=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #478
—January 25, 1996—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
Back Issues | Index | Official Gopher Archive
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s
free.
===Previous
Issue==========================================Next
Issue===
SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT
SCIENCE magazine is the journal of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, the mainstream of the mainstream in
American science. In recent years, the editors of SCIENCE have
been generally hostile to environmental protection. For example,
in editorials, they have ridiculed the idea that toxic chemicals
might be a serious danger to human and environmental health,
saying scientific risk assessment can show chemicals and
radiation to be safe. [1]
But in April, 1993, SCIENCE published a short, meaty article
about how science fails to help solve environmental problems, and
in fact often contributes to making those problems worse. [2]
Written by two biologists and a mathematician (two Canadians and
an American), the article discusses the failures of science in
environmental protection. Here we highlight the main points from
that article, and then, inside square brackets, provide our own
interpretation and examples. The article is about resource
exploitation, but it might apply equally well to all
environmental problems, including the use of toxic chemicals.
** Today, many plans for sustainable use or sustainable
development have been put forward, founded upon scientific
information and consensus.
** Such plans reflect ignorance of the history of resource
exploitation. [By “resource” the authors mean fish, trees, and
minerals such as gold and oil.] Such plans also reflect
misunderstanding of the possibility of achieving scientific
consensus concerning resources and the environment. [In other
words, scientific consensus about sustainable levels of resource
exploitation is harder to achieve than most people think.]
** Despite variation in the details, there is remarkable
consistency in the history of resource exploitation: resources
are inevitably overexploited, often to the point of collapse or
extinction.
** There are four reasons for this:
** Wealth or the prospect of wealth generates political and
social power that is used to drive overexploitation.
** “Scientific understanding and consensus is [sic] hampered by
the lack of controls and replicates, so that each new problem
requires learning about a new system.” [In other words, most
natural resources are unique, so finding a similar system to keep
in a natural state for comparison purposes, is impossible.
Similarly, if some understanding is developed based on a
particular system, it is impossible to duplicate elsewhere
because no identical system can be found.]
** The complexity of the underlying biological and physical
systems precludes a reductionist approach to management. Optimum
levels of exploitation must be learned by trial and error. [In
other words, traditional scientific method doesn’t work well when
studying natural systems because they are too complicated to
simplify and then study, which is the way most science has
traditionally worked. Therefore, the only way to proceed is
blindly, by trial and error–a costly way of learning.]
** “Large levels of natural variability mask the effects of
overexploitation. Initial overexploitation is not detectable
until it is severe and often irreversible.” [We see this going
on in the Chesapeake Bay right now. The blue crab population –a
major “resource” of the Bay –fluctuates up and down from year to
year. Now the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, an environmental
advocacy organization, and the Maryland state government are both
saying the crab population has been endangered by too much
crabbing. People who want to continue crabbing in the usual way
pooh-pooh any concerns about the crab population, saying crabs
vary in number year to year and the low population found today is
just part of a natural fluctuation. Scientific consensus on this
issue has, so far, been impossible to achieve.]
** “In such circumstances, assigning causes to past events is
problematical, future events cannot be predicted, and even
well-meaning attempts to exploit responsibly may lead to
disastrous consequences.”
** It is more appropriate to think of resources as managing
humans rather than the converse: the larger and the more
immediate are the prospects for gain, the greater the political
power that is used to facilitate unlimited exploitation.
Examples: gold rushes, exploitation of forests.
** “We propose that we shall NEVER attain scientific consensus
concerning the systems that are being exploited… [because]
controlled and replicated experiments are impossible to perform
in large-scale systems. Therefore, there is ample scope for
differing interpretations.” [Emphasis added.]
** Problems experienced in exploitation of fisheries (California
sardine; Peruvian anchoveta; Pacific salmon) are compounded when
it comes to predicting phenomena of major concern, such as global
warming and other changes in the atmosphere.
** Time-scales are so great that observational studies are
unlikely to provide timely indications of required actions or the
consequences of failing to take remedial measures.
** “Scientific certainty and consensus in itself would not
prevent overexploitation and destruction of resources. Many
practices continue even in cases where there is abundant
scientific evidence that they are ultimately destructive.”
[Example: irrigation in California. People have known since the
