelting technology,
which greatly improved our capacity to
capture sulfur dioxide. We also
invented a means of magnetically
separating pyrrhotite, a high-sulfur iron
mineral, which was rejected before it
reached the smelter. Sulfuric acid
operations were greatly expanded in the
1960s, even though the fertilizer
business, its main outlet, was not at all
economic, and we began an extensive
program of reforestation and of planting
grass and grain on eroded mine tailings.
Our tall stack was constructed during
this period to replace three smaller
existing Sudbury stacks so as to ensure
minimum, harmless ground-level
concentrations of sulfur dioxide. It
turned Sudbury into one of the "clean
air" communities of Ontario. Though it
was the latest technology at the time
and was a decided step forward in our
comprehensive program to reduce the
environmental impact of Inco's
operations, the superstack also became a
target of. environmental activists and a
symbol of growing concern about
airborne transportation of pollutants and
acid rain.
The symbolism has obscured the fact
that Inco's total emissions have been
reduced by some 70 percent since the
high point in the mid-1960s. That
represents the largest tonnage reduction
by /or of any organization in North
America. By 1994, we plan to reduce
emissions by a further 60 percent,
which would bring total sulfur
containment to over 90 percent. During
this decade alone, our company has
spent $120 million on its sulfur
abatement program, and we are
continuing to press ahead on our
commitment to reduce sulfur dioxide
emissions to 265 kilotonnes per year by
1994 from the current level of 685
kilotonnes. We tviJf get there.
Inco believes it is in our interest to
pursue sound environmental practices.
We are convinced that it is cheaper,
easier, and better in the long run to
build clean plants than to have to clean
them up later under governmental edict.
We want to run a sound and successful
business for our employees, for our
shareholders, and for our
customers—today and tomorrow. And
we want to leave both a livable
environment and a sound economy to
our children and grandchildren, o
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Seeking A Global Ethic
by Gro Harlem Brundtiand
Forty to 70 thousand years ago,
humankind, starting to use simple
tools, took up its struggle with the
biosphere. Two centuries ago, with the
advent of the industrial revolution.
humankind gained the upper hand in
that struggle.
Since early times we have had the
capacity to lay waste parts of our
habitat. At the start of this century,
however, neither human numbers nor
human technology had the power to
radically alter global systems. It was not
until we gained access to vast energy
resources that we acquired the
irrevocable power to destroy the
Panama's lush tropical rain forest. In the last 40 years, about
half of the earth's tropical forests have been felled. Mac Chapin
photo, Inter-American Foundation, AID.
biosphere. Now, as this century draws
to a close, the activities of a greatly
increased human population are
resulting in major, unintended changes
in the biosphere.
The relationship between humankind
and the biosphere is like the recurring
theme of a symphony: basically it does
not change, even though the tone and
instruments may do so. Today, the
environment and development have
emerged as a major challenge on the
international agenda, rivalled in
importance only by vital issues of
security and disarmament.
Twenty years ago we had a much
simpler view of development. Indeed it
was optimistic. High rates of growth and
employment and low rates of inflation
were predominant features of the
post-war economic recovery. And
peoples who had endured centuries of
domination were gaining
self-confidence, establishing their own
identities as free and sovereign nations.
The international institutions we
created expanded the scope and scale of
their activities, and new institutions
were established, especially in tin;
United Nations system. In the UN
Charter, we committed ourselves to
saving subsequent generations from tin1
scourge of war. which has brought so
much untold suffering to mankind.
But in the early seventies it dawned
upon us that development had an
environmental price. The H)72
Stockholm Conference on the Hum,in
Environment was one response to a
growing concern that human activities
were destroying important ecological
recycled life support systems. Existing
institutions had not proved capable of
dealing with the by-products ot our
economic activities.
Global conferences on water supply,
food, women, human settlement, new
and renewable energy resources, and
population all offered hope of improved
international cooperation on major
issues. Yet a sense of frustration and
inadequacy prevailed.
This was the background against
which the World Commission on
Environment and Development was
established by the General Assembly of
the United Nations in 1983. The call
from the General Assembly was an
JULY/AUGUST 1988
23
-------
j) Calcutta exemplify poverty and congestion in India.
Faced with a population explosion that threatens to wipe out
nuiMomic; gains, India has given high priority to a massive
y planning program. In developing countries, population
pressures, poverty, and environmental degradation are
interr(;l,it<"l problems. AID photo.
urgent one. The Commission was given
a broad, global mandate to take a fresh
look ;it the interrrelated issues of
environment and development, and to
formulate concrete recommendations for
action based on shared perceptions of
long-term environmental issues.
We found many success stories in
different parts of the world. Infant
mortality is falling, human life
expectancy is increasing, and access to
education and equality of opportunity
lor the sexes are improving in most
countries. Global food production is
increasing faster than the world
population, even if figures for this year
seem to IK; less encouraging. Hut still,
nearly BOO million people live in
absolute poverty, and their numbers are
growing. In the developing countries,
poverty is a main cause and effect—of
environmental degradation, In the
developed countries, unsustainable and
excessive consumption patterns are
among the main pollutants.
It is clear that the present
international economic system works
against the interests of many developing
countries. Adverse external conditions
force developing countries to
overexploit natural resources as they
struggle to service debts and maintain
necessary income levels. Adjustments
are called for in developing and
developed countries alike, but they will
have to be adjustments with a human
face. Otherwise, poor people, poor
countries, and their natural resources
will be the victims of a world economy
threatened by serious imbalances.
What is needed is more growth.
Growth is necessary to eradicate
poverty, and growth alone can create
the capacity to solve environmental
problems. But this growth must not he a
repetition of the development patterns
of the past. We can not continue to bum
fossil fuel as if the resources were
infinite. We can not treat the
atmosphere, soils, water, and oceans as
sinks for the by-products of human
activities. Growth must enhance the
environment rather than degrade it.
Growth must be distributed in an
equitable manner among and within
countries.
To achieve these goals, a new global
ethic: is needed which is based on
equity, accountability, and human
solidarity- -solidarity with present and
future generations—rather than on the
tyranny of the immediate.
The alleviation of poverty and
preservation of the environment can be
cost-effective components of
development policies in all countries
and should not be considered to be
irreconcilable with development itself.
Sustainable development as defined
by the World Commission on
Environment and Development in its
report "Our Common Future" is a
concept of growth that can be sustained
through the next century. Today we
have the knowledge and the capacity to
adapt to the limitations imposed by
nature.
Will the improved relations between
East and West release the human and
financial resources needed to address
our common challenges? Do the events
of 1988, when it was decided to
dismantle the INF missiles, when the
Soviet Union finally decided to
withdraw from Afghanistan, when
President Reagan and General Secretary
Gorbachev strolled through Red Square
together, signify new opportunities in
the history of humankind? Will we be
able to deal with the vital issues of
environment and development in a real
climate of change?
A new global ethic needs to be
developed which recognizes that there
are limits to what we can do to the
environment, even if the formal rules
and regulations have not yet been
adopted. Environmental concerns must
become an integral part of
decision-making at all levels. At the
company level, we see a new awareness.
Environmental concerns should be
integrated into company policy. Many
executives are beginning to see that
environmentally benign technology will
give them a competitive edge.
The time has come to move forward
towards a true revival of multilateral
cooperation on issues relating to the
environment and development. The
international financial institutions are
vital to sustainable development. They
must integrate environmental concerns
firmly into their policies, and they must
take drastic action to achieve debt relief
and social progress. The present surplus
countries have a particular
responsibility for increasing their
support to the international institutions
equipped for leading roles in promoting
sustainable development.
Global issues require global solutions.
The time has come to take a giant leap
forward in the upgrading of civilization.
D
(Brundtland is Prime Minister of
Norway and Chairman of the World
Commission on Environment and
DeveJopment.)
EPA JOURNAL
-------
An Editorial
by John Heritage
Is it time to broaden the focus of
'environmental protection? Should we
concentrate not just on the big E of
government pollution control programs,
but think as well of the little e—the
whole environment in which we live
and strive together?
Why is this question important now?
The answer comes from the heart. And
it comes from the mind.
While some might argue that there are
exceptions, EPA's clean-up efforts have
largely been colorblind. Reducing lead
in gasoline is as helpful to the health of
ghetto residents as it is to people who
live in the suburbs. The federally
backed drive to clean up hazardous
waste sites is as beneficial to the poor as
to others. The lungs of inner city people
benefit as much from the national push
to stop ozone pollution as do the lungs
of residents on the fringes of
metropolitan areas.
But is something amiss? Many of the
people who live in our inner cities are
suffering a savage assault on their
mental health and well-being because of
an environment of poverty, joblessness,
crime, poor education, and deteriorating
housing. How much good are the
billions of dollars of modern
environmental clean-up programs doing
to help these people deal with the
environment that is crippling their
lives? From the heart, shouldn't the
quality of life of the American inner city
be a major concern of the nation's
environmental effort? Shouldn't the
mental health and well-being of these
people be high on the list of priorities
for a decent, healthy American
environment?
The environmental protection drive
wasn't meant to be simply government
pollution control programs—the big "E."
The environmental movement that
blossomed in the early 1970s was
socially oriented and broad-based. It
involved tens of millions of people of
all ages, incomes, and parts of the
country. Its objective, as often
articulated by its leaders, was people
living in dignity and harmony with each
other and with the planet.
In short, the modern environmental
movement has a message of hope. It is a
hope that people can do a better job of
living together, more respectfully, more
sensitively, as corporations, as cities
and towns, as individuals. The
environmental effort was bom with this
dream. Is it all that different from the
dream of Martin Luther King, Jr? Is the
environmental protection effort that has
developed from the outpouring of
public concern in the early 1970s now
thinking as broadly as it should?
There is a second reason for raising
the question about a big "E" and a little
"e" now. The front pages of the
newspapers and the nightly news
broadcasts on television feature
harrowing reports of a deteriorating
international environment.
Chlorofluorocarbons stripping the
atmosphere of its health-protecting
constituents. A Greenhouse Effect that
poses threats to crops, climate, and sea
coasts. Acid rain that carries its
devastation over the borders of states,
regions, and nations. Chernobyl-type
accidents with effects that span large
portions of the globe.
Have these modern environmental
problems gotten beyond the reach of the
big "E"—the clean-up regulation in the
Federal Register, or the provisions of a
Clean Air Act passed 18 years ago?
From the mind, are the institutional
capabilities of this nation and other
nations broad enough to grapple
effectively with these planet-threatening
issues?
To this observer, the most moving
speech at the U.N. Conference on the
Environment in Stockholm in 1972 was
by Indira Ghandi, then Prime Minister
of India. Her thrust was not toward a big
"E"—pollution control—but toward a
dream of a human race united in a
struggle to save civilization and live in
dignity and mutual respect, as
concerned about the poverty of the
Third World as with the wastes of
industrial societies. Not the big "E." but
the little "e," the environment which
everybody shares in common, and an
environmental movement concerned
with human attitudes and values as
much as with natural conditions.
