Tensions and overt conflict among government, industry, environmental
advocacy groups, and the research community over the form and focus of environmental
agendas have been around since the term "environment" was first
used to mean more than heating and air conditioning. The differences have
been expressed in every form from formal dialogues and debates in respected
journals and at professional meetings to shouting matches in the halls of
those same meetings as well as in courtroom confrontations.
The tenor of the interactions may be changing. A sampling of representatives
from government, business and industry, regulatory offices, environmental
advocacy groups, and research scientists indicates a readiness and a willingness
to try a more cooperative approach.
Just how the change in administrations, from Republican to Democrat as
well as from World War II generation to (mostly) baby boomer generation,
may affect overall federal environmental agendas is still unknown, though
the amount of ink used to speculate on the possible effects is substantial.
President Clinton has publicly stated that Vice President Gore will be the
administration's coordinator for technology and science policies. How much
of the Clinton-Gore campaign vision for the United States' future in science
and technology will survive federal budget realities is still to be determined.
Problems in setting a coherent, coordinated environmental agenda for
the nation persist, mainly because mutual questions of credibility and trust
among the different sectors remain. Ellen Silbergeld, professor of epidemiology
and toxicology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and senior adjunct
scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, described the atmosphere
among the spheres of interest in environmental health research as "very
confrontational in the past. Environmentalists have seen research played
off against action. That's given research a bad name. Research has been
kind of a pawn in the confrontations. Concessions by government, industry,
and environmental groups are needed to get us out of the bind, off dead
center."
At the same time, scientists with different perspectives on the nation's
environmental agenda were generally optimistic about prospects for cooperation,
despite past history. Charles Powers of the Health Effects Institute (HEI)
pointed to the creation of an asbestos research entity modeled on the jointly
funded HEI as a measure of the perceived success of one cooperative venture.
HEI research into automobile air emissions is supported by the EPA and the
United States auto industry. Powers observed that after 12 years, HEI is
enjoying credibility for its research.
Jeanette Wiltse, deputy director,
EPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Stephen Delaney. |
Roger McClellan, president,
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology. Bill Bell. |
Jeanette Wiltse, deputy director of EPA's Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment (OHEA), cited the Green Lights voluntary pollution reduction
program of EPA and industry as an example of a successful cooperative effort,
where cooperation followed the realization that companies could save money
while reducing pollution. Linda Greer, senior project scientist with the
Natural Resources Defense Council, noted the growing use of mediation and
negotiation in determining the final form of environmental regulations in
contrast to the usual practice of litigating first.
Roger McClellan, president of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology,
has a perspective on tensions in the setting of environmental agendas that
goes back to the "turmoil in the '60s and early '70s. . . part [of
which] was reaction to what we learned about vinyl chloride, bischloromethyl
ether [heavily used industrial compounds linked to cancers in workers exposed
on the job]. Some good things came out of that from industry--CIIT came
into being; industry began evaluating materials and developing appropriate
control strategies." CIIT is an independent toxicological research
operation supported by its member companies, a Who's Who of the chemical
industry. CIIT's agenda focuses on heavily used production chemicals that
are being studied for potential health effects should humans be exposed.
From the scientific perspective, McClellan believes the time is ripe
to revisit past studies of exposure/dose-response relationships, using the
new tools of cellular and molecular biology. Exploring mechanisms and the
process of DNA repair and damage at exposure levels below those possible
with cruder tools is an approach whose time has come. "All of the sectors
need to work together to go beyond what I call the glass floor. We need
to document exposure and response versus the risks of regulatory concern.
We need to get down to relevant human exposure levels, revise the megamouse
studies with our new tools." EPA's risk reduction strategies that address
de minimis risk versus zero risk are a step forward in addressing
risk management, according to McClellan. However, communicating the concept
of minimal risk to a broader public is a big problem.
