Subject: #613: Environmental Trends =======================Electronic Edition======================== . . . ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS . . ========== . . Environmental Research Foundation . . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . . Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.org . . ========== . ================================================================= ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS Starting in the 1950s, awareness of environmental destruction developed slowly in the U.S.[1,2] Various events slowly shook the public awake: Atomic fallout from weapons-testing in the years 1956-1963; a nation-wide pesticide scare in 1959; birth defects from the drug thalidomide in 1961; Rachel Carson's book SILENT SPRING in 1962; the discovery of cancer-causing food additives (such as the artificial sweeteners, cyclamates, in 1969); and other byproducts of corporate technology, contributed to a growing awareness of environmental degradation.[3] By 1965, the dangers of a deteriorating environment were acknowledged at the highest levels of government; the President's Science Advisory Committee in 1965 published RESTORING THE QUALITY OF OUR ENVIRONMENT, a catalog of pollution problems and their effects on human and environmental health.[4] In 1969, Congress passed the Environmental Policy Act and in 1970 President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by executive order. Starting in the late 1960s, the modern "environmental movement" took shape as activist lawyers and scientists came to the aid of citizens who were trying to ban the pesticide DDT, prevent air pollution by stopping new highways, discourage nuclear technologies and curb obvious water pollutants such as foaming detergents. During the 1970s, Congress passed a dozen major environmental laws. Environmental groups hired professional staffs who were knowledgeable about technologies, pollutants, regulatory strategies, and politics. In other industrialized countries, governments and citizens began similar efforts. The governments of Denmark, the Netherlands, Britain, Sweden, West Germany, Japan, France, and Canada passed a series of laws aimed at reversing the trends of environmental destruction. Here and abroad, universities organized seminars and conferences and eventually created whole departments devoted to "environmental studies." A new industry developed, called "environmental consulting," in which highly-paid specialists helped governments and private corporations respond to environmental concerns. The mass media began to devote significant space to environmental problems. In the U.S. environmental reporting became a journalistic specialty and a "Society of Environmental Journalists" was launched. Corporations with tarnished reputations devoted billions of dollars to environmentally-preferable technologies, and created a new public relations industry that specializes in "greenwashing." Now, after 20 years of intense efforts to reverse the trends of environmental destruction, the question is, are we succeeding? So far as we know, only one study has tried to answer this question in a rigorous way. The study, called INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS, was published in April 1995 by the National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives in Washington, D.C.[5] In it, the authors measured trends in a wide range of serious environmental problems facing industrial societies. The study relied on the best available data, most of it gathered and maintained by national governments. The study examined 21 indicators of environmental quality, summarizing the data into a single numerical "environmental index." The index shows that, despite 20 years of substantial effort, each of the nine countries has failed to reverse the trends of environmental destruction. See Table 1. ================================================================= Table 1 RANKING FROM LEAST TO MOST ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIORATION, 1970-1995 Denmark: -10.6% Netherlands: -11.4% Britain: -14.3% Sweden: -15.5% West Germany: -16.5% Japan: -19.4% United States: -22.1% Canada: -38.1% France: -41.2% Data from: Gar Alparovitz and others, INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives, 1995), pg. 2. ================================================================== Here is a brief discussion of the 21 categories of data from which the summary index was calculated: Air Quality The study used six measures of air quality: sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, particulate matter (essentially, soot), and carbon dioxide. The first five are called "criteria pollutants" in the U.S. The sixth, carbon dioxide, is a greenhouse gas, now thought to be contributing to global warming. The study found successful reductions of sulfur oxides in all nine countries, but also found that acid rain --caused by sulfur oxides --continues to damage forests in Denmark, Britain and Germany. The same is true in the U.S. and Canada, so additional reductions will be needed. The study did not include "the vast range of hazardous air pollutants, called 'air toxics' in the United States," because "regulatory bodies in the nine countries have failed to comprehensively monitor or regulate most hazardous air pollutants." The study says, "There are roughly 48,000 industrial chemicals in the air in the United States, only a quarter of which are documented with toxicity data."