Gandhi's theme continues up to
today, if we listen for it. In this issue of
EPA Journal, the Prime Minister of
Norway writes that "global issues
JULY/AUGUST 1988
25
-------
require global solutions. The time has
come to take a giant leap forward in the
upgrading of civilization." Is this a job
for the big "E" as we know it, the effort
to clean up rivers and air and be safe
from pesticides and toxic industrial
chemicals? Or is it more, much more:
Institutions in every nation that are
concerned with the survival and the
quality of the world environment, the
little "e" which we must pass on from
generation to generation?
A skeptic says: "If you broaden the
objective from pollution control, if you
open the door to mental health and
well-being in the inner city and to the
values and attitudes of the human race,
where is the end?" It may be that there
is no end, only a goal, one that we can
strive for, but never completely achieve:
Decency, compassion, hope. It may be
that every cause must, fundamentally,
have this aim. Not simply because it is
right, but because, on a planet with
great benefits, but also, great risks, it is
realistic.
Some observers may say, "When you
translate these goals of a healthier, safe
inner city and a livable planet into
government action, you'll have a $10
trillion debt." The answer may be that it
is not what government can do alone,
but what all the participants in the little
''e" can do together, from household to
school, from community to corporate
boardroom. This was the spirit in the
birth of the environmental movement—a
spirit of togetherness, of common
themes, and common efforts. That was
the idea: That life is a quilt of billions of
lives and thousands of institutions. It
moves and grows as one, not as one
program, or one agency, but as one with
many units, small and big. Government
has a role, but it does not provide a
single, simple answer. Hope and
initiative spring from many voices, from
the great diversity of existence.
The Journal welcomes the responses
of its readers to the questions presented
here. We may not have the space to
print all of the comments, but we hope
that we can stimulate a dialogue which
will continue on these pages and
elsewhere.
Following this editorial is a box
presenting some examples of what
something as tame-sounding as
environmental education might achieve
in helping the youth of inner cities.
Awareness, which journalism can
promote and teachers can build, can be
a beginning, o
(Heritage is Editor of EPA Journal.)
Environmental Education and the Inner Crty
n spite of concerns about the
importance of environmental
awareness in the inner city, at
present there are relatively few
programs aimed at creating such
awareness or encouraging minority
students to seek professional
careers related to
environmentalism and natural
resource protection. But the
number of such programs is slowly
growing. Here are some examples:
• Milwaukee, Wisconsin—The
Schlitz Audubon Center on Lake
Michigan, just north of this
industrial city, found field trips by
inner-city youngsters were exciting
for them, but largely irrelevant; the
kids' attitude: very nice, but what
does it mean to me? We don't even
have trees on our street. The
Center recognized that
environmental awareness must be
created where the youngsters live,
not in rural surroundings that are
"unreal" to them. They developed
curriculum guides and
materials—"Living Lightly in the
City" and "Living Lightly on the
Planet." For lower grades, these
guides begin with simple
approaches to children's feelings
about the urban ecology (like a
class walk around the block
looking for environmental
problems). For high schoolers,
more sophisticated activities, like
debates on acid rain, are used.
According to the Center,
10,000-20,000 Milwaukee school
children use the materials
annually, perhaps another
50,000-60,000 elsewhere. A survey
found that 89 percent of the
teachers who had received the
curriculum materials were using
them.
• Boston, Massachusetts—Perhaps
the largest such program in
existence is run by the Thompson
Island Education Center on an
island off South Boston. The
15-year old project, which the
Center believes may have already
reached 100,000 children, is
designed to help the Boston public
schools teach about ecosystems of
both the island itself and various
Boston neighborhoods. The
Center's special Harbor
Environments program brings
students from predominantly
white and black schools together
for four-week summertime study
programs on the island, where
both academic and ecological
studies are shared. The project also
provides materials used in
after-hours projects during the
regular school year, with special
emphasis on the ongoing cleanup
of Boston harbor, one of the
nation's most polluted bodies of
water. State and private funding
support the Center's activities.
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
• Washington, DC —What can
one teacher accomplish? At
virtually all-black Ballou High
School here, environmental
science teacher Carl Keels has
taught youngsters to relate to the
environment around them—they
have studied home and school
nojse levels, asbestos flaking from
school basement pipes, solar
heating, Washington's sewage
disposal system, and other subjects
in addition to formal programs in
biology and ecology. The students
also visit environmental agencies.
Keel's classes have won EPA's
President's Environmental Youth
Award and have also been filmed
by the Agency.
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—In
the vanguard of EPA's
Adopt-A-School (or Partners in
Education) program, Region 3
employees have adopted three
schools. One of these is heavily
minority-attended Abraham
Lincoln High School in northeast
Philadelphia. Now in its third
year, the program involves about
600 students in environmental
activities, including testing nearby
Pennypacker Creek for pollutants
and cleaning up the stream, having
visits by EPA staff, including the
regional administrator, to discuss
acid rain, air and water pollution,
waste disposal, and other subjects
with environmental science
classes, taking tours of Agency
Superfund response facilities, and
holding an annual Environmental
Day. Participation has doubled in
just two years. The other schools
have been adopted by the Region's
Black and Hispanic employment
offices. Other regions and
headquarters plan similar projects.
• New York City—For 13 years,
mathematical physicist Mario
Salvador! has conducted a program
in New York City schools that is
designed to sensitize students
(K-12) to the "built environment"
in which they live. In the past two
years, the New York City Board of
Education has formally sanctioned
the program, installing it in a
Bronx middle school, where 150
"at risk" urban, black, and
Hispanic students were taught
math, science, and other subjects
with a "built environment"
emphasis. Other program
components include architectural
planning, landscaping, and city
planning. Earlier this year, all 150
of these students, more than half
of whom were expected to be
dropouts, graduated and went on
to high school.
• New Mexico—A number of
minority colleges and
universities—black, Hispanic, and
Native American—offer
specialized programs aimed at
encouraging an interest and
possible careers in professions
related to natural resources and
the environment. New Mexico
Highlands University, for example,
offers both associate and bachelors
degrees in environmental science.
Considerable emphasis is given to
solving pollution problems. About
60 percent of the students are
Mexican-Americans. (Also Tuskegee
Institute, in Alabama, has a
well-known pre-forestry program
that is drawing a growing number
of black students into the field of
forestry-related resource
management.)
• Washington, DC—Since 1983,
the Human Environment Center
has provided minority
environmental science internships
that enable 10 to 25 Washington
metropolitan area students to
spend their summers working
under the tutelage of voluntary
mentors at various federal and
local environmental and natural
resources agencies. This year's
program, for example, finds
students assigned to the Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center, the
Urban Ecology Center, and the
National Arboretum. Other
agencies where they have worked
include EPA, the Smithsonian
Institutions, the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River
Basin, and the DC Department of
Public Works. The program's goal
is to encourage minority students
to seek professional careers in
environmental fields, where
minorities have long been
under-represented. The Center also
has programs at the college level,
and is currently expanding to
include law and pre-law students
in the hope that they will
ultimately work with
environmental agencies or groups.
JULY/AUGUST 1988
27
-------
Environmental Literacy Test
Public opinion poll data indicate that
Americans are, generally speaking,
highly concerned about environmental
problems, and certainly public opinion
plays a key role in the process of
determining environmental priorities
and policies. Clearly, then, it is
important for the public to be
adequately informed on environmental
issues.
To assist journal readers in assessing
their own understanding of current
environmental issues, the following 20
questions are offered as a kind of
"environmental literacy test." Readers
are invited to take the test by simply
circling the proper answer for each
question. Answers are given on page 37.
(Questions and answers prepared by
Arthur Koines, Regulatory Integration
Division, in EPA's Office of Policy,
Planning, and Eva/uation.j
1. Which of the following phenomena
is believed to be associated with the
greenhouse effect?
a. global warming
b. melting of the polar icecaps
c. sea level rise
d. all of the above
2. Which of the following gases is
believed to cause the greenhouse effect?
a. oxygen
b. carbon monoxide
c. carbon dioxide
d. all of the above
3. Today, 18 years after the passage of
the Clean Air Act, nearly all major cities
in the United States are in compliance
with national air quality standards.
D True D False
4. Which of the following
environmental problems has EPA found
to be the most threatening to public
health?
a. hazardous waste sites
b. radon in homes
c. toxic chemicals in drinking water
d. leaking underground storage tanks
'5. Which of the following
environmental problems is the
American public most concerned about?
a. hazardous waste sites
b. radon in homes
c. contaminants in drinking water
d. leaking underground storage tanks
6. Which of these is a major source of
air pollution in homes?
a. building materials and furnishings
b. electrical heating and cooking
appliances.
c. tobacco smoke
d. none of the above
7. Ozone is beneficial to our
environment at high altitudes, yet
harmful at low altitudes.
D True D False
8. If dioxin is such a serious public
health threat, why doesn't EPA just ban
it?
a. It is a key material in the
production of vital consumer
products.
b. Industries that use dioxin are able
to exert a powerful political
influence on Congress.
c. EPA is unable to ban dioxin
because it is an unwanted
by-product of many industrial
activities.
d. None of the above.
9. The federal government provides
the majority of funding for
implementing environmental programs.
D True D False
10. In what way can people be
exposed to lead in the environment?
a. in their drinking water
b. in dust from lead paint in their
homes
c. in lead-contaminated soils
d. all of the above
11. What adverse health effects have
been associated with human exposure to
lead?
a. anemia
b. learning disabilities in children
c. hypertension in adult males
d. all of the above
12. Nationally, which of the following
is the biggest polluter of our air?
a. the chemical industry
b. automobiles
c. hazardous waste incinerators
d. none are big polluters.
13. Which of the following is the
source of radon in homes?
a. ultraviolet radiation
b. defective home heating systems
c. uranium in naturally occurring
rock formations
d. none of the above
14. Which of these answers comes
close to the amount of garbage created
annually by the average American?
a. 10 pounds
b. 100 pounds
c. 1,000 pounds
d. none of the above
15. What do we do with all the
garbage we create?
a. dispose of it in landfills
b. burn it in incinerators
c. recycle it
d. all of the above
16. A ground-water aquifer is most
like:
a. an underground lake
b. an underground river
c. an underground sponge
d. none of the above
17. Which of the following best
describes an estuary?
a. a large inland water body
b. an ancient river bed
c. the confluence of fresh water and
salt water bodies
d. none of the above
18. Estuaries are important because
they:
a. are major sources of drinking
water
b. are vital marine habitats
c. normally occur near large
population centers
d. all of the above
19. Although the pollutants causing
acid rain are generated mainly in the
Midwest, what region of the United
States has experienced the worst effects
from acid rain?
a. the Northwest
b. the Northeast
c. the Southeast
d. the Southwest
20. In the past, which of these groups
has enjoyed cost savings from
inadequate pollution controls?
a. industry
b. the American consumer
c. federal, state, and local
governments
d. all of the above
28
EPA JOURNAL
-------
environmental Edu
Special Section
1988
-------
Environmental Education:
Past and Present
by Jack Lewis
From the very earliest days of
environmental awareness in the
United States, mankind has been seen
as the key to nature's preservation—or
destruction. At first the plea was to the
sensitive individual, to awaken to the
beauty and fragility of nature. But as the
decades passed, and U.S. population
and industrial might burgeoned, the
need for broad-based education entered
more and more into discussions of how
to curb increasingly obvious
environmental decay.