19th century that irrigation increases the salt content of soils,
unless those soils can be flushed regularly with abundant fresh
water. Yet in the San Joaquin valley, for example, there exists
no flushing mechanisms to rid the soils of a buildup of salts and
pesticides. Thus, San Joaquin valley soils are being ruined by
current agricultural practice, yet the practice continues.]
** Our lack of understanding, and inability to predict, mandate a
much more cautious approach to resource exploitation than is the
norm. Here are some suggestions for management [provided by
Ludwig, Hilborn and Walters]:
** “Include human motivation and responses as part of the system
to be studied and managed. The shortsightedness and greed of
humans underlie difficulties in management of resources…”
** “Act before scientific consensus is achieved. WE DO NOT
REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES BEFORE TAKING ACTION TO
CURB HUMAN ACTIVITIES THAT EFFECT [SIC] GLOBAL WARMING, OZONE
DEPLETION, POLLUTION, AND DEPLETION OF FOSSIL FUELS. Calls for
additional research may be mere delaying tactics.” [Emphasis
added.]
** Rely on scientists to recognize problems, but not to remedy
them. The judgment of scientists is often heavily influenced by
their training in their respective disciplines, but… the most
important issues involving resources and the environment… must
involve many disciplines.
** [Furthermore], “scientists and their judgments are subject to
political pressure.”
** “Distrust claims of sustainability…. Recently some of the
world’s leading ecologists have claimed that the key to a
sustainable biosphere is research on a long list of standard
research topics in ecology.”
** “Such a claim… may lead to false complacency: instead of
addressing the problems of population growth and excessive use of
resources, we may avoid such difficult issues by spending money
on basic ecological research.”
** “Confront uncertainty. Once we free ourselves from the
illusion that science or technology (if lavishly funded) can
provide a solution to resource or conservation problems,
appropriate action becomes possible.” [We will never have
complete knowledge about the problems we face; if we refuse to
act while we wait for that knowledge to accumulate, it will be
too late.]
** “Effective policies are possible under conditions of
uncertainty, but they must take uncertainty into account… Most
principles of decisionmaking under uncertainty are simply common
sense.”
** Nine principles for decision-making:
** 1. Consider a variety of plausible hypotheses about the world;
** 2. Consider a variety of possible strategies;
** 3. Favor actions that are robust to uncertainties;
** 4. Hedge [meaning, avoid irretrievable commitment; assume that
what you’re about to do might be a mistake];
** 5. Favor actions that are informative;
** 6. Probe and experiment;
** 7. Monitor results;
** 8. Update assessments and modify policies accordingly;
** 9. Favor actions that are reversible.
** Scientists have been active in pointing out environmental
degradation and consequent hazards to human life, and possibly to
life as we know it. But by and large the scientific community
has helped to perpetuate the illusion of sustainable development
through scientific and technological progress.
** “Resource problems are not really environmental problems:
They are human problems that we have created at many times and in
many places, under a variety of political, social, and economic
systems.”
[The major environmental problems of our time have only become
apparent to us during the past 20 to 30 years. What new ones we
will learn about in the coming 20 to 30 years we (unfortunately)
cannot imagine. But we can say this: the problems that we face
have been brought upon us by people who ignored the nine
management principles listed above. In any proposed technical
project –nuclear power, chlorinated chemicals, burning of fossil
fuels, ‘development’ that diminishes biodiversity, incinerators,
landfills, and so forth –science cannot tell us what is safe or
good or just. Relying on science instead of common sense and
human values to guide us has led the human species to the
precipice. Can we change our ways? Can we put science into
proper perspective and look elsewhere for guidance in curbing our
excesses?]
                
                
                
                
    
–Peter Montague
===============
[1] For example July 23, 1993 (Vol. 261, pg. 407), in an
editorial titled “Toxic Terror: Phantom Risks,” editor Philip
Abelson wrote, “The public has long been subjected to a one-sided
portrayal of risks of environmental hazards, particularly
industrial chemicals. Only a few individuals have attempted to
bring balance into the picture. They have faced a self-serving,
formidable de facto alliance of media, well-heeled environmental
organizations, federal regulators, and the plaintiffs’ bar.” On
August 26, 1994, (Vol. 265, pg. 1165) Mr. Abelson referred to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as “a tool of
Greenpeace.” And see Mr. Abelson’s editorial July 31, 1987 (Vol.
237, pg. 473) titled, “Cancer Phobia” and Daniel Koshland’s
editorial, “Science and Society,” April 9, 1993, (Vol. 260, pg.
143). I know for a fact that other members of the SCIENCE
editorial staff have, for years, been embarrassed by Mr.
Abelson’s and Mr. Koshland’s extremist views.
Descriptor terms: science magazine; science; sustainable use;
sustainability; forestry; logging; fisheries; fishing; mining;
toxic chemicals; chesapeake bay; uncertainty; decision making;
resource management; philip abelson; daniel koshland;