Returning to the scientific challenges, McClellan said, "The easy
problems have been solved in individual labs. The remaining problems are
best tackled by multidisciplinary teams, which I sometimes think seem almost
beyond biological scientists. Some of our greatest opportunities are at
the interfaces of the various disciplines. We don't have good institutional
means in the biological sciences to create strategies and the strategic
orientation for interdisciplinary work. We put [dollar] limits on federally
funded program projects that artificially constrain the possibilities."
There are mechanisms in place for certain kinds of cooperative agenda-setting,
even though they are not always used. Eula Bingham of the University of
Cincinnati, former head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
said that the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides for outside advisory
committees composed of representatives of various interests, though the
provision has rarely been used. Bingham was the chair for an occasion of
cooperative agenda-setting in regard to coke oven emissions. When standards
for coke oven emissions were developed, she said, the process went more
smoothly because of participation by industry, labor, public and academic
interests, state, and Department of Health and Human Services officials.
This broad participation identified major sticking points early in the process
and helped resolve the conflicts.
"In the occupational health arena, the key word is feasibility.
We know we set standards that allow disease. The standards are based on
feasibility--technical and economic," Bingham said. "Somehow,
people high in government say they don't want to pay for committees. I think
they're worth their weight in gold." By having all of the different
perspectives presented, the important questions get asked and considered
early in the rule-making process, Bingham noted. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act is "an obvious place for industry and labor to work
together," she said. "It has to be more thoroughly used."
At the most visible environmental regulatory operation, the EPA, the
sense of long siege from competing sectors lingers. Wiltse pointed out that
a persisting issue for EPA has been keeping apprised of what industry is
doing. For example, CIIT is making progress in molecular mechanisms, yet
industry appears to be minimizing its contributions there. Wiltse said,
"They don't look at the big picture. With more basic [scientific] understanding,
we can do a better job. We have to sell that idea." The companies OHEA
deals with are "frustrated with risk assessment," Wiltse continued.
"If it's not successful in getting their chemicals off the list, they
want to know, 'What's in it for us?' The people with money have been very
short-sighted. Business is not sure it can trust toxicology, and then there's
the business of knowing [whether a chemical causes adverse effects] versus
not knowing."
Often, epidemiology is the first research tool available, and any potential
lack of power to detect effects with this approach is such that "they
might as well not bother," Wiltse continued. On the other hand, "If
we can do epidemiology with biomarkers, that's a path where the investment
will pay off." Cooperative research, peer-reviewed, is fine, but mixed
funding "can be a problem unless everybody buys in. Too often, where
studies are co-funded, the results get painted as favoring one or the other
position."
There are substantive signs that more proactive approaches to getting
all interested parties to work on issues of mutual concern are in place
today. The United States Congress has provided recent, explicit directions
for cooperation among federal departments and agencies in the form of legislation.
For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 sets ground rules for cooperation
between the Department of Energy and the Department of Health and Human
Services for research on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields.
The law includes a five-year, coordinated effort in research and communication
on electric and magnetic fields. Nine federal agencies will be part of an
Interagency Committee coordinating government-wide efforts on the topic.
That law was one result of what a congressional aide who has worked on environmental
legislation for a number of years described as a "very contentious
atmosphere in Washington for the last 12 years" because of divided
government. Presidents Reagan and Bush and Congress have held different
views. "Congress passed laws that were very prescriptive to avoid foot-dragging.
Some of these pressures are easing. . . .There's some real optimism that
there will be more progress on these issues," continued the aide, who
asked not to be identified. "We're hoping for a cooperative relationship
with the administration on environmental health research."
Congressman Henry Waxman, one of the forces involved in setting past
environmental agendas at the federal level, knows where he plans to lead
from his post as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. "Over the past decade,
the nation has failed to address many of the environmental problems that
scientists say cause the greatest threat to public health--drinking water
contamination, radon exposure, indoor air pollution, pesticide exposure,"
Waxman said. "This Congress, our biggest payoff will be in addressing
these high-risk threats. A simple measure, like requiring the disclosure
of radon risks before real estate transactions, can save thousands of lives."