The first traces of the earlier theme
can be found in the writings of the great
naturalists and moral philosophers who
championed the environmental ethic in
the 19th and early 20th centuries: Ralph
Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau,
George Perkins Marsh, John Muir, John
Burroughs, and Aldo Leopold. These
writers sought through their influence
on the reading public to change society,
one reader at a time, but often more at a
spiritual than a pragmatic level.
Needless to say, visible results were
slow to surface, and then only among
the educated elite.
In 1950, Ansel Adams, the renowned
nature photographer, marked a
transition to a new frame of mind when
he advocated systematic education of
the general public, not just isolated
sermons by "St. Georges of
conservation" to isolated audiences of
Previous page:"Surf and Rock;
Monterey County Coast, California,
1951." Photograph by Ansel Adams.
Courtesy of the trustees of The Ansel
Adams Publishing Rights Trust. All
rights reserved.
The philosophy of Adams, an early
proponent of environmental
education, is reflected in this
statement from his autobiography: "I
have come to the conclusion that to
be complacent is to be ineffective,
and to be tolerant of obvious error or
injustice is unforgivable. Perhaps
there is something amiss with the
genes of Homo sapiens that does not
innately command us to protect our
home, Earth, as we instinctively
protect ourselves."
the already converted: "The dragons of
demand have been kept at snarling
distance by the St. Georges of
conservation, but the menace remains.
Only education can enlighten our
people—education, and its
accompanying interpretation, and the
seeking of resonances of understanding
in the contemplation of nature."
It was not until the 1960s that a more
scientific tone entered writing, thinking,
and debate about the environment. Also
heard at this point was a growing
chorus of pleas for environmental
education, both to train specialists and
influence society at large.
Rachel Carson's SiJent Spring,
published in 1962, was the most
celebrated of this new breed of books
and articles—both technical and
extremely idealistic—that suddenly
appeared in rapid succession. These
pioneering investigative studies were
packed with scientific findings about
pesticide contamination, water
pollution, smog, and other
environmental problems—the most
alarming of which were quickly
trumpeted to the general public by
newspapers and television.
Scientists from the industrial sector
countered these claims with
diametrically opposite conclusions of
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
As a species, redwoods date back millions
of years, and individual redwoods can live
as long as 2,000 years. These trees are
protected in the Redwood National Park,
California, but others are being cut for
timber. Fred Mang, Jr., photo, National Park
Service.
their own. Furthermore, they cautioned
that "ecology" was the youngest of the
sciences, one that would need years to
mature, both through research and
education of trained specialists.
But the public was in no mood for
debate, delay, or compromise. Citizens
all over the United States were already
using their eyes, noses, and ears to score
their own "report card" on the
environment. There were plenty of
failing grades, and urgent messages to
Washington calling for immediate
action.
Action came with a rush in 1970, a
year that began with the passage of the
National Environmental Policy Act and
ended with passage of the Clean Air Act
and the founding of EPA. Two
landmarks in environmental education
also occurred in 1970:
• On April 22, tens of thousands of
demonstrators gathered all over the
United States for "Earth Day" speeches,
informal "teach-ins," and peaceful acts
of protest. Mass action to deal with
massive problems: that was the order of
the day. Gathered in the open air, under
beautiful spring skies, citizens were
offered instant education on a host of
topics at rallies reminiscent of
counter-culture "happenings."
Saturation media coverage emphasized
an atmosphere of idealism and
enthusiasm that was not to dissipate
until the advent of the energy crisis in
1973.
• On October 30, President Nixon
signed into law the Environmental
Education Act. This law, extremely
ambitious on paper at least, was to
environmental education what Earth
Day was to consciousness raising. Like
Earth Day, however, it proved to be
something of a false dawn. Through
most of the 1970s, federal support of
environmental education proceeded on
what has been described as a
"scattershot" basis, under a variety of
statutory authorities; all too often, once
federal funding ended, so did the state
programs it was intended to subsidi/.e
only until other funding could be found.
Nevertheless, the rationale for the
Environmental Education Act is worth
quoting at length, if only as a reflection
of the "guug-ho" atmosphere of 1970:
The Congress of the United States
finds that the deterioration of the
quality of the Nation's
environment and of its ecological
balance ... is in part due to poor
understanding of the Nation's
environment and of the need for
ecological balance; that presently
there do not exist adequate
resources for educating and
informing citizens in these areas,
and that concerted efforts in
Citizens all over the United
States were already using
their eyes, noses, and ears to
score their own "report card"
on the environment.
educating citizens about
environmental quality and
ecological balance are therefore
necessary.
The Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare (HEW), faced with a
daunting administrative challenge,
chose to downplay its role in
community education and to focus its
efforts on reaching students through
existing educational institutions: in
other words, to promote formal
programs of environmental education
leading to conventional academic
degrees. EPA, on the other hand, was
more inclined to become involved in
projects aimed at the citizenry at large;
the Agency was geared up for such
work because it was at this very time
setting up "public participation"
programs required by several of its own
statutes. However, there was no clear
line of demarcation. HEW reached
communities, just as EPA did schools,
sometimes in direct cooperation with
each other.
To reach both constituencies, EPA's
Office of Public Affairs created
pamphlets and filmstrips suitable for
use in "community education" outreach
programs. The office also commissioned
the highly acclaimed Dociimwicii series
of environmental photographs and a
host of other materials that were
disseminated to the print and electronic
media—America's mass educators par
excellence.
The public schools were also on
EPA's agenda. The Agency, with some
help from HEW, launched one
especially well-received project in 1971.
A massive mailing went out to every
high school in the United States
announcing what were then known as
the President's Environmental Merit
JULY/AUGUST 1988
31
-------
'T*
Enjoying a day at Whitefish
Bay, Wisconsin. Mike Brisson
photo.
Awards (now the President's
Environmental Youth Awards). There
was such a tremendous response that
applications were soon sought from
junior high and elementary students as
well as boy and girl scouts.
Direct action was the theme of early
Merit Award projects: students took to
roadsides and fields to plant trees; one
16-year-old in New Jersey
single-handedly succeeded in gaining
approval for a burning ordinance in his
community-
EPA also set up a special task force to
assist HEW with more traditional forms
of environmental education. The task
force helped HEW review applications
from 100 universities for approximately
$10 million in financial aid grants to
students in M.A. and Ph.D. programs
related to the environment. It also
designed a highly successful two-year
environmental studies curriculum for
use at the undergraduate level in
colleges and junior colleges. Some work
was also devoted to the development of
a high school curriculum.
In addition, EPA, with funding from
the Department of Labor's Manpower
Development and Training Act, made
pioneering advances in the area of
technical training for federal as well as
state and local officials. At the Agency's
research centers in Cincinnati and in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
scientists and engineers learned state-of-
the-art techniques for the control of
water and air pollution. At a later date,
fire departments and local government
officials were instructed in the best
methods for controlling hazardous waste
emergencies.
Another aspect of EPA's involvement
in environmental education should not
be overlooked. Ever since its
establishment in 1970, EPA has been
fostering the development of the
environmental sciences at educational
institutions by providing research grants
to university scientists. A large part of
EPA's research is done "in-house," but a
sizable portion has always been
undertaken by outside experts. As a
result of contact with EPA, academic
experts in the health sciences, biology,
engineering, chemistry, and physics
have gravitated toward the
environmental aspects of those
disciplines. After furthering the
Agency's specific short- and long-term
research needs, these scientist-
professors were able to pass along new
forms of knowledge to their students.
Simultaneous with these efforts at
EPA, HEW's Office of Environmental
Education was making significant
strides of its own. Its funding levels
were higher than at EPA: from 1971 to
1981, HEW expended an average of $3
million a year for a wide variety of
environmental education projects.
Heavier expenditures, at HEW as at
EPA, tended to be clustered at the
beginning of the 1970s and to taper off
somewhat as the decade advanced.
Activities directly under the authority
of the Environmental Education Act
were usually development programs in
public schools and community interest
groups. These, however, represented
only part of the overall equation at
HEW. At least six other HEW statutes
proved to be appropriations sources for
environmental education projects. By far
the most important of these was the
Elementary and Secondary School
Education Act of 1970.
One Elementary and Secondary
School Act project is particularly
worthy of mention, both for one
enormous success it spawned and for
the fairly typical failings to which it
was otherwise vulnerable. From 1971 to
1974, three groups of states were given
$150,000 each to develop environmental
curricula in the public schools. The
New York and North Carolina clusters
of states allowed their programs to lapse
when federal money dried up. The story
was quite different in California.
The group of 13 western states headed
by California—known as the Western
Regional Environmental Education
Council—took hold in a very big way.
Continued on next poge
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Whaf s Happening in the States
This brief report highlights what
some of the states are doing to
advance the cause of
environmental education. Contact
your state education agency for
complete details about what is
happening in your area.
• Arizona: The Arizona
Department of Water Resources
has a Water Education Resource
Directory that lists videotapes,
films, and slideshows on
environmental issues, suggests tour
possibilities and guest speakers,
and includes a guide to handouts
and other teaching resources.
• California: California's
Department of Education has
perhaps the most extensive
environmental education programs
in the nation. Just a few examples
are selected here from a wide
range of offerings: the California
Outdoor School Administrators, an
association that targets its funds at
enhancing outdoor school
programs; the Class Project, an
activity-oriented conservation
education program sponsored by
the National Wildlife Federation;
and Environmental Education
Fairs that bring educators into
contact with government, business,
and private conservation groups
that can share with them ideas and
materials for courses.
• Delaware: Delaware has
tentative plans to make
environmental education
mandatory in all grades. Plans are
also being made to offer
environmental education to adults.
• Hawaii: Hawaii's Department of
Education has put together a
thematic, interdisciplinary
Environmental Education Program
for use in its public schools.
• Indiana: Indiana requires its
secondary schools to offer
environmental courses as electives.
• Louisiana: Louisiana's
Department of Environmental
Quality is in the process of
preparing course materials on 100
environmental topics. In addition,
the department has recently issued
a three-volume environmental
teaching guide.
• New fersey: New Jersey's
Department of Environmental
Protection has produced a series of
educational packages on the
environment for use in elementary
and secondary schools.
• New York: New York requires
its secondary schools to offer
environmental courses as electives.
• Ohio: Ohio requires its schools
to offer courses in natural science;
these courses must teach the
concept of conserving natural
resources. Ohio's Department of
Natural Resources has set up an
Adopt-A-School program through
which it provides specific
programs to adopted schools.
• Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania
is thus far the only state that
requires an environmental course
of all high school students.
• Rhode Island: Rhode Island is
currently developing an
environmental education
curriculum that will be introduced
into the public schools as part of a
newly formed Governor's Literacy
Program.
