Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental design

can they help reduce the damage done by earlier, wasteful

approaches, and can they help nature heal rather than simply

adding to existing problems? McDonough invites us to rein-

vent our businesses and institutions to work with nature,

and redefine ourselves as consumers, producers, and citizens

to promote a new sustainable relationship with the Earth.

In an eco-efficient economy, he says, products might be

divided into three categories:

Consumables are products like food, natural fabrics, or

paper that are produced from renewable materials and can

go back to the soil as compost.

Service products are durables such as cars, televisions, and

refrigerators. These products should be leased to the cus-

tomer to provide their intended service, but would always

belong to the manufacturer. Eventually, they would be

returned to the maker, who would be responsible for

re-

cycling

or remanufacturing.

Unmarketables are materials like radioactive isotopes, per-

sistent

toxins

, and bioacumulative chemicals. Ideally, no

one would make or use these products. But because elimi-

nating their use will take time, McDonough suggests that

for now, these materials should belong to the manufacturer

and be molecularly tagged with the maker’s mark. If they

are discovered to be discarded illegally, the manufacturer

would be liable.

Following these principles McDonough Braungart

Design Chemistry has created nontoxic, easily recyclable,

healthy materials for buildings and for consumer goods.

Rather than design products for a “cradle to grave” life cycle,

MBDC aims for a fundamental conceptual shift to a Cradle

to Cradle processes whose materials perpetually circulate

in closed systems that create value and are inherently healthy

and safe. Among some important examples are carpets de-

signed to be recycled at the end of their useful life, paints

and adhesives that are non-toxic and non-allergenic, and

clothing that is both healthy for the wearer and that has

minimal environmental impact in its production.

In his architecture firm, McDonough + partners, these

new design models and environmentally friendly materials

have been used in a number of innovative building projects.

A few notable examples include: The Gap Inc. offices in

California and the Environmental Studies building at Ober-

lin College in Ohio.

Built in 1994, The Gap building in San Bruno, Cali-

fornia, is designed to maintain the unique natural features

of the site while providing comfortable, healthy, and flexible

office spaces. Intended to promote employee well-being and

productivity as well as eco-efficiency, The Gap building has

high ceilings, open, airy spaces, a natural ventilation system

including operable windows, a full-service fitness center (in-

cluding a pool), and a landscaped atrium for each office

bay that brings the outside in. Skylights in the roof deliver

477

daylight to interior offices and vent warm, stale air. Warm

interior tones and natural woods (all wood used in the build-

ing was harvested by certified sustainable methods) give a

friendly feel. Paints, adhesives, and floor coverings are low

toxicity to maintain a healthy indoor environment. A pleas-

ant place to work, the offices help recruit top employees and

improve both effectiveness and retention.

The roof of The Gap Building is planted with native

grasses and wildflowers that absorb rainwater and help im-

prove ambient environmental quality. The grass roof also is

beautiful and provides thermal and acoustic insulation. At

night, cool outdoor air is flushed through the building to

provide natural cooling. By providing abundant daylight,

high-efficiency fluorescent lamps, fresh air ventilation, and

other energy-saving measures, this pioneering building is

more than 30% more energy efficient than required by Cali-

fornia law. Operating savings within the first four to eight

years of occupancy are expected to repay the initial costs of

these design innovations.

An even more environmentally friendly building was

built at Oberlin College in 2001 to house its Environmental

Studies Program. Under the leadership of Dr. David Orr, the

Adam Joseph Lewis Center is planned around the concept of

ecological stewardship, and is intended to be both “restor-

ative” and “regenerative” rather than merely non-damaging

to the environment. The building is designed to be a net

energy exporter, generating more power from renewable

sources than it consumes annually. More than 3,700 sq ft

(roughly 350 sq m) of photovoltaic panels on the roof are

expected to generate 75,000 kilowatt hours of energy per

year. The building also draws on geothermal

wells

for heat-

ing and cooling, and features use of natural daylight and

ventilation to maintain interior comfort levels and a healthy

interior environment. High efficiency insulation in walls and

windows are expected to make energy consumption nearly

80% lower than standard academic buildings in the area.

The Lewis Center also incorporates an innovative “liv-

ing machine” for internal waste

water treatment

, a con-

structed wetland for storm water management, and a land-

scape that provides social spaces, learning opportunities with

live plants, and

habitat

restoration. It is expected that all

water used in the building will be returned to the environ-

ment in as good quality as when it entered. The water

produced by natural cleaning processes should be of high

enough quality for drinking, although doing so isn’t planned

at present.

Taken together, these restorative and regenerative en-

vironmental design approaches could bring about a new

industrial revolution. The features of environment design

are incorporated in McDonough’s “Hanover Principles” pre-

pared for the 2000 World Fair in Hanover, Germany. This

manifesto for green design urges us to recognize how humans

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental dispute resolution

interact with and depends on the natural world. According

to McDonough, we need to recognize even distant effects

and consider all aspects of human settlement, including com-

munity, dwelling, industry and trade, in terms of existing

and evolving connections between spiritual and material con-

sciousness. We should accept responsibility for the conse-

quences of design decisions upon human well being, the

viability of natural systems. We have to understand the limi-

tations of design. No human creation lasts forever, and de-

sign doesn’t solve all problems. Those who create and plan

should practice humility in the face of nature. We should

treat nature as a model and mentor, not an inconvenience

to be evaded and controlled. If we can incorporate these

ecologically intelligent principles in our practice, we may be

able to link long-term, sustainable considerations with ethi-

cal responsibility, and to reestablish the integral relationship

between natural processes and human activity.