The issue of risk is receiving increased attention. Relative risk was
the topic of a bill introduced in the 102nd Congress by Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan. The bill did not pass, but it covered ranking of risks, the need
for sound science and sound scientific advice, and the need for high-quality
information to manage resources for protecting human health, welfare, and
ecological resources. The bill is likely to be considered again.
Another proposal that surfaced and faded in the 102nd Congress specifically
included the concept of "environmental high-impact areas," which
asks whether certain neighborhoods, communities, the poor, and minorities
bear a disproportionate share of adverse impacts from environmental pollution
in the United States. That measure was introduced by then-Senator Gore.
It mandated cooperative and coordinated efforts by federal offices to address
environmental quality and an inventory of where the pollution occurs.
Broadening input for agenda setting, including addressing the role of
risk assessment, has become an interest for a number of different agencies
involved in research. NIEHS Director Kenneth Olden called a meeting in mid-March
focused on bringing better science into the process. "Investment in
good science is good business in that it is a cost effective way to improve
public health," Olden wrote in his invitation to a spectrum of leaders
from government, industry, academia, and other interest groups.
NIEHS Deputy Director Richard Griesemer noted some possible outcomes
of the meeting. Options could range from doing all the work of testing chemicals,
picking chemicals to test, and communicating results from within the National
Toxicology Program, the federal government's interagency testing program
for health effects of chemicals, to involving the whole country, Griesemer
pointed out. The more likely outcome is a focused approach as the various
groups espousing different views look for common, productive ground in identifying
an achievable agenda.
Scientists should be involved in making the public policy decisions as
well as providing sound science to advance the nation's environmental agenda,
according to one scientist involved. William Cooper, professor of zoology
at Michigan State University, recently served as chair of the Ecological
and Human Welfare Risks Subcommittee of the EPA Science Advisory Board's
Relative Risk Reductions Strategies Committee. Cooper's subcommittee developed
methods for prioritizing anthropogenic risks to ecological systems and human
welfare, as distinct from risks to human health. The subcommittee looked
at potential injuries to the ecosystem and human welfare from environmental
threats and the time required to repair such injuries, should they occur.
The threats ranked highest (highest relative risk) were those posing the
greatest potential injury and requiring the longest time to correct. Global
warming was at the top of the list.
Cooper noted that the push behind looking at the concept of relative
risk for environmental problems is economic, and he concluded, ". .
. risk assessment . . . [is] the only game in town. It's an imprecise science
but it's the best we've got."
Scientists generally take a broad view of the possibilities and challenges
of drawing the nation's environmental agendas together. Powers said, "I
read the environment as very conducive to expansion of efforts like HEI.
When we're interpreting facts on health and the environment, the public
needs confidence in the competence and credibility of the source of the
information." HEI's research is peer-reviewed under a process "largely
borrowed from the National Institutes of Health," according to Powers.
When HEI was created to explore questions about the nature and effects
of auto emissions, "there was a clear adversarial atmosphere surrounding
auto emissions. There was nothing to provide data for a large number of
compounds, and something new was required." Now, Powers says, there
are three avenues where cooperative programs may focus: first, "Industry
is aware of public concerns and wants to get ahead of the regulatory process,
to take the lead in persuading government to join in getting ahead, in doing
more preventive research instead of waiting for public terror/concern to
drive the process." Second, Powers said, "EMF [electromagnetic
fields] is going to need a large spade. It's a matter of public worry, and
scientists know. . .very little. Public/private mechanisms can work there.
The science is very difficult and if we throw politics in, we'll never get
it." Powers concluded, "Public and private interests may recognize
that the early regulations and early science on which the regulations were
based should be reviewed. The worst case projection may no longer obtain.
To do this, an outside group with considerable credibility will be needed.
Often, the regulators are not interested in the resources, and an industry
has been built on the regulations. There are groups that don't want to admit
they were wrong."