• Virginia: Concern over the
Chesapeake Bay has led to several
innovative projects. The "Bay
Team" teacher project, funded by
Chesapeake Bay Initiatives and the
Council on the Environment,
brings visiting teachers to
classrooms around the state;.
Another program, conducted by
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
gives students and teachers a
chance to visit the Bay. The
Virginia Resource-Use Education
Council sponsors environmental
courses for teachers at four
universities during the summer
term.
• Washington: The State of
Washington requires its secondary
schools to offer environmental
courses as electives. The state's
Department of Ecology has issued
Environmental Education
Guidelines and set up a special
course, "A-Way with Waste," to
familiarize students with waste
management and recycling issues.
• Wisconsin: Wisconsin's
Department of Natural Resources
requires each school board to
develop an environmental
education curriculum for infusion
into kindergarten through grade 12
subject matter. Teachers are
trained in how to present the
curriculum.
An interesting new theme has
been emerging in American
environmental education: the
concept of "curriculum
infusion."
Permanent sources of state revenue were
found, and alliances forged with private
organizations such as the American
Forest Institute. Several highly praised
course modules developed by this
council—Project Learning Tree and
Project WILD—are now being used by
educators in 39 states as well as a
growing number of countries throughout
the world.
No discussion of environmental
education in the 1970s would be
complete without some nit'ntion oi the
work undertaken by other federal
agencies: most notably, the Tumiossee
Valley Authority (TVA) and the
Department of the Interior. TV A set up a
highly praised Environmental Education
Program at a 170,000-acn! Kentucky site
known as "Land Between tin; Likes."
There teachers were offered special
training, then encouraged to return with
student groups.
Interior's Park Service sponsored a
National Environmental Kducaliun
Development Project amid tin; beauty of
the national parks, while the same
department's Fish and Wildlife Son ice
went even further in the direction of
developing environmental education
programs tor school ;ind community
groups.
Coordinating all these federal efforts
was a Subcommittee on Environmental
Education that was set up by the
HEW-headed Federal liiteragcucy
Committee on Education. Both the
Committee and the Subcommittee
continued when Education split off
from the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (now the
JULY/AUGUST 1988
33
-------
Moonrise over Lake Michigan.
Mike Brisson photo.
Department of Health and Human
Services) and became the Department of
Education in 1980.
Federal involvement in
environmental education tapered off
during the early years of the Reagan
Administration, which emphasized the
primacy of state and local government
in all educational matters. The
Environmental Education Act was
allowed to fade out in 1981 when it was
subsumed along with a variety of other
laws under an umbrella statute, the
Education Consolidation Improvement
Act. This law instituted so-called "block
grants," appropriations to cover a
multitude of different program needs.
Whether or not to use any
"block-granted" funds for environmental
education was left up to each individual
state, with no record-keeping
requirement and therefore no data as to
which did.
The federal government, not just at
the Department of Education but at EPA
and elsewhere, was releasing its grip on
environmental education. By 1983 even
the Subcommittee on Environmental
Education was in danger of dying out
after several years without an Executive
Director. But in 1984 it was given a
fresh Presidential mandate at the urging
of William D. Ruckelshaus, who had
returned to serve a second term as
EPA's Administrator.
In April 1985, Ruckelshaus' successor,
Lee M. Thomas, sought to re-activate
EPA's involvement in the process by
instructing each of the Agency's 10
regional administrators to appoint a
Coordinator for Environmental
Education. These coordinators are
program personnel recruited to perform
their new functions on a part-time basis.
Their achievements have been both
impressive and varied.
For instance, EPA's Region 3,
headquartered in Philadephia, set up a
Center for Environmental Learning in
1986. The center has sponsored many
extremely popular meetings, forums,
seminars, and conferences; these have
been attended by—among others—
businessmen, local government leaders,
health officials, and environmental
groups.
The Agency's Region 8, headquartered
in Denver, has set up a Youth Speaker's
Bureau that brings EPA professionals
into the classroom to speak on a variety
of environmental topics. Region 8 has
also put together a Resource Materials
Index so area educators can more easily
identify and obtain EPA materials
appropriate for use in the classroom.
Perhaps the realization has
finally taken hold that in the
long run, environmental
education could prove to be
the best investment of all.
In addition, two non-governmental
organizations are emerging as major
forces in the sphere of environmental
education: the North American
Association for Environmental
Education; and the Alliance for
Environmental Education, which has 34
affiliate organizations ranging from the
National Wildlife Federation to the
United Auto Workers.
The North American Association for
Environmental Education, founded
shortly after EPA itself, has as members
nearly a thousand environmental
educators in the United States and
Canada. Interest in the organization's
annual meeting and professional
publications has been growing
substantially in the past few years. Its
current president, Ed McCrea, attributes
this at least partially to a felt need
among the professionals to reinforce the
vibrancy and visibility of the discipline
during a period of slackened support at
the federal level.
Meanwhile, the Alliance for
Environmental Education has been busy
forming regional networks of colleges
and universities for what is intended to
be a cohesive and well-coordinated
national network. Thirty institutions of
higher learning have already agreed to
pre-service and in-service training for
teachers of environmental subjects; the
development of programs relevant to
local institutions; community outreach
programs; and environmental research.
Other interesting developments have
been underway during the 1980s. Just in
the past few years, an interesting new
theme has been emerging in American
environmental education: the concept of
"curriculum infusion." Advocates of
curriculum infusion are urging public
school teachers to "infuse"
environmental subject matter and
environmentalist values into their
34
EPA JOURNAL
-------
regular syllabus, be it for Social Studies
or Mathematics. This "holistic"
approach, though reminiscent of Earth
Day, has a very practical purpose in the
late 1980s: to expedite the spread of
environmental education in an age
when there is often insufficient funding
for more intensive and specialized
instruction.
The 1987 "Environmental Education
Information Report" that documents the
widespread use of "infusion" techniques
draws some conclusions about the
trends that explain their present-day
popularity. The authors of the report—
researchers at the Science, Mathematics,
and Environmental Education
Clearinghouse of the Educational
Resources Information Center (ERIC]), in
cooperation with colleagues at the
Center for Science and Mathematics
Education at Ohio State University—
conclude that "it ... appears that [the]
environment is, from a national
perspective, a second-order issue in the
schools as well as in the political arena,
though there are clearly many state and
local situations where it thrives—in
varying forms, to be sure." (For a brief
summary of state activities now
underway, see box on page 33.)
To get a more exact fix on nationwide
trends, the ERIC study polled all 50
state education agencies; 40 responded.
Of these, 44.7 percent indicated that 81
to 100 percent of their state's
elementary schools included
environmental education in some
manner. However, only five states
reported that the subject was taught as a
separate course in elementary schools
rather than "infused" into other course
offerings. As for secondary schools, 31.6
percent of the state agencies reported
that environmental education was
offered in some form at 81 to 100
percent of high schools. More than
one-fourth of all respondents (11 states
out of 40) reported that environmental
education now enjoys the status of a
separate course offering in their state's
secondary schools.
From these figures, it appears clear
that environmental education, though
still a "second-order issue," has far
more than a toehold in America's public
schools, and current trends indicate that
it is here to stay. Admittedly, this is a
turbulent time in American education.
Intense concern over the slippage of the
U.S. economy in foreign markets would
seem to favor traditional "meat-and-
potatoes" course offerings. And budget
shortages at all levels of government do
not leave much room for humanistic
experiments. But the American public,
even in the most recent polls (see article
on page 10) shows surprisingly strong
support for environmental programs.
Perhaps the realization has finally
taken hold that, in the long run,
environmental education could prove to
be the best investment of all. For as
America's "St. Georges of conservation"
long ago cautioned, man the enemy of
nature must learn to be her friend—or
learn to suffer the consequences. Q
(Lewis is an Assistant Editor of EPA
Journal.)
JULY/AUGUST 1988
35
-------
Environmental Education
The Future
by John Paulk
and Lynn Hodges
If you are thinking a year ahead, sow a
seed. If you are thinking ten years
ahead, plant a tree. If you are thinking
one hundred years ahead, educate the
people.— Chinese poet, 500 B.C.
With questions about the greenhouse
effect and depletion of the ozone
layer very much on the public mind, the
authors present a near-future scenario in
which solutions to pressing
environmental problems are found
without resort to litigation. We could be
part way there already.
Future needs and strategies to meet
them have challenged societies for
centuries. Long-term needs are
especially challenging, and nowadays
changes are occurring faster and faster.
Our ideas about future needs change
daily, and when people look "one
hundred years ahead." they are often
overwhelmed by the possibilities and
alternative futures.
The future always holds a risk of
disaster. Minimizing the risks of such
disasters, particularly those that would
affect our basic life-support systems—
our air, our water, our ability to grow
food, our climate—is of concern
throughout the environmental and
economic sectors of our society.
With only sophisticated guesses about
the future to guide us, one strategy
remains as valid today as in 500 B.C.
"Educate the people" continues to be a
valid way to respond to rapid change
and future risk. A relatively new field
called "environmental education" has
become a promising means to focus on
the future. Its goal is to empower
individuals and organizations to deal
with change, to minimize environmental
risks, and to promote economic growth
and development.
Far too often we hear about conflicts
between the corporate world and the
"environmentalists." The unfortunate
consequences of this continuing battle
include unresolved problems, lengthy
legal contests which fuel the "we'11-get-
you-next-time" syndrome, and
expenditure of limited funds for conflict
rather than resolution.
Frequently, an examination of issues
from a common-sense perspective
reveals that a reasonable solution is in
the grasp and control of both parties.
Often it can be achieved with little loss
of pride, minimal "blood-letting," and
without enormous legal costs. Both
parties must once again learn the art of
compromise.
At the heart of most environmental
issues are elements that favor the
interests of both the corporate sector
and the environmentalists. The
corporate perspective has profit
motivations. It values the free enterprise
system as the "American way" and
seeks to provide jobs and a healthy
economy. The environmental
perspective values healthy
surroundings. Clean air, clean water,
unspoiled land, and wise use of the
earth's resources are also the "American
way." Both groups are well aware that
without a strong economy and jobs—or
without clean air and water, unspoiled
land, and wise use of resources—there
is a dimness to the future. Both
conditions are needed to promote a
sustainable base of resources and
sustainable economic growth. The
common ground of sustainability must
be recognized by the competing
interests and must be accommodated.
The corporate manager must
champion and seek solutions to
environmental problems through
partnerships with the environmental
community. Environmental institutions
and organizations should be utilized in
problem-solving. The environmental
organizations must accept and
encourage the profit motive, which is
the source of jobs and capital.
Environmentalists must include basic
economics in their vision of the future.
Let's examine an environmental
scenario that might provide a future
beyond the courts, or even without the
courts. It will take a massive swallowing
of pride on both sides, but it is palatable
because it is essential. For lack of a
better term, let's call the future method
of developing this unique understanding
"environmental education." It will
consist of education about the
biosphere. The biosphere, according to
Barbara Ward, in her foreword to Erik
Peckholm's Down to Earth, consists of
"a few thin meters of soil, a few miles
up into the sky, and a similar depth into
the oceans [that] encompasses virtually
the whole [environment] in which we
and other living things can survive."