[William P. Cunningham Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. Natural Capitalism:

Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Back Bay Books, 2000.

Hawken, Paul. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability.

New York: Harperbusiness, 1994.

Hutchison, Colin. Building to Last: The Challenge for Business Leaders.

London: Earthscan, 1997.

McDonough, William The Hanover Principles. 2000. [cited July 9,

2002].<http://www.mcdonoughpartners.com/principles.pdf>.

McDonough, William and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: A Blueprint

for the Next Industrial Revolution. San Francisco, CA: North Point

Press, 2002.

Environmental dispute resolution

Environmental Dispute Resolution (EDR) or Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR), as it is more generally known,

is an out-of-court alternative to litigation to resolve disputes

between parties. Although ADR can be used with virtually

any legal dispute, it is often used to resolve environmental

disputes. There are several types of ADR, ranging from the

least formal to the most formal process: (a) negotiation, (b)

mediation, (c) adjudication, (d) arbitration, (e) minitrial, and

(f) summary jury trial.

Negotiation: Negotiation is the simplest and most often

practiced form of ADR. The parties do not enter the judicial

system, but rather settlements are reached in an informal

setting and then reduced to written terms.

Mediation: Mediation is an extension of the direct

negotiation process. The term is loosely used and is often

confused with arbitration or informal processes in general.

Mediation is a process in which a neutral third-party inter-

478

venes to help disputants reach a voluntary settlement. The

mediator has no authority to force the parties to reach an

agreement.

Mediation is often the most appropriate technique for

environmental disputes because the parties often have no

prior negotiating relationship and, because there are often

many technical and scientific uncertainties, the assistance of

a qualified professional is helpful.

Mediation is also used with varying success in environ-

mental policy-making, standard setting, determination of

development choices, and the enforcement of environmental

standards. Many states explicitly recognize mediation as the

primary method for initially dealing with environmental dis-

putes, and mediation procedures are written into federal

environmental policy

, specifically in the regulations deal-

ing with the

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act

(CERCLA) and the

Re-

source Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA). Media-

tion is not appropriate, however, with all environmental

disputes because some environmental laws were designed to

encourage a slower examination of issues that impact society.

Adjudication: Adjudication is sometimes referred to as

“private judging.” It is an ADR process in which the parties

give their evidence and arguments to a neutral third-party

who then renders an objective, binding decision. It is a

voluntary procedure and private unless one party seeks judi-

cial enforcement or review after the decision is made. The

parties must agree on the adjudication and procedural rules

for the process and each side is contractually bound for the

length of the proceeding.

The advantage of adjudication is that a law- and/or

environment-trained third party renders an objective deci-

sion based on the presented facts and legal arguments. The

parties set their own rules so an adjudicator is not bound to

legal principles of any particular jurisdiction. Private organi-

zations provide adjudication services for fees but they can

be expensive.

Arbitration: Arbitration is a process whereby a private

judge, or arbitrator, hears the arguments of the parties and

renders a judgment. The process works much like a court

except that the parties choose the arbitrator and the substan-

tive law he or she should apply. The arbitrator also has much

more latitude in creating remedies which are fair to both

parties. People often confuse the responsibilities of arbitra-

tors and mediators. Arbitrators are passive functionaries who

determine right or wrong; mediators are active functionaries

who attempt to move the parties to reconciliation and

agreement, regardless of who is right or wrong.

Parties cannot be forced into arbitration unless the

contract in question includes an arbitration clause or the

parties consented to enter into arbitration after the dispute

developed. Since arbitration is a contractual remedy, the

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental economics

arbitrator can consider only those disputes and remedies

which the parties agreed to submit to arbitration.

Minitrial: A minitrial is a private process in which

parties agree to voluntarily reach a negotiated settlement.

They present their cases in summary form before a panel of

designated representatives of each party. The panel offers

non-binding conclusions on the probable outcome of the

case, were it to be litigated. The parties may then use the

results to assist with negotiation and settlement.

Summary Jury Trial: A summary jury trial is similar

to a minitrial except that the evidence is presented to a non-

expert, impartial jury, rather than a panel chosen by the

parties, which subsequently prepares non-binding conclu-

sions on each of the issues in dispute. Parties may then use

the assessment of the jury’s “verdict” to help with negotiation

and settlement.

[Kevin Wolf]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Loew, W. R., and A. M. Ramirex. “Resolving Environmental Disputes

with ADR.” The Practical Real Estate Lawyer 8 (May 1992): 15-23.

ERIODICALS

Kubasek, N., and G. Silverman, “Environmental Mediation.” American

Business Law Journal 26 (Fall 1988): 533-555.

Environmental economics

Environmental economics is a relatively new field, but its

roots go back to the end of the nineteenth century when

economists first discussed the problem of

externality

. Eco-

nomic transactions have external effects which are not cap-

tured by the price system. Prime examples of these externali-

ties are

air pollution

and

water pollution

. The absence of

a price for nature’s capacity to absorb wastes has an obvious

solution in economic theory. Economists advocate the use

of surrogate prices in the form of

pollution

taxes and

dis-

charge

fees. The non-priced aspect of the transaction then

has a price, which sends a signal to the producers to econo-

mize on the use of the resource.

In addition to the theory of externalities, economists

have recognized that certain goods, such as those provided

nature

, are common property. Lacking a discrete owner,

they are likely to be over-utilized. Ultimately, they will be

depleted. Few will be left for

future generations

, unless

common property goods like the air and water are protected.