Linda Greer, senior
project scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council. Dunn Photographic
Assoc., Inc. |
The idea that the existing science on some chemicals that are already
regulated may need to be revisited struck a responsive chord, though from
a somewhat different perspective, with Greer and Silbergeld, scientists
from environmental advocacy groups.
Greer said that the goal of NRDC's participation in quasijudicial rule
making with EPA is "to craft a program that regulates the most dangerous
materials in the best way we can. Where is the science [for underground
contamination]? It's in the Dark Ages, with little basic information on
what's in the contamination or what's happening to it."
Silbergeld, of EDF, used dioxin as an example of the science gap. "Government
and industry have to come to accept that there are times when there's reason
to act in the face of uncertainty. Environmentalists must accept the thought
that research might change the way you will react and regulate."
Greer recalled "12 years of entrenchment, a time of suits against
EPA for not doing its job," as a prelude to a changed perspective for
industry. "It was just not enough to have the White House and the Office
of Management and Budget. Attitudes toward the environment changed. Now,
I do a lot of mediation instead of litigation," she said.
For NRDC, the perspective is narrow and deep, Greer said. "The challenge
lies in prescriptive requirements on certain wastes. A lot of stuff isn't
covered. We may be less stringent overall but get as many [substances] as
possible covered. It's an outright trade: maximum materials in versus maximum
control." She posed a common question, "How do you craft wise
public policy in the absence of good information, never mind good science?"
According to Greer, the place of the environmental advocacy group at the
negotiating table is "based on what you learn in fifth grade about
why wars are fought: so somebody can sit at the head of the negotiating
table. Suits are filed, the parties establish their strengths, and then
work some things out. Where that hasn't happened, there's not a productive
interaction. Where the issue has matured, the parties are ready to negotiate."
Greer echoed Silbergeld's view on the place of research in many past
confrontations between industry and environmental advocacy groups. "For
a time, the call for good science was becoming synonymous with the call
for deregulation. That's unfair to science." But she continued, "We
need good science to more accurately craft what we do. We tend to join industry
in the position that until there is improved science we may not want a risk-based
approach. Scientists are quick to blame regulators for regulating without
information, but we're looking at a 10- to 15-year lag time."
Greer agreed with Wiltse on the importance of participation early in
the policy debate. "What we're facing in the renewal of the Superfund
law is a dialogue that may work around the science. Cleaning what can be
cleaned is not a fix. We need to prevent what we can't fix, and we need
to err on the side of safety," she concluded.
Silbergeld espoused a particular area for collaboration and cooperation
among the interested parties: research into noncancer diseases associated
with environmental exposures. Neurogenerative diseases, one of her special
areas of interest, are "extraordinarily pervasive," she said.
"We know genetics are a small factor. Dementias and Parkinson's have
long payouts and are incredibly expensive. We just got a cost estimate from
NIH for Alzheimer's disease--$80 billion. When we look at the investment
in identifying the causes versus the cost, it's pathetic." She suggested
there should be a cooperative war on neurologic diseases, collecting the
data that is not collected now. "We should institute a surveillance
program with industry, and we need to do chemical testing for noncancer
endpoints. We need a coordinated, integrated campaign to address the questions."
Wiltse pointed out that trying to work with all of the interested parties
is a daily fact of life at EPA. Environmental advocacy groups have been
watchful of the process but "don't have the resources for the day-to-day
level investment. Where EPA has been able to enlist them, they see the process
through." For testing chemicals and the TOSCA program, there is a "rather
well worked out negotiating process with, mostly, the Chemical Manufacturers'
Association. Everybody is covered under the rule; instead of blockading
all of it, something gets done", she said.
When EPA first presented the Green Lights program, most chief executives
looked at it suspiciously, and program acceptance came down to the same
question most EPA efforts evoke: Will it cost me or save me dollars? Green
Lights saves money and has had good participation. The Agency has a number
of voluntary programs with industry.