It's a tiny sliver of space "where
everything lives together." Not a
difficult concept! This environmental
education will also recognize that man
has inserted economic systems into the
seamless web of life. These systems of
trade, barter, exchange, and competition
become undesirable only when they tear
the seamless web and reduce the ability
of the biosphere to support life.
Environmental education will teach that
the energies of both natural and
human-made systems will be honored.
Further, it will insist that
environmental problems be resolved in
ways that create or preserve a
sustainable balance, encouraging only
environmentally sound economic
development. From youth,
environmental education will train
individuals in analysis, negotiation, and
problem-solving. Traditional disciplines
of language, math, science, art,
geography, and social studies will be
structured to develop awareness,
knowledge, and skills needed to deal
with environmental issues. Students
will be prepared to deal with future
risks, conflicts, and alternatives.
Key "decision-makers" in the
environmental education scenario are
already among us. Some are still in
primary schools; others are at advanced
levels, Most are developing a global
perspective, both about the environment
and about economics. Most see basic
economic principles as compatible with
basic environmental principles and are
adept at solving interrelated problems.
But the range of environmental
education remains limited. Expansion is
necessary and will not be difficult to
achieve.
More schools need to use
environmental education as a part of
their regular studies to energize the
curriculum, to teach basic skills, and to
lay the foundations for our future. In
addition, opportunities for the
out-of-school citizens need to be
expanded. Current decision-makers,
from both the environmental and
economic communities, need to have
the chance to be environmentally
educated. They can put their newly
learned skills to immediate use, solving
today's conflicts.
The nation's leading professional
organizations and educational
institutions, including colleges,
36
EPA JOURNAL
-------
universities, and junior colleges, need to
reinforce environmental education with
their students and members. These
groups and institutions with their
powerful research capacity and ability
to train leaders and teachers possess
enormous potential for networking.
The nation's business sector needs to
apply its managerial skills in forging a
strong alliance for sustainable economic
development. The economic benefits of
good environmental management need
to be strongly vocalized in the business
world.
Our political leadership needs to set
the pace within the various levels of
government to use education to
minimize the need for more regulation
and to encourage compliance with
existing mandates. Education for
government employees and lawmakers
should be a part of professional
development opportunities throughout
government.
Finally, all of these groups should
seek opportunities to work together.
Neither environmental quality nor
economic development derives any
benefit from being fragmented.
Alliances, partnerships, coalitions, and
problem-directed teamwork can forge
stronger ties among traditional
adversaries and result in faster.
longer-lasting, and more efficient
resolution of conflicts.
Education empowers individuals and
organizations to deal with the rapid
changes and risks inherent in the future.
Economic and environmental conflicts
are among the most challenging
problems we face. Environmental
education focuses on this need. The
ability of groups to use environmental
education for their own benefits and the
ability of groups to cooperate in support
of these efforts are major unknowns,
both in our society and in the global
community. Our ability to quickly unify
in seeking answers to environmental
and economic unknowns will in large
measure determine our immediate
future, a
(Paulk is Chief, Skills and Education
Development Branch, Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA). Hodges is Program
Manager, Environmental Education
Program, TV'AJ
Answers to Environmental Literacy Test
1. The answer is d. These
phenomena are believed to be
causally related. The
greenhouse effect causes global
warming. Gradually rising
temperatures may be expected
to cause some melting of the
polar ice caps, which, in turn,
causes soa level rise.
2. The answer is c. Of the
choices given, only carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
3. This statement is false. In
fact, just the opposite is true:
today, most major cities are not
in compliance with national
air quality standards.
4. The answer is b. In the
study "Unfinished Business: A
Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems," EPA
staff and managers identified
r-adon in homes as the most
threatening public health
problem of the choices given
for this question.
5. The answer is a. According
to a recent Roper Poll, (>5
percent of the: American public
felt that active ha/ardous waste
sites were a "very serious"
environmental problem. None
of the other choices for this
question was rated as very
serious by as large a
percentage. Radon in homes
was rated very serious bytmly
21 percent.
6. The answer is c. Tobacco
smoke is acknowledged to be a
major source of air pollution in
homes where at least one
smoker lives and smokes.
7. The statement is true. At
high altitudes ozone acts as a
shield against harmful
ultraviolet radiation from the
sun. At ground level, ozone
can cause respiratory ailments
in people and adverse effects
on plant life.
8. The answer is c. Dioxin is
an unwanted by-product of
industrial activities. The best
known examples are its
chemical formation in paper
manufacturing and in the
incineration of municipal
waste.
9. This statement is false.
Federal funds now account for
less than half of most state
environmental program
budgets. The federal share is
decreasing as state programs
grow while federal grants to
state governments remain
constant or are reduced.
10. The answer is d. All of the
choices are known routes of
human exposure to lead.
11. The answer is cl. All of the
choices represent adverse
human health effects that have
been associated with lead
exposure through
epidemic logical studies.
12. The answer is b.
Nationally, of the choices
given, automobiles are
acknowledged to be the biggest
polluter of our air.
13. The answer is c. Radon is
formed by the radioactive
decay of uranium in naturally
occurring rock formations.
14. The answer is c. The
United States has a population
of about 240 million people
and generates about 140
million tons of garbage
annually. The average is 1.1(57
pounds [or roughly 1,000
pounds) per person.
15. Th<; answer is d. \Yhilo
landfilling is still by far the
most common waste
management practice, both
incineration and recycling are
used by some communities.
16. The answer is c. An aquifer
i.s a soil formation capable of
absorbing and storing water. It
therefore functions like a
sponge.
17, The answer is c. An
estuary is the confluence of a
river and a salt water body.
Some well-known examples of
estuaries are the Chesapeake
Hay, the Puget Sound, anti San
Francisco Hay.
18. The answer is b. Kstuaries
result when
-------
What They're
Learning:
Guthrie Center,
Iowa
by Belva Peterson
The President's Environmental Youth
Awards program is designed to
recognize the achievements of young
people in schools, summer camps, and
youth organizations /or projects that
produce environmental benefits or
enhance community interest and
involvement in environmental
activities. It offers young people,
individually or collectively, an
opportunity to become an
environmental force within their
community. Each year, winners of the
national awards, one from each of
EPA's 10 regions, receive an
expense-paid trip to Washington, DC, to
participate in the annual National
Awards Ceremony. Following are
articles on two of last year's
award-winning projects, involving
students from Iowa and New York.
Our school district used most of an
apple orchard to build an
elementary school, but part was fenced
out because it wasn't needed. These six
acres grew wild for about 25 years. Only
a few brave teachers would venture up
there with their classes. There were no
paths and it was really wild. The fifth-
and sixth-grade science teacher and I
would talk about how great it would be
to make a really viable place out of this,
with paths, so it could be used all the
time.
A housing development was building
up on the north side of our town, right
across from our orchard. I got word that
the school was thinking of selling off
this piece of land. I couldn't let that
happen. I went to our principal, telling
him how we had been using it and how
important it was to the students and the
school. He went to the school board,
while I talked to a friend on the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) County
Conservation Board. He thought we
needed to get a sign up in the old
orchard, naming it a classroom as soon
as we could.
It just happened that I had a parent
who was a builder-contractor. He would
donate the lumber and build the sign.
Then to get it painted. The art teacher
had some high school students who
could do that, but no paint. Again, the
County Conservation Board came
through, and another parent had some
tall poles. The Rural Electric Coop
(REG) put the sign up in the spring of
1984. The commitment was made; the
school wouldn't sell the orchard.
In the fall of 1984. an EPA flyer found
its way into my school mailbox. That
was when the dream of an Outdoor
Classroom began to take shape. I'm not
sure, but I think I ran to the science
teacher's room, flyer in hand, yelling
"We're going to do this!" After reading
the flyer many times, we decided on our
plan of action. A steering committee of
conservation-minded parents and
friends was set up. Brainstorming was
done with the students in kindergarten
and sixth grade. What were some things
they would want in an outdoor
classroom? These ideas were taken to
the committee and goals were set for the
first year, second year, and beyond. At
this time the flyer was filled out and
sent in to EPA.
The students began to work with
guidance from teachers and parents.
Trails were cut, and in some places
railroad ties were put in to keep paths
from eroding. Wood chips given by REC
and by Iowa Power and Light were used
on the trails. These chips were carried
in small pails, big pails, and
wheelbarrows. Next on our plan of
action was the arboretum, a garden of
trees. With help from the SCS office, a
plan was laid out for an arboretum on
the east side of the Outdoor Classroom.
Three rows of trees had to be cut. The
sixth graders, with the help of parents
and teachers, cut the trees. The students
decided that the wood could be sold, so
it was cut up and corded by the
students. Many grapevines were found
in cutting the trails and trees. The
students came up with the idea of
making wreaths. They made wreaths of
all sizes. Since it was the last of
November, our school secretary
decorated them and many were sold for
Christmas gifts. This brought us to the
big project.
The kids wanted a lookout tower. One
parent donated some oak logs for the
building of our tower. A trip was
planned to a saw mill to watch the logs
become boards. The kindergarteners and
sixth graders enjoyed the trip and
learned a lot. With the help of fathers,
the poles were put in place. Then with
the help of our grade school principal
and the sixth graders, the tower went
up.
Spring came, and with it the first big
planting in our arboretum. Trees and
shrubs were donated by the Iowa State
Nursery and a nursery-owner friend
nearby. Our friend from the nursery
38
EPA JOURNAL
-------
What They're
Learning:
Brooklyn,
New York
by Melvin Marcus
Iowa Governor Terry E.
Branstad checked out the view
from the lookout tower built by
Guthrie Center elementary
school students as part of their
outdoor dassroom. News
Gazette photo.
helped us decide what trees we should
put in our arboretum. The
kindergarteners and the sixth graders
planted all the plants on two rainy days.
But we still weren't finished. We had
bird houses to put up, signs to be
routed, and wildflowers to plant.
Now it was time to plan the Open
House to show everyone what we had
done and what we had learned. About
this time we got a letter telling us we
had been approved for the President's
Environmental Youth Award, and Mr.
Ronald Ritter, Director of EPA Region 7
Congressional and Intergovernmental
Liaison, was coming from Kansas City
to present the awards to the students.
The students decided that that should
be the day of our Open House. Big plans
were made; we asked the Governor to
come. Few of us thought he would
really, but he did. He helped plant an
oak tree and cut a ribbon to open our
tower. That was a great day! The sixth
graders and the kindergarteners gave
guided tours through the classroom.
That closed our first year. It was a good
year and everything really fell in place.
And as we are doing this year, we
watered trees all summer.
The second year we had to maintain
and trim our chip trails, wrap trees,
clean birdhouses, and repaint our sign.
The new sixth graders and
kindergarteners took on all the jobs,
even building the swinging bridge. In
the spring, with the help of the County
Conservation Board, we planted prairie
grasses on the hillside between the
classroom and the school playground.