Besides pollution taxes and discharge fees, economists

have explored the use of marketable

emission

permits as

a means of rectifying the market imperfection caused by

pollution. Rather than establishing a unit charge for pollu-

479

tion, government would issue permits equivalent to an

agreed-upon environmental standard. Holders of the permits

would have the right to sell them to the highest bidder. The

advantage of this system, wherein a market for pollution

rights has been established, is that it achieves environmental

quality standards. Under a charge system, trial-and-error

tinkering would be necessary to achieve the standards.

Besides discharge fees and markets for pollution rights,

economists have advocated the use of

cost-benefit analysis

in environmental decision making. Since control costs are

much easier to measure than pollution benefits, economists

have concentrated on how best to estimate the benefits of

a clean

environment

. They have relied on two primary

means of doing so. First, they have inferred from the actual

decisions people make in the marketplace what value they

place on a clean and healthy environment. Second, they

have directly asked people to make trade-off choices. The

inference method might rely on residential property values,

decomposing the price of a house into individual attributes

including

air quality

, or it might rely on the wage premium

risky jobs enjoy. Despite many advances, the problem of

valuing environmental benefits continues to be controversial

with special difficulties surrounding the issues of quantifying

the value of a human life, recreational benefits, and ecological

benefits including

species

and

habitat

survival.

For instance, the question of how much a life is worth

is repellent and absurd since human worth cannot be truly

captured in monetary terms. Nonetheless it is important to

determine the benefits for cost-benefit purposes. The costs

of reducing pollution often are immediate and apparent,

while the benefits are far-off and hard to determine. So, it

is important to try to gauge what these benefits might be

worth.

Economists call for a more rational ordering of risks.

The funds for risk reduction are not limitless, and the costs

keep mounting. Risks should be viewed in a detached and

analytical way. Polls suggest that Americans worry most

about such dangers as

oil spills

acid rain

, pesticides,

nu-

clear power

, and hazardous wastes, but scientific risk as-

sessments show that these are only low or medium-level

dangers. The greater hazards come from

radon

lead

, in-

door air pollution, and fumes from

chemicals

such as

ben-

zene

and formaldehyde. Radon, the odorless gas that natu-

rally seeps up from the ground and is found in people’s

homes, causes as many as 20,000 lung

cancer

deaths per

year, while

hazardous waste

dumps cause at most 500

cancer deaths. Yet the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) spends over $6 billion a year to clean up hazardous

waste sites while its spends only $100 million a year for

radon protection. To test a home for radon costs about $25,

and to clean it up if it is found contaminated costs $1,000.

To make the entire national housing stock free from radon

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental economics

would cost a few billion dollars. In contrast, projected spend-

ing for cleaning up hazardous waste sites is likely to exceed

$500 billion despite the fact that only about 11 percent of

such sites pose a measurable risk to human health.

Greater rationality would mean that less attention

would be paid to some risks and more attention to others.

For instance, scientific

risk assessment

suggests that sizable

new investments will be needed to address the dangers of

ozone layer depletion

and greenhouse warming.

Ozone

depletion is likely to result in 100,000 more cases of skin

cancer by the year 2050. Global warming has the potential

to cause massive catastrophe.

For businesses, risk assessment provides a way to allo-

cate costs efficiently. They are increasingly using it as a

management tool. To avoid another accident like

Bhopal,

India

, Union Carbide has set up a system by which it rates

its plants “safe,” “made safer,” or “shut down.” Environmen-

talists, on the other hand, generally see risk assessment as

a tactic of powerful interests used to prevent regulation of

known dangers or permit building of facilities where there

will be known fatalities. Even if the chances of someone

contracting cancer and dying is only one in a million, still

someone will perish, which the studies by

risk assessors

indeed document. Among particularly vulnerable groups of

the population (allergy sufferers exposed to benzene for ex-

ample) the risks are likely to be much greater, perhaps as

great as one fatality for every 100 persons. Environmentalists

conclude that the way economists present their findings is

too conservative. By treating everyone alike, they overlook

the real danger to particularly vulnerable people. Risk assess-

ment should not be used as an excuse for inaction.

Environmentalists have also criticized environmental

economics for its emphasis on economic growth without

considering the unintended side-effects. Economists need

to supplement estimates of the economic costs and benefits

of growth with estimates of the effects of that growth that

cannot be measured in economic terms. Many environmen-

talists also believe that the

burden of proof

should rest with

new technologies, in that they should not be allowed simply

because they advance material progress. In affluent societies

especially, economic expansion is not necessary.

Growth is promoted for many reasons to restore the

balance of payments, to make the nation more competitive,

to create jobs, to reduce the deficit, to provide for the old

and sick, and to lessen poverty. The public is encouraged to

focus on

statistics

on productivity, balance of payments,

and growth, while ignoring the obvious costs. Environmental

groups, on the other hand, have argued for a

steady-state

economy

in which population and per capita resource con-

sumption stabilize. It is an economy with a constant number

of people and goods, maintained at the lowest feasible flows

of matter and energy. Human services would play a large

480

role in a steady-state economy because they do not require

much energy or material throughput and yet contribute to

economic growth. Environmental clean-up and

energy con-

servation

also would contribute, since they add to economic

growth while also having a positive effect on the envi-

ronment.