Wiltse concluded, "It's important to get all the players around
the table from the beginning. Confrontation is tiresome. You can always
litigate to a standstill. Once industry makes up its mind that it will play
in a given matter, I've never seen them back out. They settle in and cooperate
and work hard once they're committed. Industry research is very credible
as a whole. The trick is getting it out."
At the Chemical Manufacturers Association, a coordinated program to meet
and get ahead of environmental regulatory requirements and communicate the
results to a broad public has been under way since 1988. The program, named
"Responsible Care," is a broad-spectrum attack on real and perceived
problems within the industry. The program is mandatory for CMA members.
Sandra L. Tirey, associate director of health programs for CMA, said that
the voluntary program has had good response from the industry in addressing
concerns for health, safety, and the environment. And, she pointed out,
the program goes well beyond regulatory requirements. "The purpose
of Responsible Care is responsible performance," she said.
The six elements of the Responsible Care program start with a documented
commitment by the chief executive officers of member companies, assuring
that the program gets attention at the top of the company. The program requires
codes of management practices, a public advisory panel, detailed company
self-evaluations, executive leadership reviews and information exchanges,
and the requirement that members have made a measurable difference in industry
approaches to environmental health and safety questions. The program builds
on existing cooperation with EPA and the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, Tirey added.
Laboratory and clinical scientists who focus on environmental research
tend to look more intently at specific collaborative opportunities and benefits
that increased cooperation and collaboration could bring. Lawrence Fischer,
director of the Institute for Environmental Toxicology at Michigan State
University in East Lansing, said the opportunities for more cost-effective
and cooperative approaches to environmental protection are many, and some
are quite obvious. Permits, in general, are a major area where coordination
could be very cost effective, he said. In the past, permit applications
at the local, state, and federal levels have been the venue for confrontation,
with environmental advocacy or other citizen groups and industry and government
on different sides of the table.
"I think it's possible for industry and government to include noninvolved
people--university, consultants--people without an axe to grind, to work
out agreements based on the science," Fischer said. "We're seeing
this more and more, usually at the request of governments but sometimes
industry. Some states have made more progress than others. I think it will
occur more frequently."
Bernard Goldstein, director of the Environmental and Occupational Health
Sciences Institute at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University
of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Piscataway, and former Assistant
Administrator of Research and Development at EPA, says there are several
aspects to enhancing cooperative efforts in research among the sectors.
Goldstein gave examples of research that draw on several disciplines to
ask and begin to answer complex environmental health questions. In one example,
researchers at the University of New Mexico and at the National Cancer Institute
finally were able, because of the new molecular tools, to ask the right
questions about the differences in lung cancers for uranium miners and smokers.
What the scientists found was a different pattern of mutations in different
codons of the p53 gene in the lung cancers of uranium miners and in the
lung cancers of tobacco smokers. "We haven't done badly in starting
with chemicals and working our way to an associated disease," Goldstein
said. "But, how about going from disease back to chemical?"
Another example of cooperative environmental health research is a project
investigating lead with multiple sources of financial support at the University
of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Instead of a neighborhood-to-neighborhood
epidemiological comparison, the scientists are conducting a trial using
pregnant women. One-third of a group of pregnant women is being trained
to clean their houses to keep down potentially lead-laden dust that could
affect their babies, and the carpets in their homes are being replaced.
The other two-thirds of the group are getting training and attention from
public health nurses on avoiding childhood accidents. This trial may offer
useful insights in cases where there is regulation for lead at low levels
of environmental exposure, Goldstein said. The project is supported by the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIEHS, EPA, and
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
An emerging opportunity for scientists may lie in the recent interest
expressed by EPA in bringing more science and expertise into the regulatory
realm. "They're considering new and larger questions," Fischer
said. "A year ago EPA released the results of their relative risk project
on ecological concerns, and it was not just chemical by chemical or medium
by medium. It was a more holistic approach instead of each group in its
own closet. It's an example of a federal agency thinking more broadly about
the problems."