On Arbor Day. we planted more trees.
The students who were lucky enough
to be in kindergarten and sixth grade
that first year really experienced what it
was like to take an over-grown area and
turn it into something that could be
used and saved for the students yet
to come. It was an experience those
students are not going to forget. They
found out what nature really is all about
and how caring is the first step in
saving it. a
(Peterson is kindergarten teacher at
Guthrie Center Elementary Community
Schooi, Guthrie Center, lowa.J
Not long ago. New York State put my
school on the "must-improve-or-
else" plan. To foster innovative and
motivating programs, certain funds were
set up for the establishment of these
programs. So the high and mighty
reached out to the old-time teacher with
the strange idea to help get them off the
hook. I was told, in effect: Your dream
can be realized with half the money you
request as long as it's done on your own
time.
The above scenario occurred two and
a half years ago in a junior high school
in Brooklyn, New York. The school is in
a poor economic area, and the student
population has a high absentee rate and
is always near the bottom of city
schools in reading and math scores.
My plan was relatively simple.
Children of this age love animals, and I
wanted to get them interested enough to
read and write about them. I wanted to
have the children seated among the
animals and plants so they would be
motivated enough to learn about
habitats and ecosystems and mayln: care
enough so they would appreciate and
not harm their environment. This is the
main difference between my
environment program and others. The
kids are in the same room and scatiul
among the animals. They don't visit
habitats and animals. They live among
them.
As I stood in the empty sewing room
on the fifth floor staring out the window
at the roof, 1 could feel the eyes of tht:
high and mighty watching every move I
made. It is one thing to have ideas in
your head for 25 years. It's another to
pull them out and make them a reality.
Why was I undertaking such a difficult
project when I should have been
thinking about retirement? Was this
thing really going to work, or would it
be another project to be placed on the
scrap heap in a year or two?
I started by covering a wall with two
8- by 13-foot murals depicting peaceful
mountains and river scenes. 1 needed
JULY/AUGUST 1988
39
-------
Rabbits, turtles, lizards, snakes, frogs, and
birds live in terrariums around a Brooklyn,
New York, schoolroom. Teacher Melvin
Marcus and his student Eric Montez were
instrumental in turning the classroom into a
living science laboratory. New York Daily
News photo.
help to build cages, to clean, to care for
animals. Volunteer students came to
school early to help. They came on their
lunch periods: girls, guys, teachers.
They all came. They all contributed.
By the end of the first year the room
was rounding into form. We planted
trees in barrels on the roof. We raised
rabbits and hamsters and gave them to
deserving students, with their parents'
permission. We built cages and had
iguanas, cockatiels, and tortoises living
together. We set up a wading pool with
turtles and goldfish. Around the
perimeter of the room we set up
Sli-gallon tanks, each with its own
ecosystem depicting a swamp, a jungle,
and a desert.
Although my dream was coming to
life, frustration entered the picture. No
one in the District Office seemed to
care. 1 sent pictures of my room, but the
high and mighty wouldn't come.
Elementary school children came to
visit the room. It was a great place for
the teacher to relax while I entertained
and taught for an hour on my free time.
Hut I he book I wrote for the course was
rejected by publishers because of
restricted audiences. My dream seemed
to be souring. I felt no one of
importance cared.
The following year we added animals
and plants, and then we won the EPA
Region 2 President's Environmental
Youth Award. The winner, Eric Montez,
came in at 6:20 each morning to help
me feed and care for the living things in
my room. The trip to Washington and
the warmth of the people at EPA left a
lifetime impression on a slum kid from
Brooklyn no one ever cared about. It
also impressed his teacher, who grew
up in the same slum. Winning a
national award should have been the
crown jewel of my project. However, the
more I improved the room the more
frustrated I became. I had to wait
months to collect the money I had laid
out. The custodian wouldn't enter the
room to clean. It took a year to get him
to empty the garbage. The President of
the United States sent a congratulatory
letter on winning the President's Youth
Award, but my District Superintendent
never visited the room.
As the second year of my project
came to an end, I closed the door of my
lab and stared once more onto the roof. I
realized, after all the effort and the time
put in, that someone did care. No, it
wasn't the high and mighty from the
District Office. It was the kids in the
building who entered my room during
period changes to see the animals or ask
the "Zoo Teacher" about the care of
their pet. It was the kids who asked to
see reference books. It was the teachers
who came up on their unassigned
periods to see what the kids were
talking about and what "Dr. Doody" was
up to now.
Who cares? 1 thought. What about the
kids I had in regular science classes that
have 10 point higher averages in my
environmental science class? The
reading and math scores in my school
have gone way up this year. Maybe, just
maybe, my program had a little to do
with it.
What about the look on the face of an
inner-city kindergarten kid with a
five-foot rat snake wrapped around his
neck while his teacher runs out of the
room? What about kids who touch and
hold animals for the first time and
realize snakes are not slimy? What
about kids who bring me pictures of the
rabbits and hamsters I gave them? These
are the important people. These are the
benefactors of my ideas, and I can tell
from knowing them that the time and
effort were worth it. D
(Marcus is science teacher at John D.
WelJs Junior High School iMumber 50,
Brooklyn, New York.J
40
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Is ft Cool To Worry?
by John Falk
In the late 1960s considerable public
attention was directed at a broad set of
issues related to deterioration of the
environment. The results of this public
concern were the enactment in the early
1970s of major national, state, and local
environmental legislation, and the
establishment of regulatory agencies to
enforce that legislation. Ideas and
attitudes had been translated into social
change—at least at one level. How much
of the environmental ethic that
underlies these laws and organizations
has really found its way into the general
social structure of the population?
In particular, what can we infer about
the attitudes of today's children:" How
aware are the children born since 1975
of the interdependencies of human and
non-human systems? Do they think
about pollution and depletions in
natural resources? If so, where are these
values and ideas coming from?
One place to look for the
dissemination of environmental ideas
and ethics would, of course, be the
schools. Although environmental
education enjoyed a brief vogue as a
"core" part of the curriculum, the "Back
to Basics" movement of the middle to
late 1970s pretty much wiped out the
bulk of environmental programs,
particularly at the elementary school
level.
As important as school is for the
teaching of ideas and values, it is by no
means the only, or perhaps even the
most important place for such learning
to occur. While a large amount of a
child's time is spent in school, the
majority of his time is spent outside of
the classroom. Research has shown that
experiences outside of school,
particularly those that occur in the
home, account for much of the learning
and most of the attitudes children
acquire. In fact, the average American
child, by the age of 18, will have spent
more hours watching television than
sitting in a classroom. With this in
mind, we can gain some perspective on
Illustration by Irene Brady. From Peeping in the Shell: A Whooping Crane is Hatcl-
Faith McNulty. Reprinted with permission of Harper & Row Junior Books.
environmental attitudes by viewing
children through the social mirrors of
our time: the popular media. Children
are profoundly influenced by the
curriculum of their everyday lives—the
books, popular music, and television
they consume.
Do children's books, which have
always involved non-human animals,
reflect a change in the way these
organisms are presented? Does popular
music include themes, or champion
causes consistent with an environmental
ethic? Does the television children
watch deal with environmental issues as
well as the social and quasi-political
issues traditionally depicted? These are
places we can look for an understanding
of how pervasively those environmental
events of 20 years ago have, or have not,
become implanted in our society.
Books
Dinosaurs, wildlife, crabs, estuaries,
animal homes, even animal doctors fill
the pages of the children's books at the
local mall's bookstore. Books on nature
or biological themes seem to be very
much in vogue at the moment; they
represent a large percentage of the titles
available to consumers of books for
children between the ages of three and
eight. All of the major publishers of
juvenile titles .seem to h;ive at lo.isl one
such book, particularly books on animal
"babies." A few of these, like the
recently published Longmeadow Press
series, contain information on the
environmental status of the organism
they feature, but most do not.
Sitting side by side on the shelf were
three "animal baby" books. A
comparison provides an insight into the
values of the times when they were
published: 1963, 1977. and 1DHH. In
1963, cartoon-like illustrations depict
familiar animals such as cows, kittens,
chicks, colts, piglets, bunnies, monkeys,
and elephants. The book begins and
ends with the words: "Baby animals
come big and small. They are v«ry
young, so they like to be petted and
snuggled ... gonlly." The implied
message: these animals an; cute and
exist for us humans to enjoy as long as
we treat them kindly. In 1977. the
familiar animals such as pigs and horses
are joined by a variety of other animals
such as wild turkeys, flamingos,
alligators, anteaters, bison, hippos, and
koala bears. Life-like drawings show the
animals in their natural habitat. The
text, no longer overtly child-centered,
includes the name and a few facts about
JULY/AUGUST 1988
41
-------
each organism. In the 1988 volume, the
illustrations retain a 1977 style of
accuracy, but the flavor of the book is
once again anthropocentric. Gone are
most of the exotic creatures, leaving the
old standard foals, lambs, puppies,
rabbits, and kittens. The text returns to
the 1963 emphasis on animal sounds
and concludes with: "Animal babies are
big or small, fuxxy or smooth, short or
tall." Gone is reference to petting and
fondling, but the same basic message is
implied: animal babies are cute and
cuddly.
The books available for older readers,
children ages nine to 13, are a different
story. Scientific themes are prevalent,
but books on natural history, ecology,
and environment are rare. Most of the
books deal with issues of growing up in
America, which, if these books are any
indication, does not require concern
about environmental issues. Among the
most popular books for this age group
are cartoon books such as Garfield and
The For Side.
Environmental information has crept
into a few books. One popular series for
early adolescent boys is the Time
Mfichine, published by Bantam, which
consists of adventure-oriented, multiple-
ending stories set in various times
before the present. All of the books
come with warnings not to kill any
person or animal (luring time travel
because of the changes in history
(presumably natural as well as human)
that will result. A couple of the books
deal with time travel back to prehistoric
times. In these books, a considerable
amount of text is devoted to discussions
of the natural history of the animals and
the ecological conditions of the time.
With a few limited exceptions, other
evidence of environmental ideas is
difficult to find in books for older
juveniles.
Music
As David Einstein, the program manager
of a IX] area rock station put it,
"Today's pop music for the young kids
is flash, no substance. It is tissue paper
music." Much like the reversion in
children's literature, so too there is a
trend in popular music to turn back the
clock. Aaron Latham in a recent article
in the Washington Post stated: "It is as
though the entire younger generation
had crowded into that silver-winged De-
Lorean time-machine car and raced back
to the future. The future being the late
1950s and early 19(H)s." Then, as now,
it was "uncool" to be worried, or to
express any concern beyond fashion
statements and one's love life. Then, as
now, eight and 10 year olds were
eagerly soaking in the lyrics of a music
intended for their older siblings. The
rock star of the pre-teen set, Debbie
Gibson, George Michael, White Snake,
Def Leopard, Madonna, and Michael
Jackson, sing songs with social messages
as deep as their libidos.
