Various misconceptions about the relationship between environmental pollution and human disease, particularly cancer, drive regulatory policy. In this paper, we highlight 10 such misconceptions and briefly present the scientific evidence that undermines each.
In December, world leaders will gather in Kyoto, Japan, to consider an international treaty to control emissions of greenhouse gases. Its supporters say the treaty is a necessary step in preventing catastrophic changes in the earth's climate. Its opponents – including leading scientists and economists – say it is likely to do more environmental harm than good.
Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, informed a 1996 United Nations conference on climate change in Geneva that the Clinton administration is committed to imposing limits on greenhouse gas emissions as a way to minimize the effects of global warming. Unfortunately, the administration and its supporters do not think it is necessary to impose the same restrictions on developing countries.
Do the nation's current clean air standards need to be made more stringent to save the lives of asthmatic children? President Clinton and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) say yes. But many mayors, governors and members of Congress of both parties say more evidence is needed before standards are tightened.
A casual glance at the nation's highways shows that much has changed in the last 25 years. The changes include fewer large family cars on the road, a dramatic increase in the number of light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and the introduction of minivans. If federal regulators have their way, minivans and SUVs will go the way of the station wagon. In the process, American lives, especially those of children, will be put at risk and gas will be wasted.
Some environmentalists portrayed congressional attempts to modify clean air, clean water and safe drinking-water laws as giving corporations license to pollute and to endanger America's children. Others saw these efforts as bringing common sense and sound science to bear on environmental policy.
Superfund cleanups have been incredibly expensive and inefficient, and the law has been ineffective in protecting both human health and the environment. With reauthorization overdue, now is a good time for reform.
Superfund was scheduled to be reauthorized in 1995, and its authority to level taxes on private companies expired at year's end. If Congress fails to reauthorize the program and the taxes, Superfund will be phased out as its existing revenues are depleted.
Over the last few years, a largely unnoticed transformation has taken place. Where once wetlands were being drained and filled, today they are being restored at such a rapid pace that the U.S. is now gaining wetlands.
The political situation has changed since the ESA was first passed. As was true more than 20 years ago, the debate is being driven by a nationwide grassroots movement. However, this time the coalition is composed of small property owners and property rights advocates rather than animal rights groups or public land advocates. With the new Republican majority in Congress, they have found a receptive audience.
The vast majority of environmentalists believe that appreciation of the natural world needs to be integrated with human progress. But a vocal, prolific and energetic minority of reactionaries who do not believe there is anything to progress have achieved an influence in environmental matters far disproportionate to their numbers.
A theory held by some scientists is that the depletion of stratospheric ozone is substantial and will grow to alarming levels unless the use of CFCs and some related chemical compounds is eliminated. This theory led to an international treaty requiring that production of CFCs be rapidly phased out in developed countries. However, the theory of large-scale depletion caused by human use of these chemicals is not yet supported by solid scientific evidence.
America already has over-politicized environmental issues. It would be inappropriate to divert even more resources to uncertain or nonexistent "problems." However, if the government assumes its proper role and explores property rights-based solutions to pollution, a decentralized, self-policing process can arise.
The proponents of indoor air regulation seek to protect workers' health and safety. However, since there is a relationship between low income and mortality, high regulatory costs may actually increase death rates. Further, the death rate increase may be most pronounced among workers with the lowest incomes.
Americans are being besieged with advice on how to be "good environmentalists." Advice on what products to buy and what actions to take is routinely given to consumers, legislators and even school children. The problem is the advice is often wrong and, if followed, could cause environmental harm.
In the world today, there are about 150 governments and five billion people. The environmental movement has increasingly looked to the 150 governments to solve problems, while ignoring the role of the five billion people. Yet the record of government has been disappointing.
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 and has been amended on several occasions. Recent amendments proposed by President Bush have been so altered in the Senate and the House of Representatives that they now risk a presidential veto. These altered proposals would create costly burdens for consumers, workers and industry in an effort to reduce acid rain, and ozone pollution, emissions from automobiles, and toxic chemicals.
The United States is generally thought of as a country devoted to the principle of private property. Yet about 42 percent of the U.S. land is owned by government–33 percent by the federal government and 9 percent by state and local governments.