=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #423
—January 5, 1995—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are
available here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
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===
HIGHLIGHTS OF 1994: A CONSERVATIVE SPEAKS–PART 1
[In 1994, the International Joint Commission (IJC) issued its
SEVENTH BIENNIAL REPORT ON GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY, the third
such report to advocate new approaches to environmental
protection. [1] (See RHWN #284, #319, and #378.) From 1990
through 1994, the U.S. Chairman of the IJC was Gordon K. Durnil.
Here we offer excerpts from a previously-unreported speech Mr.
Durnil gave on July 23, 1994.]
Good evening. I would like to chat with you for a few minutes
tonight about my experiences in international environmental
activities over the past five years and my conclusion that
Republicans should be leaders of the environmental protection
movement.
As you know, I have spent a lifetime at relatively high levels of
political activity…. My four and one-half years with the
International Joint Commission brought me face to face with a
number of facts and suspected facts that had not previously
caught my attention. I became quite active in international
environmental affairs as was required by treaty and various
agreements between the United States and Canada.
As everyone seems to do, I have written a book about my
experiences on the international environmental scene. The title
is REFLECTIONS OF A CONSERVATIVE ENVIRONMENTALIST. I left the
Commission earlier this year with some serious concerns about
whether the contemporary practices of science and government are
facilitators for, or barriers against, environmental protection.
I left worried about the media-created perception that the
environment is not an issue for conservatives….
I left the Commission worried that we still teach our
environmental scientists to be narrow thinkers, locked into the
non-ecosystemic framework of their individual disciplines. And
because science must, by its very nature, be value neutral, I
worry about all of those scientists who think they must also be
value neutral in their conclusions…
“This is a book about the perceived conflict of an individual
being a conservative Republican and, at the same time, an
environmentalist. I do not see the conflict. I am both. For
nearly forty years I have developed and practiced my conservative
philosophy. I have only been an environmentalist for five years,
but even so, I have become convinced that current environmental
policies are putting our children in harms way.
“My first broad exposure to serious environmental concerns
resulted from my service as the United States Chairman of the
International Joint Commission. As I began to meet with
scientists, environmental activists and industrialists, I
intuitively applied my conservative philosophy and my experience
as a practical political decision maker to resolving problems of
the environment….
“…preserving our natural resources should be a conservative
tenet. Restoring degraded natural resources to something close to
what they used to be, surely should be a conservative goal.
“I have never met a conservative who prefers dirty air to clean
air, or fouled water to healthy water. Nor have I met any
conservatives who want to expose their children and grandchildren
to persistent toxic substances. Conservative friends of my age
often reminisce about fishing in streams so clean you could drink
from them…. Active environmentalists might find it hard to
believe, but these same friends, and most of the public for that
matter, have not yet faced the possibility that some of our
actions might have adverse effects on future generations of
humans. If they were presented with that evidence, TO THE EXTENT
IT IS NOW KNOWN, they would act. But so far, neither the
governments nor concerned environmentalists have done a very good
job of communicating.”
But let me now move briefly to the three topics I think are
important when considering environmental protection; they are
PRIORITY SETTING, the somewhat intellectually dishonest demand
for CERTAINTY before exercising caution, and MORALITY.
Priorities: We Should Focus on Chlorine
Why do I think it important to set environmental PRIORITIES?
Well, human nature is the first reason. Let me give you an
example of how an average person, already quite cynical about the
ability of government to perform its most basic of duties, might
react to news of a new environmental problem. That average
person might say: “Okay, I have heard enough about lead to agree
that it is probably harmful. I want to protect my kids from
exposure to lead. And I might believe that dioxins (whatever
they are) and pesticides are bad for me, if, you did not also
tell me that movie house popcorn, eggs and bacon, smoking
tobacco, coffee, product packaging, landfills and incinerators,
meat, whole milk, hormones injected into cows, methane excreted
from cows, radon, electromagnetic fields, ozone, forestry
management, nuclear energy and carbon generated energy, hot-dogs,
herbicides, automobiles, plastic, asbestos, vinyl, breast
implants and Mexican food are all bad for me. It is just too
much to worry about, so I will worry about none of it.”
Successful environmental protection depends upon public pressure.
But when the public hears one side say everything is bad, and
the other side say nothing is bad, the thought is mentally
excused from their concerns. It is easier to believe that
nothing is bad, rather than to believe that everything is bad.
The news media add to the confusion with their concern about
balanced stories. Quite often a group of scientists will issue
various papers setting out a suspected linkage between the
discharge of some substance at the local factory and adverse
health effects in a community. Reporters will quiz those
technical folks at length and take all of their supporting
documents. To balance the story the reporter calls the local
factory for their side of the story. Technical people are
normally not available, but Fred, the P.R. guy always is. Fred
says “those people have bad science and are premature in their
findings.” The story then reflects those two views, with a
headline that probably mentions bad science. The reader has a
choice, when absorbing such a balanced story. Change her habits
or just go on doing what she has been doing. And, of course, it
is easiest to keep on doing what we have been doing.