Growth can continue, according to environmentalists,

but only if the forms of growth are carefully chosen. Free

time, in addition, would have to be a larger component of

an environmentally-acceptable future economy. Free time

removes people from potentially harmful production. It also

provides them with the time needed to implement alternative

production processes and techniques, including

organic

gardening

recycling

, public

transportation

, and home

and appliance maintenance for the purposes of energy

con-

servation

Another requirement of an environmentally acceptable

economy is that people accept a new frugality, a concept that

also has been labeled joyous austerity, voluntary simplicity,

and conspicuous frugality.

Economists represent the environment’s interaction

with the economy as a materials balance model. The produc-

tion sector, which consists of mines and factories, extracts

materials from nature and processes them into goods and

services. Transportation and distribution networks move and

store the finished products before they reach the point of

consumption. The environment provides the material inputs

needed to sustain economic activity and carries away the

wastes generated by it. People have long recognized that

nature is a source of material inputs to the economy, but

they have been less aware that the environment plays an

essential role as a receptacle for society’s unwanted by-prod-

ucts. Some wastes are recovered by recycling, but most are

absorbed by the environment. They are dumped in landfills,

treated in incinerators, and disposed of as ash. They end up

in the air, water, or

soil

The ultimate limits to economic growth do not come

only from the availability of raw materials from nature. Na-

ture’s limited capacities to absorb wastes also set a limit on

the economy’s ability to produce. Energy plays a role in

this process. It helps make food, forest products, chemicals,

petroleum

products, metals, and structural materials such

as stone, steel, and cement. It supports materials processing

by providing electricity, heating, and cooling services. It aids

in transportation and distribution. According to the law of

the conservation of energy, the material inputs and energy

that enter the economy cannot be destroyed. Rather they

change form, finding their way back to nature in a disorga-

nized state as unwanted and perhaps dangerous by-products.

Environmentalists use the laws of physics (the notion

of entropy) to show how society systematically dissipates low

entropy, highly concentrated forms of energy by converting it

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental education

to high entropy, little concentrated waste that cannot be

used again except at very high cost. They project current

resource use and

environmental degradation

into the fu-

ture to demonstrate that civilization is running out of critical

resources. The earth cannot tolerate additional contami-

nants. Human intervention in the form of technological

innovation and capital investment complemented by sub-

stantial human ingenuity and creativity is insufficient to

prevent this outcome unless drastic steps are taken soon.

Nearly every economic benefit has an environmental cost,

and the sum total of the costs in an affluent society often

exceed the benefits. The notion of

carrying capacity

used to show that the earth has a limited ability to tolerate

the disposal of contaminants and the depletion of resources.

Economists counter these claims by arguing that limits

to growth can be overcome by human ingenuity, that benefits

afforded by environmental protection have a cost, and that

government programs to clean up the environment are as

likely to fail as the market forces that produce pollution. The

traditional economic view is that production is a function of

labor and capital and, in theory, that resources are not neces-

sary since labor and/or capital are infinitely substitutable

for resources. Impending resource

scarcity

results in price

increases which lead to technological substitution of capital,

labor, or other resources for those that are in scarce supply.

Price increases also create pressures for efficiency-in-use,

leading to reduced consumption. Thus, resource scarcity is

reflected in the price of a given commodity. As resources

become scarce, their prices rise accordingly. Increases in price

induce substitution and technological innovation.

People turn to less scarce resources that fulfill the same

basic technological and economic needs provided by the

resources no longer available in large quantities. To a large

extent, the energy crises of the 1970s (the 1973 price shock

induced by the Arab

oil embargo

and 1979 price shock

following the Iranian Revolution) were alleviated by these

very processes: higher prices leading to the discovery of

additional supply and to conservation. By 1985, energy prices

in real terms were lower than they were in 1973.

Humans respond to signals about scarcity and degra-

dation. Extrapolating past consumption patterns into the

future without considering the human response is likely to

be a futile exercise, economists argue. As far back as the end

of the eighteenth century, thinkers such as Thomas Malthus

have made predictions about the limits to growth, but the

lesson of modern history is one of technological innovation

and substitution in response to price and other societal sig-

nals, not one of calamity brought about by resource exhaus-

tion. In general, the prices of

natural resources

have been

declining despite increased production and demand. Prices

have fallen because of discoveries of new resources and be-

cause of innovations in the extraction and refinement pro-

481

cess. See also Greenhouse effect; Trade in pollution permits;

Tragedy of the Commons

[Alfred A. Marcus]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Ekins, P., M. Hillman, and R. Hutchinson. The Gaia Atlas of Green Econom-

ics. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Kneese, A., R. Ayres, and R. D’Arge. Economics and the Environment: A

Materials Balance Approach. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future,

1970.

Marcus, A. A. Business and Society: Ethics, Government, and the World

Economy. Homewood, IL: Irwin Publishing, 1993.

ERIODICALS

Cropper, M. L., and W. E. Oates. “Environmental Economics.” Journal

of Economic Literature (June 1992): 675-740.

Environmental education

Environmental education is fast emerging as one of the most

important disciplines in the United States and in the world.

Merging the ideas and philosophy of

environmentalism

with the structure of formal education systems, it strives to

increase awareness of environmental problems as well as to

foster the skills and strategies for solving those problems.

Environmental issues have traditionally fallen to the state,

federal, and international policymakers, scientists, academ-

ics, and legal scholars. Environmental education (often re-

ferred to simply as “EE") shifts the focus to the general

population. In other words, it seeks to empower individuals

with an understanding of environmental problems and the

skills to solve them.

Background

The first seeds of environmental education were

planted roughly a century ago and are found in the works

of such writers as George Perkins Marsh,

John Muir

Henry

David Thoreau

, and

Aldo Leopold

. Their writings served

to bring the country’s attention to the depletion of

natural

resources

and the often detrimental impact of humans on

the

environment

. In the early 1900s, three related fields of

study arose that eventually merged to form the present-day

environmental education.