A fundamental benefit of the broader approach to environmental agendas
"would hopefully be realized by the public. We'd get a better environment
with no real serious cost to any single segment of society instead of each
working to improve from its own standpoint. The whole thing has to be more
cooperative, more collaborative," Fischer continued. "That sort
of atmosphere can create great benefits. I believe when industry changes
processes to save the environment, they'll find they save costs and improve
the bottom line as well. There are companies out there already seeing it,"
he added.
Cooper reiterated the challenges facing most if not all attempts to move
to coordinated, coherent environmental agendas for the nation: "We've
been barraged by Alar, nuclear waste, groundwater contamination. The environmental
groups want to do all of them; there are not enough bucks." The economics
of any proposals for a national environmental agenda are likely to be considered
a lot more on the cost side than the pure environmentalists think appropriate,
and a lot more on the benefit side than short-time planners among business
and antiregulatory interests think proper.
How much of a role scientists will have in the process or its outcome
is still unknown. The players will need to know their own and their challengers'
histories and goals if they want their topics on a future national environmental
agenda. It seems almost certain, however, that those who are invited to
the game will be those prepared to play at a round table--willing to give
and take.
Betty Mushak
Betty Mushak is a freelance
writer in Durham, North Carolina.
[Citation
in PubMed] [Related
Articles]
President Clinton. Environmental
protection and economic growth must go hand- in-hand. The White House. |
Vice President Gore. His global
agenda rivals many environmentalists' greenest dream. The White House. |
Anyone trying to unearth the new administration's environmental agenda would
do well to keep in mind the sign the Clinton campaign staff posted in their
Little Rock headquarters reminding them "It's the economy. . ."
Much of President Clinton and Vice President Gore's initial set of environmental
plans appeared in their economic package announced February 17. Many of
the goals outlined so far are those that best serve Clinton's battle cry
to create jobs and strengthen the economy. The way the administration intends
to meet those goals is through promoting energy conservation and strengthening
the part of the nation's infrastructure that protects the environment. The
economic plan would make some polluting more expensive by taxing the use
of energy and the use of public lands. And it allots billions of dollars
to speed up the construction of waste water treatment plants and to improve
national parks facilities.
"The Administration's initiatives offer certain proof that environmental
protection and economic growth can--and must--go hand-in-hand," states
the report outlining the plan, A Vision of Change for America. The
economic package shows "the administration is interested in environmental
'two-fers'--things that use environmental technology and involve lots of
people," said Marchant Wentworth, the Izaak Walton League's legislative
director and an environmental lobbyist since 1978.
Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, Ecology and the Human Spirit,
outlines a global agenda that rivals many environmentalists' greenest dream.
While campaigning, both Clinton and Gore promised to support broad international
environmental agreements, such as those made at the United Nations Earth
Summit in June, and to reduce global warming. Agency and cabinet heads,
particularly at the Department of the Interior, are making an "ecosystem
approach" to the environment their priority--an approach long supported
by environmentalists.
For now, however, most people in Washington are reluctant to predict
what the administration's specific environmental priorities will be. The
new administration has been so busy with its economic plan and with filling
subcabinet positions that it has not "even begun to deal with environmental
policy," said Caleb Marshall, spokesperson for Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana),
the new chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "It's
nascent pandemonium [at the White House]," Baucus said.
"With respect to a broader environmental agenda, there has not been
what I'd call a comprehensive discussion," agreed Marsha Aronoff, deputy
director of the Environmental Defense Fund.
Congress will be adding some issues to the administration's agenda. A
number of environmental laws are up for congressional reauthorization. They
include the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. "There's a long list of
reauthorization bills," said the Environmental Protection Agency's
administrator, Carol Browner. But the administration does not yet have a
list of priorities and will work with Congress to decide "what goes
first, what goes second," she said at a press conference February 16.
Clinton did make some environmental moves before releasing his economic
package, however, which provide the groundwork for developing a broader
agenda. On February 8 Clinton announced the creation of a White House Office
on Environmental Policy to coordinate federal government policy. Kathleen
McGinty, Gore's former senior environmental advisor, will head the office.