[5,pg.11] The study also did not include indoor air pollution which is "virtually unmonitored and... probably on the rise in many of the countries surveyed." The study notes that, "The necessary reductions in NOx [nitrogen oxides] and CO2 [carbon dioxide], it seems, may require far more change than seems politically possible --major reductions in the use of private automobiles, for example."[5,pg.11] Water quality Water quality in the index is represented by pollution trends of major rivers within countries. Specific measures include dissolved oxygen, nitrates, phosphorus, ammonium, and metals. Unfortunately, national trend data on water quality is generally poor, compared to data on air quality. For example, in the U.S., only 29% of the nation's river miles have been monitored. The study did not include trends in groundwater quality "because most countries do not produce national trend data on groundwater pollution. Yet groundwater in all index countries is contaminated, and by most measures, the problem has worsened since 1970," the study says.[5,pg.13] The study did measure groundwater withdrawals, compared to the natural rate of replenishment of groundwater. Chemicals The study measured production of fertilizers, pesticides, and industrial chemicals. The chemical industry continues to grow at a rate of 3.5% each year, thus doubling in size every 20 years (see REHW #197, #199). Of the 70,000 chemicals in commercial use in 1995, only 2% had been fully tested for human health effects, and 70% had not been tested for any health effects of any kind. At least 1000 new chemicals are introduced into commercial use each year, largely untested. If all the laboratory capacity currently available in the U.S. were devoted to testing new chemicals, only 500 could be tested each year, the study notes.[5,pg.14] Therefore, even if the necessary funding were made available, there would be no way of ever testing all the chemicals that are currently in use, or all of the new ones being introduced each year. Wastes The study examined trends in municipal wastes and nuclear wastes in the nine countries. Both kinds of waste are increasing steadily. Trend data for industrial wastes and hazardous wastes are not available. The study concludes that, "The United States is arguably the most wasteful --that is, waste-generating --society in human history."[5,pg.8] Land The study examined the area of wetlands, and the amount of land devoted to woods in each of the nine countries. Structural barometers of sustainability Two additional measures were used in developing the index of environmental trends: the amount of energy used by each country, and the total number of automobile miles traveled. Summary In sum, this study of environmental quality in nine nations reveals that environmental destruction is continuing, and in some cases accelerating, despite 20 years of substantial effort to reverse these trends. The study concludes, "The index data suggest that achieving across-the-board environmental protection and restoration will require deeper, more fundamental change than has yet been attempted in the countries surveyed."[5,pg.5] The questions raised by this study seem obvious, at least for the environmental movement: ** Given that we are clearly not succeeding in reversing the trend of environmental destruction, how can we think that by merely redoubling our efforts we will begin to succeed? ** Isn't it time we made some serious effort to evaluate what has worked in the past and what has not worked in the past? It seems clear that most of what has been tried in the past has not worked well enough to make a real difference. How, then, can we justify spending money and time on more of the same? ** Shouldn't we be asking ourselves what path we want to take in the future? Don't we need to identify a path that might achieve "deeper, more fundamental change" than we have aimed for in the past? --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) =============== [1] Samuel P. Hays, BEAUTY, HEALTH AND PERMANENCE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1955-1985 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987). [2] Roderick Frazier Nash, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTALISM [Third Edition] (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990). [3] Edward W. Lawless, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL SHOCK (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1977). [4] John W. Tukey and others, RESTORING THE QUALITY OF OUR ENVIRONMENT; REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PANEL [OF THE] PRESIDENT'S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, November, 1965). [5] Gar Alparovitz and others, INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives, 1995). Available for $10 from: National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives, 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 330, Washington, D.C. 20036; telephone (202) 835-1150. Descriptor terms: environmental trends; studies; gar alparovitz; denmark; netherlands; britain; sweden; west germany; japan; u.s.; canada; france; ################################################################ NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at (410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944. --Peter Montague, Editor ################################################################