Environment and efficiency lovers

T he 1990s will be a decade of struggle with environmental issues. Searching for reasons, we can tick off major accidents and activities that heightened ecological awareness in the late 1980s: the Valdez oil spill, the spewing of radiation from Chernobyl, massive timber cuttings in Brazil, medical waste on the nation's seashores, high-pitched debates on global warming, and the environment in Eastern Europe. But while these events and conditions capture our attention, similar disasters occurred in the past without being followed by a national ecological movement. Environmental struggles require more than a series of environmental calamities. Campaigns for change must have a political focus directed toward political decision makers who have the power to write and enforce comprehensive federal rules. The United States Congress, working through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), commands such attention. Recent environmental disasters have coincided with political action and have reinforced. The Clean Air Act has been revised to include tighter emissions standards. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability (Superfund) legislation was up for reauthorization in 1991. International conferees are discussing global warming, and new efforts are being made to bring a coordinated approach to the control of pollution that crosses national boundaries. Always alert to the mood of the public, advertising agencies have also responded. Soft drink bottles are now labeled environmentally safe. Deodorants and hair spray are hailed for their ecologically neutral propellants or for having no propellant at all. Advertising copy writers waxed enthusiastic to a degree that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is now scrutinizing environmental claims made for consumer goods that might cause unwitting buyers to think they are buying ecologically safe products when in fact they are not. The banter about environmentally friendly products is joined by efforts to organize recycling stations across communities nationwide and by the promulgation of rules to guide the safe construction and operation of landfills. California is taking the lead in developing tighter auto-emissions standards and other environmental rules that exceed and will influence the standards set at the federal level. California's South Coast Air Quality District is discussing some rather drastic steps to reduce driving. Consumers of fast-food hamburgers shops may no longer enjoy drive-up service. Gasoline-powered lawnmowers may be subject to emissions controls. Commuters may face driving restrictions to reduce the flow of cars into and out of cities. Some might argue that the magnitude of environmental degradation and the high and lofty goals of the environmental movement are sufficient to command general support for new packets of legislative solutions. Environmental degradation is real. With sufficient exposure, toxic chemicals can be deadly to humans. Oil spills do destroy aquatic life and property values. Contaminated aquifers do raise the cost of drinking water. If cleanliness is next to godliness, how can we have too much? More than twenty years' experience with federal programs to improve the quality of air, water, and earth demonstrate that things are not so simple. Lofty goals embodied in detailed federal legislation do not translate into effective solutions. Massive expenditures on pollution control do not necessarily result in equally significant improvements in environmental quality.