Clinton's announcement emphasized the offices' intention to "provide
real leadership on global environmental issues."
McGinty will participate in each of the government's major policy councils:
the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, and the Domestic
Policy Council. As part of the announcement, Clinton also said he is working
with Congress to make the EPA a cabinet-level department.
In his State of the Union address to Congress, Clinton mentioned the
environment five times. He promised the "most ambitious environmental
clean up," in conjunction with state and local government, "to
put people to work and preserve the environment." He promised appropriate
safeguards for workers and the environment, and said he would like to use
EPA's Superfund "to clean up pollution and not just pay lawyers."
One of the biggest sources of revenue proposed in the economic package
is a broad-based tax on all types of energy, based on the energy content
of the fuel, measured in BTUs. "The tax is designed to promote energy
conservation and to reduce harm to the environment"and would raise
$18.3 billion in 1997 alone, according to the report. Oil would be taxed
at about twice the rate of coal and natural gas, to "promote energy
security and the use of cleaner burning fuels," the plan states. And
the Department of Energy would substantially increase its natural gas research
and development program.
The economic plan is generous in its support for energy conservation.
It proposes $1.9 billion to be spent from 1994 to 1998 for conservation
and renewable energy research and development. It also budgets funds for
the federal government to use alternative fuel vehicles, for weatherization
of low-income homes, schools, and hospitals; and for mass transit capital
improvements. Environmentalists and others will be working hard to get the
energy agenda through Congress, but they will be in a race with angry industry
representatives to the members' doors.
"We don't see any need for any tax increase when we are just coming
out of a recession," said Earl Ross, a spokesperson for the American
Petroleum Industry. "We think [Clinton] has the wrong views of conservation.
We don't agree that this country uses energy wastefully," he said.
API wants much more federal land opened up for oil and gas exploration,
which Clinton has opposed.
The ecomonic package suggests that clean water is also high on the administration's
environmental agenda. Almost $2.5 billion is to be spent for new grants
for low-interest loans to help municipalities comply with the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the plan states. It would also provide funds for capitalizing
Clean Water State Revolving Funds, which would make low-interest loans to
municipalities to construct projects to solve water-quality problems. The
administration is also proposing spending money to help specifically with
the construction of sewage treatment facilities, to reduce nonpoint source
pollution, and to "fund a backlog of projects to address emergency
watershed problems," the report states.
Fixing EPA's Superfund program is another hope of the administration
that is spelled out in the economic plan. The administration's goal is to
"preserve federal Superfund money only for sites where there are no
viable private parties to undertake the cleanup," and require the people
responsible for the site to clean it up, the report states. Browner has
also recently said that Superfund is in need of repair. She called for all
interested parties to "come back to the table" to help mend the
program.
During the campaign, Clinton and Gore said they support development of
the technology to undertake such environmental tasks as hazardous waste
cleanup and sewage treatment. Their economic plan intends to carry out that
promise by recommending spending $1.85 billion over nine years on environmental
engineering and technology development.
The administration has proposed spending $1.5 billion and putting thousands
of people to work by rehabilitating resource protection projects in rural
and urban areas managed by the Department of the Interior and the Forest
Service. The economic plan also calls for increasing grazing and hardrock
mining fees on public lands.
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has already begun outlining in congressional
hearings and elsewhere how he would like to implement the administration's
plans for federal lands. He has also favors a whole ecosystem approach to
environmental management to avoid the species-by-species crisis management
used by former adminstrations. Babbitt told the New York Times in
mid-February, "My most urgent task in my first month around here has
been to try to assess how we're going to handle the generic issue of biodiversity."