It was interesting to me to observe, in both the United States
and Canada, that the overwhelming amount of effort and money
being expended through the environmental agencies is directed
toward the wrong end of environmental problems. The vast number
of bureaucratic regulators throughout our society harassing small
business people, the red tape and governmental paper work bogging
down opportunity, and the huge expenditure of tax money are
primarily directed at how we deal with the waste product after we
have done what we should not have done to begin with. I just
kept on wondering, “why don’t we figure out a way how not to do
the wrong thing in the first place?” As a conservative, that
makes sense to me. Prevention is not only safer from a health
standpoint than remediation, it is much less expensive to
business and to society….
So we need to set priorities. We need to attack the problems
before they happen, and we need some consensus on where to start.
My colleagues and I on the International Joint Commission
thought chlorine as an industrial feed stock would be a good
place to begin.
Certainty: We Should Shift the Burden of Proof
Now for some words about CERTAINTY. First, let’s start with the
fact that governments regulate some chemical substances. They do
that by issuing permits based upon certain standards. The
regulatory standards tend to be compromises between government
and some of the interests. Such regulation presumes a tolerable
amount of exposure, even though eminent scientists tell us there
is no human assimilative capacity for some of those substances….
Whenever a suggestion is made to protect health, especially human
health, we hear about bad science and the lack of scientific
certainty. We heard those claims in the breast implant
discussions, and we heard it again recently as the tobacco
industry testified before Congress. Still governments demand
absolute scientific certainty of the cause/harm linkage, before
changing a standard. And industry denies responsibility because
absolute certainty of the causal relationship to the harm has not
yet been found. Think about that. What other aspect of our
lives demands such certainty before exercising caution?
Not the law –we convict people on the subjective judgment of
just twelve individuals. Not education –where 70% can be a
passing grade. Not religion –where there is always room for
forgiveness and atonement. Not health care –take two aspirins
and call me tomorrow. Certainly not the news media –who never
seem to be accountable for what they said yesterday. Accounting?
Engineering? Architecture? All have room for error, with
miscellaneous accounts, sway factors, etc., etc. But in the
governmental regulation of the manufacture, use and disposal of
persistent toxic substances, we demand scientific certainty. We
demand absolute proof of the causal relationship to harm. And
the certainty we demand is that the onerous substance causes the
harm, not that the substance does not cause the harm.
So the onus is on you. And on me. And on our unsuspecting
neighbors. Under the present system, it is our personal
responsibility as private citizens to know all there is to know
about advanced chemistry. To know how exotic chemicals react
when they interact with each other. To know what chemicals are
being used and discharged, and to know what effects all of that
might have on us and our progeny.
The U.S. and Canadian governments estimated that somewhere
between 60,000 and 200,000 chemicals are being discharged into
the Great Lakes. A pretty wide range, wouldn’t you say? What it
tells us is that we don’t even know for sure what is being
discharged. We do know, however, that most of it has never been
tested. The chemical manufacturing industry was upset with me
over the recommendation to treat chlorine as a class. They say
that each substance must be looked at one at a time to determine
its potential for harm. Should we take them seriously and begin
to look at 60,000 to 200,000 chemicals one at a time? If so, we
might get a good start by the year 3000 or so. So, as you enjoy
the Great Lakes, or as you go about your daily business, what is
being discharged into the environment might adversely affect you,
your child or your grandchild. But no real caution can be
required of the discharger because there is no absolute certain
proof that an exposure by a young girl might affect the
reproductive ability of her yet to be born child. Eighty percent
certainty of such harm is not good enough. Ninety percent, so
far, is not good enough. We need one hundred percent absolute
proof of harm, or we keep on doing what we have been doing.
Surely we need to change our way of thinking.
===============
[1] The IJC’s recommendations are summarized in Peter Montague,
“Our Greatest Accomplishment: Grassroots Action Has Forced aMajor Shift in Thinking,” THE WORKBOOK Vol. 19 No. 2 (Summer
1994), pgs. 86-90. Paper reprints available for $2.00;
electronic copy available free.
DESCRIPTOR TERMS: INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION; IJC; CANADA;
U.S.; GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE;
PRINCIPLE OF PRECAUTIONARY ACTION; REVERSE ONUS; HUMAN HEALTH;
CHILDREN; CERTAINTY; REPUBLICANS; CONSERVATISM; CHLORINE;
JOURNALISM; PREVENTION; BURDEN OF PROOF; ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY;