115 



THE NEW YORK TIMES NATIONAL SUNDAY, MARCH 21, 199.1 



New View Calls Environmental Policy Misguided 



popular panics, ;oi in i espouse lo 

 sound scientific analyses of which envi- 

 runmcntal hazards present the great- 

 est risks 



As a result, many scientist and pub- 

 lic health specialists sny. billions of 

 dollars arc wasted each year in bat- 

 tling problems thai arc no longer con- 

 sidered especially dangerous, leaving 

 lillte money for others ihat cause far 

 more harm 



At First, Clear Benefits 

 Jn the fust wave of the modern envi- 

 ruimicm-dl moverrn.nl, starting about 

 .10 years ago, the fucus was on broad 

 efforts io eliminate the most visible 

 pollution pouring from smokestacks 

 and sewer pipes — programs with 

 clear goals that had obvious benefits. 

 But a second wave began in the laic 

 I970"s, with a new strategy intended to 

 limit visible pollution further — and to 

 begin attacking mv,sible threats from 

 toxic substances 



To that end, state and Federal gov- 

 ernments began wi n mg sweeping envi- 

 ronment! laws, some of which includ- 

 ed strict regulations to insure thai cer- 

 tain toxic compounds were not present 

 in air. water or tne ground at levels 

 thai did nut exceed a few pans per 

 billion, concentrations that could be 

 measured with only the most sophisti- 

 cated equipment 



The result was a tangle of regula- 

 tions that ihc Environmental Protec- 

 tion Agency estimates cusi more than 

 SHU billion a yen., roughly SluU billion 

 spent by industry .md SiO billion by 



wh„ 



now. bee 



■ill wis ami huuik health spe 

 iy. is that some of these law? 

 i m reaction to popular con 

 mi toxic waste dumps nr as 

 the schools, as examples — 



threat Since I9fc0. for instance, thou- 

 sands of regulations were written to 

 restrict compounds that had caused 

 tancci in rats or mice, even though 

 these animal studies oficn fail to pro 

 ilict how ihc compounds might aflcct 



And with rare exceptions. Congress 

 approved new laws without subjecting 

 them to even rudimentary cost-benefit 

 analyses One reason was that during 

 the 1980s, when the economy seemed 

 healthier, there was far less pressure 

 on Congress to consider the cost of 

 environmental policy 



Overpriced and Misguided? 



si lengthening environmental policy is 

 renting into office when competiiio-. 

 for scarce financial resources is keen. 

 At the same tunc, a wealth of new 

 research shows that some of the na- 

 tion's environmental protection efforts 

 arc excessively cosily — though no one 

 knows how much of this money is mis- 

 spent — and devoted to the wrong 

 p.-oblcms. 



This view is ihe vanguard of a new, 

 third wave of cnvironmentalism that is 

 sweeping across America It began in 



ihc laic 1980s among farmers, home- 



ii her 



-vho 



upset 



largely by the growing cosi of reguU 

 uons that didn't appear to bring any 

 measurable benefits. Corporate execu- 

 tives had long been making similar 

 arguments but had gone unheeded, 

 even during 12 years of Republican 

 rule, because often they were seen as 

 interested only in saving money. 



Richard J Mahoney, chairman and 

 chief executive of Monsanto, the chem- 

 ical company, said the nation may 

 start listening (o industry now 



"People want to know, even with the envi- 

 ronment, what we are gelling for our mon- 

 ey," he said "The most positive thing since 

 the election is that we arc beginning to recog- 

 nize that wc do have finite resources, and one 

 must make choices " 



But leaders of the na 

 organizations believe lh< 

 guided 



"Wc don't need a new paradigm." said 

 David D. Donigcr, a senior lawyer with the 

 Natural Resources Defense Council. "For 35 

 years, the policy of the Government has been 

 that when there is uncertainty about a threat 

 it is better to be safe than sorry. When you 

 ate operating at the limits of what science 

 knows, the hig mistake would be to underesti- 

 mate the real danger and leave people unpro- 

 tected " 



conservation 



yea 



the 



has 



»ls and even to the highest levels of the 

 ! I' a , whose Science Advisor y Board in 1990 

 (included that environmental laws "ore 

 lore reflective of public perceptions of risk 

 nan of scientific understanding of risk." 



William K Rcilly. the EPA Administra 



intcrvicw in his office at the World Wildfire 

 Fund, he argued "People have a right to 

 cxpcci that public officials arc making the 

 right choices for the right reasons. We need 

 to develop a new system Tor taking action on 

 the environment that isn't based on respond- 

 ing to the nightly news. What we have had in 

 ihc Unrted Slates is environmental agenda- 

 selling by episodic panic." 



Richard D Mui genstern, the acting admin- 

 istrator for policy planning and evaluation at 

 -the E P. A., explains the problem this way: 

 "Our society is very reactive, and when 

 concerns arc raised people want action. The 

 problem in a democracy is you can't easily 

 sit idlv back and tell people it would be better 

 to learn more" 



The result, he added, is that "we're now in 

 the position of saying in quite a few of our 

 programs. "Oops, wc made a mistake." " 



President Clinion is clearly aware of this 

 view. As Governor of Arkansas, he continual- 

 ly complained as a Federal toxic waste 

 cleanup project in Jacksonville devoured S25 

 million in state, Federal and private money. 

 State officials said nearly h decade of work 

 has produced Mule more than piles of techni- 

 cal documents, exorbitant legal bills and 

 public discord. 



To be sure, some of the JMO billion the 

 nation is spending this year pays forenviron- 

 mcntal programs that are indisputably use- 

 ful As an example, few experts question the 

 value of spending roughly $3 billion each year 

 on new sewage treatment plants Many ex- 

 perts, however, question the wisdom of 

 spending billions of dollars to protect people 

 from traces of toxic compounds. 



The new school of thought has blossomed 

 as policy makers confront planetary threats 

 like global warming, ozone depletion and 

 deforestation in which ihc consequences of 

 wrong action are much greater. Unless the 

 nation rethinks its approach to environmcn- 

 lal protection, some experts say, the United 

 States could repeat its mistakes. 



"The President is aware of this dilemma, 

 and there is leadership in this Administration 

 for trying to change the way we do business 

 in every aspect of governing, including envi- 

 ronmental protection." said Carol M. 

 Browner, the Administrator of the Environ- 

 mental Protection Agency "Wc have to al- 

 low for change to occur as new information 

 becomes available This is not an area where 

 a solution will fit forever " 