Exceptions can be found. Artists like
Natalie Merchant of 10,000 Maniacs,
Sting, Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders,
Phil Collins of Genesis, and Karl
Wallinger of World Party write and sing
songs with an environmental ethic. For
example, Sting recently donated his
time to sing at benefits for rain forest
preservation; both Genesis and The
Pretenders had Billboard hits with
songs having environmental messages
and World Party's 1986 album Private
Revolution was comprised almost
entirely of environmentalist themes.
Still, as David Einstein points out, all of
these artists primarily appeal to an older
audience, the audience that came of age
in the 1960s and 1970s when it was
common, and even important, to use
pop music as a vehicle for conveying
social messages.
Television
Bill Carter, TV critic for the Baltimore
Sun, said, "Environmental issues are the
kind of safe subject that family-oriented
TV likes to use. However, at the
moment I can't think of a specific
episode that dealt with any of these
issues." The only show one 10-year-old
I talked to could recall that dealt with
an environmental issue was a rerun of
"The Brady Bunch" (originally
produced in the early 1970s). In general,
today's prime-time television for young
children (e.g., "The Cosby Show." "Alf,"
"Who's the Boss?" and "Head of the
Class") is not dealing with
environmental issues any more than are
today's popular music or books. In
general, the same basic reversion to
"simpler concerns of a simpler time"
seems to prevail.
As with books and music, there are
exceptions. Ironically, the exception for
television is cartoons. Cartoons have
always been about good and evil and
the triumph of the former over the
latter. Today's cartoons use
environmental concerns as an example
of a black-and-white issue; frequently
they depict the villain as somehow
taking advantage of the poor forest
creatures, using up some precious
natural resources, or in some way
"blackening" the skies or "browning"
the rivers. The hero or heroine saves the
day by protecting the helpless animals
and "cleaning up" the environment.
Although simplistic, it is at least one
sign of positive change in what is
emerging as an otherwise dismal
scenario.
In conclusion, looking at the shelves
of bookstores, listening to the radio, or
watching television reveals a complex
picture of where we are nearly 20 years
after the founding of EPA. Without a
doubt, there is evidence that
environmental themes have crept into
popular children's media. The
environmental activity of the last two
decades has found expression in
popular notions of good and evil, right
and wrong. Still, the trends of today
suggest a reversion to attitudes and
behaviors that pre-date the
environmental movement. Accordingly,
the dominant themes expressed in
popular media are rarely the global, or
even national, themes of interconnecting
and interacting biomes, but more likely
the "closer to home" themes of love,
family, and friends. The times do not
lend themselves well to larger concerns;
it is not cool to worry. Maybe next year!
(Dr. Folk, formerly Associate Director
for Education, Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center, is
currently President of Science Learning,
Inc., of Annapolis, Maryland.]
42
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Environmental Almanac
Good News On The Potomac
by Lola Oberman
Bufflehead. Drawing by Patricia J. Moore.
A birder's lot is not a happy one, at
least not totally. It may sound like a
carefree way of life, moving from one
place to another, following the birds in
all seasons. But following the birds has
made us wiser—and sadder.
We have seen bird populations
diminish. We have seen species vanish
from their accustomed haunts and
birding "hot-spots" disappear, almost
overnight, to make way for human
habitat.
We listened in the past to old-timers
who sang mournful refrains of "Gone
are the days" and "I remember when,"
and we distrusted their memories. We
suspected that birds were never really
that numerous in the good old days.
Then suddenly we were old-timers,
remembering ....
I remember when I first discovered
ducks on the Potomac River, a
wonderful assortment of ducks that I
had never seen when I was growing up
in the Midwest. But I had seen their
pictures on little cards that came as
prizes in boxes of Arm & Hammer
baking soda, and I had learned their
magical names. Buffleheads ...
goldeneyes ... scaup ... redheads ...
mergansers. I knew they had to exist
somewhere beyond the world of baking
soda boxes, and when at last I saw them
on the Potomac, it was like u fairy tale
come true.
It was pure delight to watch the
bouncy little buffleheads ride the rapids
at Little Falls, then fly back to the
starting point and ride down again just
for the fun of it, like children on a
playground slide. No such performance
for the sedate canvasbacks. Those we
found in great regal flocks farther
downriver, at Belle Haven and Dyke
Marsh. Scaup were there too, hundreds
of them, and ring-necks and vvigeon, all
in peaceable congregations. There were
rafts of the endearing little ruddy ducks,
like bathtub toys, with turquoise bills
and upturned tails. Sometimes there
were hooded mergansers, with profiles
too fantastic to be believed.
All of these, besides the mallards and
pintails familiar to me from childhood,
enlivened the Potomac in winter. They
were an endless source of pleasure.
Regretfully we watched them depart in
spring; eagerly we greeted their return
in the fall.
They returned in ever smaller
numbers. Suddenly, everyone was
saying, "Where are the ducks?" and
there was a haunting fear that things
would never be the same.
The figures justified our fears. Birders
keep records, and our checklists told the
story. Numbers tallied on the annual
Christmas Bird Count took a plunge.
Species that had been abundant became
rare; some disappeared entirely.
The Potomac, once a perfect habitat
for waterfowl, had become, in the words
of environmentalists, "an ecological
desert," no longer capable of supporting
the animal and vegetable life that had
made it a thing of beauty. It was not
only unattractive to bird life; it was
hazardous to human health. Something
had to be done ....
I remember the hyclrilla scare of the
early '80s. Hydrilla, the green monster,
we read and saw, was getting a
stranglehold on the Potomac, choking
its shoreline, impeding boat traffic, fust
when the river was getting cleaner.
showing signs of renewed life, this alien
aquatic weed, which was introduced
accidentally, was spreading rapidly and
posing a new threat. Alarms were
sounded. Something had to be done ...,
But before anything radical could be
done, another message went out, a
message of good cheer passed from
birder to birder: Ducks were coming
back to the Potomac! In great numbers.
There were hundreds of canvasbacks,
scaup, ruddies, teal—just like the good
old days. And where were they?
Feeding happily among the hydrilla
beds!
Far from being a menace, hydrilla,
along with native aquatic vegetation that
was making a comeback, gave proof of
the renewed health of the river. A
significant element in this success story
was the upgrading of sewage treatment
at the Blue Plains wastewater treatment
plant which serves the metropolitan
Washington area, emptying 800 million
gallons of effluent daily into the
Potomac. Improved treatment had
reduced phosphate and nitrogen levels
and put more oxygen into the water.
The river, once thick with sludge, now
ran clear and clean. Once again it could
support vegetation that, in turn,
supports other life. Ducks flocked to
feed on the mollusks, insect, larvae, and
crustaceans harbored by the plants or on
the plants themselves.
Birders flocked to the scene, rejoicing
in the abundance and variety of ducks.
But it was cautious rejoicing. Wiser
now, we knew this was only a part of
the total picture. Nationwide, duck
populations were in sharp decline. We
had seen the dramatic reversal of a
trend, here on the Potomac. And what
had happened here could happen
elsewhere. Not by magic, but by
concentrated effort, guided by the
knowledge that what's good for ducks is
also good for people. Q
(Oberman is a bird watcher in (lie
Washington, DC,', cireci and a writer on
nature subjects. She has published a
book. The Pleasures of Watching Birds.)
Editor's note: According to the J/.S. Fish
&• Wildlife Service in Annapolis,
Maryland, hytlrillu is out; of sin -oral
different kinds uf underwater plants
lluil perform a number of important
ecological functions, including
providing food lor waterfowl.
Fortunately, say staff (it the Fish fr
VY'ildlifr Office, the hydrilla invasion
has not proven to be tin; terrible scourge
that some initiaJly feared it ivould be in
the Potomac River. Hydrilla did not
take over and clog the Potomac, as has
occurred in a number of Florida's lakes
and canals, although there have been
some localized complaints of fouled
boat propellers, tangled fishing tackle,
and plant-clogged boat slips.
Ruddy Duck. Drawing by Patricia J. Moore.
JULY/AUGUST 1988
43
-------
On Another Subject:
Agricultural Workers and Pesticides
Introduction
EPA has recently proposed new worker
protection regulations that revise and
expand existing standards governing the
protection of agricultural workers from
pesticide exposure under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRAj. Since 1974, when EPA
established its original farmworker
protection standards under FJFRA,
significant numbers of pesticide
poisonings have continued to occur due
to occupational exposure among
agricultural workers. This information,
considered together with an apparent
need for clarifications on issues such as
responsibility, triggered the Agency's
initiative to improve the standards.
In 1985, EPA began a "regulatory
negotiation," involving the
collaboration of the various parties
affected by a rulemaking action, to
develop a detailed proposal fo better
protect agricultural workers from
pesticides. A committee of 25 members
was formed, representing industry,
pesticide user groups, farmworkers,
state officials, and federal agencies.
However, some representatives
withdrew in 1986 without a committee
consensus; EPA then completed the
preparation of the proposed standards
recently released for public comment.
The current proposal expands the
scope of the 1974 regulations so that, in
addition to field laborers, the proposed
new requirements cover workers
involved in any aspect of the pesticide
application process and all workers
engaged in agricultural tasks on the
premises of farms, forests, nurseries,
and greenhouses. Altogether, this
includes roughly 2.3 million hired
agricultural workers nationwide.
The proposal also revises existing
requirements and contains a number of
new provisions intended to strengthen
the protection of workers and help
clarify the respective responsibilities of
owners, supervisors, workers, labor
contractors, and pesticide application
contractors. For example, the 1974
regulations set specific "re-entry
intervals" (intervals of time after
pesticide application required to lapse
before workers may enter
pesticide-treated areas without special
protection) of either 48 or 24 hours for
just 12 individual pesticides. The
current proposal includes 48- or
24-hour re-entry intervals for many
additional pesticides, particularly the
organophosphafe and carbamate
pesticide compounds now widely used
in agriculture. The 1974 regulations
established a basic protective clothing
requirement for any worker who had to
re-enter treated fields before a re-entry
period had expired. The current
proposal specifies particular items of
personal protective equipment based on
a combination of factors including the
type of task being performed, the
circumstances of potential exposure,
and the toxicity classification of the
pesticide.
EPA's proposal also broadens
notification requirements applicable to
all workers who will be working in or
near a pesticide-treated area and puts
forward a number of requirements that
are entirely new. Among other things,
these include:
• Decontamination provisions
requiring employers to provide potable
water (and, in some cases, eye wash
dispensers] soap, and disposable towels
for workers who may be exposed to
pesticides during tasks related to
pesticide application or re-entry of
treated fields.
• Training requirements for pesticide
handlers and early re-entry workers.
• Blood testing to monitor
organophosphate exposure among
commercial pesticide handlers.
• Emergency provisions requiring
employers to provide transportation to
medical assistance, and information to
workers who may have been poisoned.