One idea Babbitt has proposed is establishing a National Biological Survey,
much like the National Geological Survey. It would map out the location
of different species and the nation's environmental hot spots. He wants
to avoid what he calls "national train wrecks," like the ongoing
conflicts between loggers and environmentalists. Babbitt's other immediate
priorities are to improve stewardship of the national parks and to strengthen
the Bureau of Indian Affairs "to better meet the needs of American
Indians," said Robert Walker, a department spokesperson.
Browner told senior EPA staff in early February that she has no plans
to come out with a list of priorities for EPA until she has had time to
consult with them. She offered no time table as to when that would be, but
in her February 16 press conference and at her Senate confirmation hearings,
Browner gave viewers a preview of her priorities.
"One of the issues I feel particularly strongly about is pollution
prevention," she said at the press conference. She is also struck by
the need to look at how things "impact the ecosystem" as a whole,
she said. In keeping with the administration's economy-ecology compatibility
requirement, she mentioned "market incentives" first when asked
what new pollution prevention mechanisms she was contemplating.
In her Senate confirmation hearings in January, Browner elaborated on
this view, saying the EPA should develop rewards for businesses that lead
in pollution prevention and recycling strategies. In addition, she said
"we must restore voluntary compliance with the nation's environmental
laws by making them fair and efficient, by forcefully executing them, and
by increasing public disclosure of environmental practices." The health
effects of pollution are "something we have to look at in a variety
of ways," Browner said at the press conference.
Protecting children from the dangers of lead exposure is sure to be one
of Browner's priorities, as it was when she was head of Florida's Department
of Environmental Regulation. Browner hopes to increase efforts to test children
for lead, to discover where the exposures are occurring, and to find ways
to prevent it.
Another environmental human health issue Browner has addressed is pesticide
residue on food. On February 2 Browner released for public comment a list
of about 35 chemicals EPA is considering canceling under the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act's Delaney Clause. Agriculture and health experts are
debating whether the Delaney Clause should be changed to be consistent with
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which allows trace
amounts of pesticides on food if they do not pose an "unreasonable
risk" to consumers. Browner said that she intends to help all interested
parties reach consensus on the issue.
Hugh Tilson, director of the neurotoxicity division of EPA's Health Effects
Research Laboratory, said the HERL staff has met with Browner and others
from the administration. It is still unclear how the Clinton administration
will handle environmental health effects research and issues. Tilson said
he believes that the administration supports efforts to look at effects
of environmental pollutants other than cancer and to consider neurotoxicity,
for example.
"I think that there is a great deal of interest [in the administration]
in reexamining the priorities and the ways in which we are approaching the
topic of environmental health," said Ellen Silbergeld, an environmental
health expert with the Environmental Defense Fund. She remains "fairly
confident" that environmental human health issues will be addressed.
It is guesswork to determine which of Clinton and Gore's initial environmental
goals will be implemented. The best-laid plans of an administration can
get waylaid by Congress, and what Congress decides to do with Clinton's
budget plan and its many environmental trappings is a million-dollar question
nowadays in Washington.
But there are some clues. Clinton's desire to invest in environmental
technology may be fulfilled because it is also a priority of the Senate's
Environment and Public Works Committee chair, Senator Baucus. Congressman
George Miller (D-California), chair of the House Natural Resources Committee,
supports Babbitt's plans, including subsidy reductions. Many of the issues
Babbitt is addressing have been debated for some time, so the groundwork
has been laid to move ahead on them, said Miller's spokesperson, Dan Weiss.
However, Aronoff warned that the proposals to eliminate the subsidies
"are certainly likely to be under attack." The subsidies "have
been sacred cows of one group or another," she said. In addition, the
notion of any tax increases are going to be opposed.
Environmentalists and industry groups do agree that the administration
will at least try to make some of Gore's green dreams come true. Gore and
Clinton have "stuck to the message in Gore's book almost 100 percent,"
said Chris Flavin, vice president for research at the World Watch Institute.
"There's been a little backing and filling. . .but on the broader issues
they've really stuck to their message."
Tina Adler
Tina Adler is a freelance
writer in Washington, DC.
Last Update: August 31, 1998