Nature

education expanded the teaching of biology,

botany, and other natural sciences out into the natural world,

where students learned through direct observation.

Conser-

vation

education took root in the 1930s, as the importance of

long-range, “wise use” management of resources intensified.

Numerous state and federal agencies were created to tend

public lands, and citizen organizations began forming in

earnest to protect a favored animal, park, river, or other

resource. Both governmental and citizen entities included

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental education

an educational component to spread their message to the

general public. Many states required their schools to adopt

conservation education as part of their curriculum. Teacher

training programs were developed to meet the increasing

demand. The Conservation Education Association formed

to consolidate these efforts and help solidify citizen support

for natural resource management goals. The third pillar of

modern EE is outdoor education, which refers more to the

method of teaching than to the subject taught. The idea is

to hold classrooms outdoors; the topics are not restricted

to environmental issues but includes art, music, and other

subjects.

With the burgeoning of industrial output and natural

resource depletion following World War II, people began

to glimpse the potential environmental disasters looming

ahead. The environmental movement exploded upon the

public agenda in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the

public reacted emotionally and vigorously to isolated envi-

ronmental crises and events. Yet it soon became clear that

the solution would involve nothing short of fundamental

changes in values, lifestyles, and individual behavior, and

that would mean a comprehensive educational approach.

In August 1970, the newly-created

Council on Envi-

ronmental Quality

called for a thorough discussion of the

role of education with respect to the environment. Two

months later, Congress passed the Environmental Education

Act, which called for EE programs to be incorporated in

all public school curricula. Although the act received little

funding in the following years, it energized EE proponents

and prompted many states to adopt EE plans for their

schools. In 1971, the National Association for Environmen-

tal Education formed, as did myriad of state and regional

groups.

Definition

What EE means depends on one’s perspective. Some

see it as a teaching method or philosophy to be applied to

all subjects, woven into the teaching of political science,

history, economics, and so forth. Others see it as a distinct

discipline, something to be taught on its own. As defined

by federal statute, it is the “education process dealing with

people’s relationships and their natural and manmade sur-

roundings, and includes the relation of population,

pollu-

tion

, resource allocation and depletion, conservation,

trans-

portation

, technology and urban and rural planning to the

total human environment.”

One of the early leaders of the movement is William

Stapp, a former professor at the University of Michigan’s

School of Natural Resources and the Environment. His

three-pronged definition has formed the basis for much

subsequent thought: “Environmental education is aimed at

producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the

biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware

482

of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work

toward their solution.”

Many environmental educators believe that programs

covering kindergarten through twelfth grade are necessary

to successfully instill an environmental ethic in students and

a comprehensive understanding of environmental issues so

that they are prepared to deal with environmental problems

in the real world. Further, an emphasis is placed on problem-

solving, action, and informed behavioral changes. In its

broadest sense, EE is not confined to public schools but

includes efforts by governments, interest groups, universities,

and news media to raise awareness. Each citizen should

understand the environmental issues of his or her own com-

munity: land-use planning, traffic congestion, economic de-

velopment plans,

pesticide

use,

water pollution

and

air

pollution

, and so on.

International level

Concurrently with the emergence of EE in this coun-

try, other nations began pushing for a comprehensive ap-

proach to environmental problems within their own borders

and on a global scale. In 1972, at the

United Nations Con-

ference on the Human Environment

in Stockholm, the

need for an international EE effort was clearly recognized

and emphasized. Three years later, an International Environ-

mental Education Workshop was held in Belgrade, from

which emerged an eloquent, urgent mandate for the drastic

reordering of national and international development poli-

cies. The “Belgrade Charter” called for an end to the military

arms race and a new global ethic in which “no nation should

grow or develop at the expense of another nation.” It called

for the eradication of poverty, hunger, illiteracy, pollution,

exploitation, and domination. Central to this impassioned

plea for a better world was the need for environmental educa-

tion of the world’s youth. That same year, the UN approved

a $2 million budget to facilitate the research, coordination,

and development of an international EE program among

dozens of nations.

Effectiveness

There has been criticism over the last 15 years that

EE too often fails to educate students and makes little differ-

ence in their behavior concerning the environment. Re-

searchers and environmental educators have formulated a

basic framework for how to improve EE: 1) Reinforce indi-

viduals for positive environmental behavior over an extended

period of time. 2) Provide students with positive, informal

experiences outdoors to enhance their “environmental sensi-

tivity.” 3) Focus instruction on the concepts of “ownership”

and “empowerment.” The first concept means that the

learner has some personal interest or investment in the envi-

ronmental issues being discussed. Perhaps the student can

relate more readily to concepts of

solid waste

disposal if

there is a

landfill

in the neighborhood. Empowerment gives

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental enforcement

learners the sense that they can make changes and help

resolve environmental problems. 4) Design an exercise in

which students thoroughly investigate an environmental is-

sue and then develop a plan for citizen action to address the

issue, complete with an analysis of the social, cultural, and

ecological consequences of the action.

Despite the efforts of environmental educators, the

movement has a long way to go. The scope and number of

critical environmental problems facing the world today far

outweigh the successes of EE. Further, most countries still

do not have a comprehensive EE program that prepares

them, as future citizens, to make ecologically sound choices

and to participate in cleaning up and caring for the environ-

ment. Lastly, educators, including the media, are largely

focused on explaining the problems but fall short on ex-

plaining or offering possible solutions. The notion of “em-

powerment” is often absent.

Recent developments and successes in the United

States

Project WILD, based in Boulder, Colorado, is a K–

12 supplementary conservation and environmental education

program emphasizing

wildlife

protection, sponsored by fish

and wildlife agencies and environmental educators. The proj-

ect sets up workshops in which teachers learn about wildlife

issues. They in turn teach children and help students under-

stand how they can act responsibly on behalf of wildlife and

the environment. The program, begun in 1983, has grown

tremendously in terms of the number of educators reached

and the monetary support from states, which, combined, are

spending about $3.6 million annually.

The Global Rivers Environmental Education Network

(GREEN), begun at the University of Michigan under the

guidance of William Stapp, has likewise been enormously

successful, perhaps more so. Teachers all over the world take

their students down to their local river and show them how

to monitor

water quality

, analyze

watershed

usage, and

identify socioeconomic sources of river degradation. Lastly,

and most importantly, the students then present their find-

ings and recommendations to the local officials. These stu-

dents also exchange information with other GREEN stu-

dents around the world via computers.

Another promising development is the National Con-

sortium for Environmental Education and Training

(NCEET), also based at the University of Michigan. The

partnership of academic institutions, non-profit organiza-

tions, and corporations, NCEET was established in 1992

with a three-year, $4.8 million grant from the

Environmen-

tal Protection Agency

(EPA). Its main purpose is to dra-

matically improve the effectiveness of environmental educa-

tion in the United States. The program has attacked its

mission from several angles: to function as a national clear-

inghouse for K–12 teachers, to make available top-quality

483

EE materials for teachers, to conduct research on effective

approaches to EE, to survey and assess the EE needs of all 50

states, to establish a computer network for teachers needing

access to information and resources, and to develop a teacher

training manual for conducting EE workshops around the

country.

[Cathryn McCue]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Gerston, R. Just Open the Door: A Complete Guide to Experiencing Environ-

mental Education. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1983.

Swan, M. “Forerunners of Environmental Education.” In What Makes

Education Environmental?, edited by N. McInnis and D. Albrect. Louisville,

KY: Data Courier and Environmental Educators, 1975.

ERIODICALS

Hungerford, H. R., and T. L. Volk. “Changing Learner Behavior Through

Environmental Education.” Journal of Environmental Education 21 (Spring

1990): 8-21.

“The Belgrade Charter.” Connect: Unesco-UNEP Environmental Education

Newsletter 1 (January 1976).

Environmental enforcement

Environmental enforcement is the set of actions that a gov-

ernment takes to achieve full implementation of environ-

mental requirements (compliance) within the regulated com-

munity and to correct or halt situations or activities that

endanger the

environment

or public health. Experience

with environmental programs has shown that enforcement is

essential to compliance because many people and institutions

will not comply with a law unless there are clear consequences

for noncompliance. Enforcement by the government usually

includes inspections to determine the compliance status of

the regulated community and to detect violations; negotia-

tions with individuals or facility managers who are out of

compliance to develop mutually agreeable schedules and ap-

proaches for achievement of compliance; legal action when

necessary to compel compliance and to impose some conse-

quences for violation of the law or for posing a threat to

public health and the environment; and compliance promo-

tion, such as educational programs, technical assistance, and

subsidies, to encourage voluntary compliance.

Nongovernmental groups may become involved in en-

forcement by detecting noncompliance, negotiating with vi-

olators, and commenting on governmental enforcement ac-

tions. They may also, if the law allows, take legal actions

against a violator for noncompliance or against the govern-

ment for not enforcing environmental requirements. The

banking and insurance industries may be indirectly involved

with enforcement by requiring assurance of compliance with

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental enforcement

environmental requirements before they issue a loan or an

insurance policy to a facility. Strong social sanctions for

noncompliance with environmental requirements can also

be effective to ensure compliance. For example, the public

may choose to boycott a product if they believe the manufac-

turer is harming the environment.

Environmental enforcement is based on environmen-

tal laws. An

environmental law

provides the vision, scope,

and authority for environmental protection and restoration.

Some environmental laws contain requirements while others

specify a structure and criteria for establishing requirements,

which are then developed separately. Requirements may be

general, in which they apply to a group of facilities, or

facility-specific.

Examples of environmental enforcement programs in-

clude those that govern the ambient environment, perform-

ance, technology, work practices, dissemination of informa-

tion and product or use bans.

Ambient standards (media quality standard) are goals

for the quality of the ambient environment (that is, air and

water quality

). Ambient standards are usually written in

units of concentration, and they are used to plan the levels

of emissions that can be accommodated from individual

sources while still meeting an area-wide goal. Ambient stan-

dards can also be used as triggers, i.e., when a standard is

exceeded, monitoring or enforcement efforts are increased.

Enforcement of these standards involves relating an ambient

measurement to emissions or activities at a specific facility,

which can be difficult.

Performance standards, widely used for regulations,

permits, and monitoring requirements, limit the amount or

rate of particular

chemicals

or discharges that a facility can

release into the environment in a given period of time. These

standards allow sources to choose which technologies they

will use to meet the standards. Performance standards are

often based on output that can be achieved by using the

best available control technology

. Some standards allow

a source with multiple emissions to vary its emissions from

each stack as long as the total sum of emissions does not

exceed the permitted total. Compliance with

emission stan-

dards

is accomplished by sampling and monitoring, which

in some cases may be difficult and/or expensive.

Technology standards require the regulated commu-

nity to use a particular type of technology (i.e., “best available

technology") to control and/or monitor emissions. Technol-

ogy standards are effective if the equipment specified is

known to perform well under the range of conditions experi-

enced by the source. Compliance is measured by whether

the equipment is installed and operating properly. However,

proper operation over a long period of time is more difficult

to monitor. The use of technology standards can inhibit

technological innovation.

484

Practice standards require or prohibit work activities

that may have environmental impacts (e.g., prohibition of

carrying hazardous liquids in uncovered containers). Regula-

tors can easily inspect for compliance and take action against

noncomplying sources, but ongoing compliance is not easy

to ensure.

Dissemination of information and product or use bans

are also governed by environmental enforcement programs.

Information standards require a source of potential

pollution

(e.g., a manufacturer or facility involved in generating, trans-

porting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes)

to develop and submit information to the government. For

example, a source generating pollution may be required to

monitor, maintain records, and report on the level of pollu-

tion generated and whether or not the source exceeds per-

formance standards. Information requirements are also used

when a potential pollution source is a product such as a new

chemical or

pesticide

. The manufacturer may be required

to test and report on the potential of the product to cause

harm if released into the environment. Finally, product or

use bans are used to prohibit a product (i.e., ban the manufac-

ture, sale, and/or use of a product) or they may prohibit

particular uses of a product.

An effective environmental law should include the

authority or power necessary for its own enforcement. An

effective authority should govern implementation of envi-

ronmental requirements, inspection, and monitoring of facil-

ities, and legal sanctions for noncompliance. One type of

authority that is used is guidance for the implementation

of environmental laws by issuance of regulations, permits,

licenses, and/or guidance policies. Regulations establish, in

greater detail than is specified by law, general requirements

that must be met by the regulated community. Some regula-

tions are directly enforced while others provide criteria and

procedures for developing facility-specific requirements uti-

lizing permits and licenses to provide the basis of enforce-

ment. Permits are used to control activities related to con-

struction or operation of facilities that generate pollutants.

Requirements in permits are based on specific criteria estab-

lished in laws, regulations, and/or guidance. General permits

specify what a class of facilities is required to do, while a

facility-specific permit specifies requirements for a particular

facility, often taking into account the conditions there. Li-

censes are permits to manufacture, test, sell, and/or distribute

a product that may pose an environmental or public health

risk if improperly used. Licenses may be general or facility-

specific. Written guidance and policies, which are prepared

by the regulator, are used to interpret and implement require-

ments to ensure consistency and fairness. Guidance may be

necessary because not all applications of requirements can

be anticipated, or when regulation is achieved by the use of

facility-specific permits or licenses.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental engineering

Authority is also required to provide for inspection

and monitoring of facilities, with legal sanctions for noncom-

pliance. Requirements may either be waived or prepared

for facility-specific conditions. The authority will inspect

regulated facilities and gain access to their records and equip-

ment to determine if they are in compliance.

Authority is necessary to ensure that the regulated

community monitors its own compliance, maintains records

of its compliance activities and status, reports this informa-

tion periodically to the enforcement program, and provides

information during inspections.

An effective law should also include the authority to

take legal action against noncomplying facilities, imposing

a range of monetary penalties and other sanctions on facilities

that violate the law, as well as criminal sanctions on those

facilities or individuals who deliberately violate the law (e.g.,

facilities that knowingly falsify data). Also, power should be

granted to correct situations that pose an immediate and

substantial threat to public health and/or the environment.

The range and types of environmental enforcement

response mechanisms available depend on the number and

types of authorities provided to the enforcement program

by environmental and related laws. Enforcement mecha-

nisms may be designed to return violators to compliance,

impose a sanction, or remove the economic benefits of non-

compliance. Enforcement may require that specific actions

be taken to test, monitor, or provide information. Enforce-

ment may also correct environmental damages and modify

internal company management problems.

Enforcement response mechanisms include informal

responses such as phone calls, site visits and inspections,

warning letters, and notices of violations, which are more

formal than warning letters. They provide the facility man-

ager with a description of the violation, what should be done

to correct it, and by what date. Informal responses do not

penalize but can lead to more severe responses if ignored.

The more formal enforcement mechanisms are backed by

law and are accompanied by procedural requirements to

protect the rights of the individual. Authority to use formal

enforcement mechanisms for a specific situation must be

provided in the applicable environmental law. Civil adminis-

trative orders are legal, independently enforceable orders

issued directly by enforcement program officials that define

the violation, provide evidence of the violation, and require

the recipient to correct the violation within a specified time

period. If the recipient violates the order, program managers

can take further legal action using additional orders or the

court system to force compliance with the order.

Further legal action includes the use of field citations,

which are administrative orders issued by inspectors in the

field. They require the violator to correct a clear-cut violation

and pay a small monetary fine. Field citations are used to

485

handle more routine types of violations that do not pose a

major threat to the environment. Legal action may also

lead to civil judicial enforcement actions, which are formal

lawsuits before the courts. These actions are used to require

action to reduce immediate threats to public health or the

environment, to enforce administrative orders that have been

violated, and to make final decisions regarding orders that

have been appealed. Finally, a criminal judicial response is

used when a person or facility has knowingly and willfully

violated the law or has committed a violation for which

society has chosen to impose the most serious legal sanctions

available. This response involves criminal sanction, which

may include monetary penalties and imprisonment. The

criminal response is the most difficult type of enforcement,

requiring intensive investigation and case development, but

it can also create a significant deterrence.

Environmental enforcement must include processes to

balance the rights of individuals with the government’s need

to act quickly. A notice of violation should be issued before

any action is taken so that the finding of violation can be

contested, or so that the violation can be corrected before

further government action. Appeals should be allowed at

several stages in the enforcement process so that the finding

of violation, the required remedial action, or the severity of

the proposed sanction can be reviewed. There should also

be dispute resolution processes for negotiations between pro-

gram officials and the violator, which may include face-to-

face discussions, presentations before a judge or hearing

examiner, or use of third party mediators, arbitrators, or

facilitators.

[Judith Sims]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Wasserman, C. E. Principles of Environmental Enforcement. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.

Environmental engineering

The development of environmental engineering as a disci-

pline is a reflection of the modern need to maintain public

health by providing safe drinking water and

sanitation

, and

by treating and disposing of sewage,

municipal solid waste

and

pollution

. Originally, sanitary engineering, a limited

subdiscipline of civil engineering, performed some of these

functions. But with the growth of concern for protecting

the

environment

and the passage of laws regulating disposal

of wastes, environmental engineering has grown into a dis-

crete discipline encompassing a wide range of activities in-

cluding: “proper disposal or

recycling

wastewater

and

solid wastes, adequate

drainage

of urban and rural areas

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental engineering

for proper sanitation, control of water,

soil

and atmospheric

pollution and the social and environmental impact of these

solutions.” Education for environmental engineers requires

that they be “well informed concerning engineering problems

in the field of public health, such as control of insect-borne

diseases, the elimination of industrial health hazards, and

the provision of adequate sanitation in urban, rural and

recreational areas, and the effect of technological advance

on the environment.” More broadly environmental engi-

neering is defined by W. E. Gilbertson as “that branch

of engineering which is concerned with the application of

scientific principles to (1) the protection of human popula-

tions from the effects of adverse environmental factors, (2)

the protection of environments, both local and global, from

the potentially deleterious effects of human activities, and

(3) the improvement of environmental quality of man’s

health and well-being.”

The American Academy of Environmental Engineers

(AAEE) has defined environmental engineering as “the ap-

plication of engineering principles to the management of

the environment for the protection of human health; for the

protection of nature’s beneficial ecosystems and for environ-

ment-related enhancement of the quality of human life.”

Degree-granting institutions in the United States do

not necessarily consider environmental engineering as a sepa-

rate discipline. A report by the U. S. Engineering Manpower

Commission found that only 192 baccalaureate environmen-

tal engineering degrees were granted in 1988; however C.

Robert Baillod estimates that at least 10% of the 8,800 annual

graduates from baccalaureate civil engineering programs are

educated to function as environmental engineers. If similar

estimates are made for chemical, mechanical, geological and

other engineers who function as environmental engineers,

1,000–2,000 graduates are entering the profession each year.

Data collected by Baillod indicate that the supply of environ-

mental engineers will satisfy half the demand for 2,000–

5,000 new environmental engineering graduates per year for

the next decade.

From 1970 to 1985, an increasing number of environ-

mental statutes passed at the federal and state level in the

United States while parallel legislation was being established

internationally to regulate and control environmental pollu-

tion. In the United States, the establishment of the

Compre-

hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act

(CERCLA)—known as Superfund for short—

has provided the impetus for significant activity in

remedia-

tion

as well as providing industries and municipalities with

incentives (such as liability for environmental damage) to

clean up and avoid pollution. In order to comply with envi-

ronmental laws and also to maintain good business practice,

corporations are including impacts on the environment in

planning for their process engineering. A serious potential

486

for fines or costly liability suits exists if the design of processes

is not carefully conducted with environmental safeguards.

In addition to employment by the private sector, state

and federal governments also employ environmental engi-

neers. The primary function of environmental engineers in

government is research and development for implementation

of regulations and their enforcement. At the federal level,

agencies such as the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), as well as the Departments of Commerce, Energy,

Interior and Agriculture, employ environmental engineers.

Environmental engineering is proving crucial in ad-

dressing an array of environmental needs. Techniques re-

cently conceived by environmental engineers include:

The development of an oil-absorbing, floating sponge-like

material as a re-usable first response material for remediat-

ing

oil spills

on open bodies of water.

Design and operation of a plant to process electrolytic

plating wastes collected from a large urban area to

reuse

the metals and detoxify the cyanide as a means of avoiding

the discharges of these wastes into the sewer system.

Development of a process for reusing the

lead

, zinc, and

cadmium

which would otherwise be lost as a fume in the

remelting of automotive scrap to form steel products.

Use of naturally-occurring bacterial agents in cleanup of

underground aquifers contaminated by prior discharges of

creosote, a substance used to preserve wood products.

Development of processes for removal of and destruction

of PCBs and other hazardous organic agents from spills

into soil.

Development of sensing techniques which enable tracing

of pollution to point sources and the determination of the

degree of pollution which has occurred for application of

legal remedies.

Development of process design and control instrumenta-

tion in nuclear reactors to prevent, contain and avoid nu-

clear releases.

Design and development of

feedlots

for animals in which

the waste products are made into reusable agricultural

products.

Development of sterilization,

incineration

and gas cleanup

systems for treatment of hospital wastes.

Certification of properties to verify the absence of factors

which would make new owners liable to environmental

litigation (for example, absence of

asbestos

, absence of

underground storage tanks for hazardous material)s.

Redesign of existing chemical plants to recycle or eliminate

waste streams.

Development of processes for recycling wastes (for exam-

ple, processes for de-inking and reuse of newsprint or reuse

of plastics).