The formal public comment period on
EPA's proposed new regulations closes
October 6, 1988. The Agency is seeking
as much public input on this proposal
as possible. To help focus the debate,
EPA Journal has asked two participants
in the deliberations of the original
Advisory Committee on Worker
Protection Standards for Agricultural
Pesticides to comment briefly on the
proposed new rules: Claudia Fuquay of
the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Association and Dr. Marion Moses, a
physician who has been actively
involved in farm safety and
occupational health issues. Their
summary comments follow:
44
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Marion Moses
EPA has clearly decided to take the
path of least resistance by proposing
weak regulations that are acceptable and
"least burdensome" to farming and
agrichemicai interests, rather than the
strong protections needed by workers in
agriculture.
In its minimalist approach, the agency
has failed to live up to its responsibility
to agricultural workers, who—since they
are the most ill-served of all workers by
their government—are most in need of
strong protective standards. Agency
officials responsible for drafting these
regulations appear to know very little,
or choose to ignore, the actuality of field
practices in agriculture throughout the
United States and the true situation
faced by workers for hire in regard to
their toxic exposures.
Instead of strong, clear, decisive
language, and requirements for firm
action, the Agency has weakened the
proposed standards with many
exceptions and compromises. A
particularly egregious example is the
dangerous concept of "early re-entry
workers," which is an invitation to
violate the regulations and has no place
in these standards.
The regulations are especially weak in
regard to field workers and in the
sections on education, training,
notification, posting, and re-entry
intervals. Workers need specific
information, not dilute, generic
nostrums—it is not appropriate to
downplay hazard and trivialize
risk—especially those related to chronic
effects, which are not even addressed in
the standards.
EPA has failed to apply even the full
power of the existing, albeit weak
statute (FIFRA), already within its
mandate. And shifting the regulatory
Golden Delicious apples boiiui harvested in Yakima Valley,
Washington. Doug Wilson photo, USDA.
burden to the already compromised
worker by making worker culpability a
potential component of assessing
penalties can only result in worker
reprisals and intimidation, with the real
possibility of placing the worker in
potentially more hazardous conditions
than exist even now.
Such weak and timid standards,
coupled with historic and known severe
problems of enforcement in this
industry powerfully resistant to change.
cannot and will not result in the
protections KPA has proposed. The title
of the regulations is a misnomer and
should be called grower protection
standards. The workers deserve better
and EPA can do better. D
(Dr. Moses is a practicing physician
specializing in environmental and
occupational medicine.]
Continued on next page
JULY/AUGUST 1988
45
-------
\
'
Claudia Fuquay
We believe the general tone and
direction of the proposed
regulations are workable. Many of the
proposed requirements are already part
of good grower practices. Our greatest
concern is liability. We are pleased that
the regulations do place some
responsibility on the worker to follow
safety instructions as given. However,
the question of liability is still
ambiguous in some areas and we
believe the language should be more
explicit.
If a worker has been informed of the
hax.ards as required by these regulations,
but ignores re-entry intervals or removes
safely clothes or ignores some other
safety warning, then the grower should
not be held liable for any health
problem that could possibly result from
the worker's actions. The regulation also
should clarify that the grower does have
the right to terminate a worker who
refuses to follow approved safety
precautions. Perhaps oven more
important, the regulations should allow
pre-hire physicals and permit a grower
to deny employment to workers who
pose a risk because of previous
exposure by other employers.
Another issue that really must be
addressed concerns liability when safety
requirements are not followed. There
are circumstances when the owner is
not the grower, when the owner hires
someone to manage the farm. In these
instances, if the owner can prove that
he made all the necessary resources
available to the manager in order to
meet proper safety requirements, then
he should not be held liable. Or, if the
owner or manager contracts with a firm
for pesticide applications, then that
company should be liable for any
problems resulting from misapplication.
Compliance with these regulations
will raise costs substantially, not only
for protective clothing, enclosed cabs,
and education and training, but also for
increased administrative demands. It is
crucial to ensure the health and safety
of workers, many of whom are owners
and family members. Hut the
government should evaluate how these
additional costs can be spread among all
Americans. Otherwise, U.S. agriculture
will take another stop backward in the
world marketplace and produce imports
will increase further, c
Harvesting string beans is still a
job for stoop labor.
(Fuquay is Director of Congressional
Relations for the United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Associalion.)
u;
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Appointments
Victor J. Kimm, a career
manager who joined EPA in
1972, has been named Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, having served for
almost three years as Deputy
Assistant Administrator in
that office.
Kimm, an engineer by
training, joined EPA to work
in Planning and Evaluation,
where he chaired the
Agency's Steering Committee
which provides an
Agency-wide review of EPA
standards and regulations. In
1975, he was named to head
the drinking water program, a
post he held for 10 years
prior to joining OPTS.
Kimm received his
Bachelor's Degree from
Manhattan College in 1956
and a Master's Degree in
Sanitary Engineering from
New York University in
1960, then went on to
consulting engineering and
development work in Latin
America. Prior to joining
EPA, Kimm was associated
with the Economic
Development Administration
and in 1969-70 studied
economics at Princeton as a
National Institute of Public
Affairs Fellow.
Also promoted from within
the same office was Susan F.
Vogt, who was named Acting
Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances. Since
1986 she had been serving as
Deputy Director of the Office
of Toxic Substances.
Vogt joined EPA in 1976 as
a Policy Analyst in the Office
of Water, where she
developed guidance for local
governments involved with
planning programs under the
Clean Water Act. In 1979 she
became a senior staff member
at the National Commission
on Air Quality. Subsequently,
she was a Special Assistant
to the Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances, Senior
Policy Analyst for the
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, and Special
Assistant to Deputy
Administrator Alvin L. Aim,
dealing with policy issues
and activities in the
Superfund program and
OPTS. She has also directed
the Pesticide Applicator
Certification and Training
Program and the Asbestos
Action Program.
Vogt graduated from Colby
College in Waterville, Maine,
with a degree in economics
in 1963.
Kenneth F. Dawsey has been
appointed director of the
Office of Human Resources
Management. Prior to this
appointment, he had served
as the Office's Deputy
Director since mid-1987.
Dawsey joined the federal
government as a personnel
management specialist with
the Navy Department in
1964, after graduating from
the University of Maryland
with a Bachelor of Science
degree in Personnel and
Industrial Relations. Before
joining EPA he served as
Deputy Director of Personnel
at the Department of Justice.
Chief of Domestic Personnel
with the U.S. Information
Agency, Director of Personnel
for the Agency for
International Development,
and Deputy Director for
Administrative Operations at
the Department of
Transportation.
In November 1981, Dawsey
became Director of tin; Office
of Personnel and
Organization at EPA. Two
years later he became Deputy
Director, Office of
Administration, and in 1987
was named Deputy Director
in tin; Office of I luman
Resources Management.
Scott A. Hajost. whose
appointment as Deputy
Associate Administrator for
International Activities was
reported in the May 1988,
EPA Journal, has since been
named Acting Associate
Administrator for
International Activities. Prior
to joining EPA, Hajost had
worked with the Department
of State in the Office of the
Legal Advisor as an Attorney
Advisor for Oceans.
International Environmental,
and Scientific Affairs, and
had chaired many
associations, including the
International Environmental
and Natural Resources
Committee of the
International Law Section,
Federal Bar Association. D
JULY/AUGUST 1988
47
-------
The Presidential Awards
Don R. Clay
Fifteen of EFA's Senior
Executive Service (SES)
employees have been
honored with 1988
Presidential Rank awards for
their long and exceptional
service with the federal
government. The awards are
in two categories:
Distinguished Executive Rank
and Meritorious Executive
Rank.
Recipients of the
Distinguished Executive Rank
are EPA employees Don R.
Clay, Acting Assistant
Administrator for the Office
of Air and Radiation, Dr.
Thomas R. Hauser, recently
retired Director of EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering
Laboratory in Cincinnati,
Ohio, and C. Morgan
Kingdom, Jr., Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and
Resources Management.
Clay is a career
administrator with a decade
of service and a solid record
of management at three
federal agencies. Prior to his
recent promotion, he served
as Deputy Assistant
Administrator for the Office
of Air and Radiation, and
from 1981 to 1986 as Director
of the EPA Office of Toxic:
Substances. Through his
efforts, the Agency has made
significant progress in
developing national strategies
for dealing with ozone
non-attainment, stratospheric
ozone depletion, indoor air,
and radon.
Prior to joining KPA, Clay
held management, planning,
Dr. Thomas R. Hauser
and engineering posts at the
Consumer Products Safety
Commission and was Deputy
Assistant Commissioner for
Planning and Evaluation at
the Food and Drug
Administration.
Dr. Hauser entered the
environmental field in 1955,
with the Public Health
Service air pollution
program. He moved to EPA at
its inception, when the
National Air Pollution
Control Administration
became part of the Agency.
He joined the Environmental
Monitoring Systems
Laboratory at Research
Triangle Park as Deputy
Director. He became director
of the Cincinnati facility
(then called the Hazardous
Waste Engineering
Laboratory) in 1977,
remaining there until his
retirement, except for a
period in the fall of 1985
when he served as Acting
Deputy Assistant
Administrator of the Office of
Research and Development in
Washington, DC.
Kinghorn joined the federal
government in 1969 as
special assistant to the
Minister-Director of the U.S.
AID office in India. Since
then he served as a Budget
Examiner in the National
Security Division of the
Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and later as
OMB Acting Branch Chief
and Senior Budget Examiner
in OMB's Environment
Branch. He was also a special
assistant to the U.S. Deputy
Commissioner for Higher
Education and the U.S.
C. Morgan Kinghorn, Jr
Commissioner of Education.
Kinghorn joined EPA in
June 1980, as Budget
Director, became Comptroller
in 1983, and assumed his
present post in October 1986.
He is directly responsible for
providing the executive
support for all the Agency's
programs.
Recognized with
Meritorious Executive Rank
Awards are Ronald Brand,
Director, Office of
Underground Storage Tanks
in OSWER; Eileen P.
Claussen, Director of Program
Development, Air, and
Radiation; Gerald A. Emison,
Director, Air Quality
Planning and Standards,
RTF; Edward J, Hanley,
Director, Office of
Information and Resources
Management, OARM;
William M. Henderson,
Director, Office of Human
Resources Management,
OARM; Barbara Metzger,
Director, Environmental
Services Division, Region 2;
Martha G. Prothro, Director,
Permits Division, OW; David
F. Ryan, Comptroller, OARM;
Nathaniel Scurry, Director,
Office of Civil Rights. OARM;
Charles H. Sutfin, Director,
Water Management Division,
Region 5; Edwin F.
Tinsworth, Director,
Registration Division, OPP:
and Gerald H. Yamada,
Deputy General Counsel,
Office of the Administrator, a
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Montana beckons. Rosebud Lake in the
Bear Tooth Wilderness makes an idyllic
vacation spot, the kind of place we cherish
as a retreat amidst natural riches. Montana
Chamber of Commerce photo.
Back Cover: Autumn arrives. Photo by
James Douglass, Woodfin Camp, Inc.
-------
-.J.. ' ,".'
.. I1-'"
A?*"
SJfe
$&#£(
^ ' .VrJS
*. irj
" ''rv^
•**%?'& '•'
>-£&
------- |