Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental law

(NAFTA) could not be submitted to Congress for approval

until the Clinton Administration had filed an EIS on the

treaty. The controversy over whether an EIS should be re-

quired for NAFTA is a good example of the battle between

those who want to extend the range of the EIS and those

who want to limit it, as well as the practical problems with

positions held by both sides.

Environmentalists fear the consequences of free trade

in North America, particularly free trade with Mexico. They

believe that most industries would not take any precautions

about the environment unless they were forced to observe

them. Environmental protection in Mexico, when it exists, is

corrupt and inefficient; if NAFTA is approved by Congress,

many believe that businesses in the United States will move

south of the border to escape environmental regulations.

This could have devastating consequences for the environ-

ment in Mexico, as well as an adverse impact on the United

States economy. It is also possible that an extensive economic

downturn, if perceived to be the result of such relocations,

could affect the future of environmental regulation in this

country as the United States begins to compete with Mexico

over the incentives it can offer industry.

Opponents of the decision to require an EIS for

NAFTA insist that such a document would be almost impos-

sible to compile. The statement would have to be enormously

complex; it would have to consider a range of economic

as well as environmental factors, projecting the course of

economic development in Mexico before predicting the im-

pact on the environment. Extending the range of impact

statements and the NEPA would cause the same expensive

delays for this treaty that these statutes have caused for

projects within the United States, and critics have focused

mainly on the effect such an extension would have on our

international competitiveness. They argue that this decision,

if upheld, could have broad ramifications for American for-

eign policy. An EIS could be required for every treaty the

government signs with another country, including negotia-

tions over fishing rights, arms control treaties, and other

trade agreements. Foreign policy decisions could then be

subject to extensive litigation over the adequacy of the EIS

filed by the appropriate agency. Many environmentalists

would view this as a positive development, but others believe

it could prevent us from assuming a leadership role in inter-

national affairs.

Carol Browner

, the former chief administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), announced that

the agency was determined to reduce some of the difficulties

of complying with environmental regulations. She was espe-

cially concerned with increasing efficiency and limiting the

delays and uncertainties for business. But whatever changes

she was able to make, the process of compiling an EIS will

never seem cost effective to business, at least in the short

497

term, and the controversy over these statements continues.

See also Economic growth and the environment; Environ-

mental auditing; Environmental economics; Environmental

impact assessment; Environmental Monitoring and Assess-

ment Program; Environmental policy; Life-cycle assess-

ment; Risk analysis; Sustainable development

[Douglas Smith]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

Burck, C. “Surprise Judgement on NAFTA.” Fortune 128 (July 26,

1993): 12.

Davies, J. “Suit Threatens Washington State Industry.” Journal of Commerce

390 (October 21, 1991): 9A.

Dentzer, S. “Hasta la Vista in Court, Baby.” U.S. News and World Report

115 (12 July 1993): 47.

Ember, L. “EPA’s Browner to Take Holistic Approach to Environmental

Protection.” Chemical and Engineering News 71 (1 March 1993): 19.

Gregory, R., R. Keeney, and D. von Wintervelt. “Adapting the Environ-

mental Impact Statement Process to Inform Decisionmakers.” Journal of

Policy Analysis and Management (Winter 1992): 58.

Environmental labeling

see

Blue Angel; Eco Mark; Green Cross;

Green Seal

Environmental law

Environmental law has been defined as the law of planetary

housekeeping. It is concerned with protecting the planet

and its people from activities that upset the earth and its

life-sustaining capabilities, and it is aimed at controlling or

regulating human activity toward that end.

Until the 1960s, most environmental legal issues in

the United States involved efforts to protect and conserve

natural resources

, such as forests and water. Public debate

focused on who had the right to develop and manage those

resources. In the succeeding decades, lawyers, legislators and

environmental activists increasingly turned their attention

to the growing and pervasive problem of

pollution

. In both

instances, environmental law—a term not coined until

1969—evolved mostly from a grassroots movement that

forced Congress to pass sweeping legislation, much of which

contained provisions for citizen suits. As a result, the courts

were thrust into a new era of judicial review of the adminis-

trative processes and of scientific uncertainty.

Initially, environmental law formed around the princi-

ples of common law, which is law created by courts and

judges that rests upon a foundation of judicial precedents.

However, environmental law soon moved into the arena of

administrative and legislative law, which encompasses most

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental law

of today’s environmental law. The following discussion looks

at both areas of law, reviews some of the basic issues involved

in environmental law, and outlines some landmark cases.

Generally speaking, common law is based on the no-

tion that one party has done harm to another, in legal terms

called a tort. There are three broad types of torts, all of

which have been applied in environmental law with varying

degrees of success. Trespass is the physical invasion of one’s

property, which has been interpreted to include situations

such as

air pollution

runoff

of liquid wastes, or contamina-

tion of

groundwater

Closely associated with trespass are the torts of private

and public nuisance. Private nuisance is interference with

the use of one’s property. Environmental examples include

noise pollution

, odors and other air pollution, and

water

pollution

. The operation of a

hazardous waste

site fits

the bill for private nuisance, where the threat of personal

discomfort or disease interferes with the enjoyment of one’s

home. A public nuisance adversely affects the safety or health

of the public or causes substantial annoyance or inconve-

nience to the public. In these situations, the courts tend to

balance the plaintiff’s interest against the social and economic

need for the defendant’s activity.

Lastly, negligence involves the defendant’s conduct. To

prove negligence it must be shown that the defendant was

obligated to exercise due care, that the defendant breached

that duty, that the plaintiff suffered actual loss or damages,

and that there is a reasonable connection between the defen-

dant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.

These common law remedies have not been very effec-

tive in protecting the overall quality of our

environment

The lawsuits and resulting decisions were fragmented and

site specific as opposed to issue oriented. Further, they rely

heavily on a level of hard scientific evidence that is elusive

in environmental issues. For instance, a trespass action must

be based on a somehow visible or tangible invasion, which

is difficult if not impossible to prove in pollution cases.

Common law presents other barriers to action. Plaintiffs

must prove actual physical injury (so-called “aesthetic in-

juries” don’t count) and a causal relationship to the plaintiff’s

activity, which again, is a difficult task in environmental

issues.

In the early 1970s, environmental groups, aided by

the media, focused public attention on the broad scope of

the environmental crisis, and Congress reacted. It passed a

host of comprehensive laws, including amendments to the

Clean Air Act

(CAA), the

Endangered Species Act

(ESA),

the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), the

Re-

source Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and others. These

laws, or statutes, are implemented by federal agencies, who

498

gain their authority through “organic acts” passed by Con-

gress or by executive order.

As environmental problems grew more complicated,

legislators and judges increasingly deferred to the agencies’

expertise on issues such as the health risk from airborne

lead

, the threshold at which a

species

should be considered

endangered, or the engineering aspects of a hazardous waste

incinerator. Environmental and legal activists then shifted

their focus toward administrative law—challenging agency

discretion and procedure as opposed to specific regulations—

in order to be heard. Hence, most environmental law today

falls into the administrative category.

Most environmental statutes provide for administra-

tive appeals by which interest groups may challenge agency

decisions through the agency hierarchy. If no solution is

reached, the federal Administrative Procedures Act provides

that any person aggrieved by an agency decision is entitled

to judicial review.

The court must first grant the plaintiff “standing,” the

right to be a party to legal action against an agency. Under

this doctrine, plaintiffs must show they have been injured

or harmed in some way. The court must then decide the

level of judicial review based on one of three issues—inter-

pretation of applicable statutes, factual basis of agency action,

and agency procedure—and apply a different level of scrutiny

in each instance.

Generally, courts are faced with five basic questions

when reviewing agency action: Is the action or decision

constitutional? Did the agency exceed its statutory authority

or jurisdiction? Did if follow legal procedure? Is the decision

supported by substantial evidence in the record? Is the deci-

sion arbitrary or capricious? Depending on the answers, the

court may uphold the decision, modify it, remand or send

it back to the agency to redo or reverse it.

By far the most important statute that cracked open

the administrative process to judicial review is NEPA. Passed

in 1969, the law requires all agencies to prepare an

Environ-

mental Impact Statement

(EIS) for all major federal ac-

tions, including construction projects and issuing permits.

Environmental groups have used this law repeatedly to force

agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their

actions, attacking various procedural aspects of EIS prepara-

tion. For example, they often claim that a given agency failed

to consider alternative actions to the proposed one, which

might reduce environmental impact.

In filing a lawsuit, plaintiffs might seek an injunction

against a certain action, say, to stop an industry from dump-

ing toxic waste into a river, or stop work on a public project

such as a dam or a timber sale that they claim causes environ-

mental damage. They might seek compensatory damages to

make up for a loss of property or for health costs, for instance,

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental Law Institute

and punitive damages, money awards above and beyond

repayment of actual losses.

Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. (1970) is a classic com-

mon law nuisance case. The neighbors of a large cement

plant claimed they had incurred property damage from dirt,

smoke

and vibrations. They sued for compensatory damages

and to enjoin or stop the polluting activities, which would

have meant shutting down the plant, a mainstay of the local

economy. The New York court rejected a long-standing

practice and denied the injunction. Further, in an unusual

move, the court ordered the company to pay the plaintiffs

for present and future economic loss to their properties. A

dissenting judge said the rule was a virtual license for the

company to continue the nuisance so long as it paid for it.

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972) opened the way for envi-

ronmental groups to act on behalf of the public interest, and

nature

, in the courtroom. The

Sierra Club

challenged

the U.S. Forest Service’s approval of Walt Disney Enter-

prises’ plan to build a $35 million complex of motels, restau-

rants, swimming pools and ski facilities that would accom-

modate up to 14,000 visitors daily in Mineral King Valley,

a remote, relatively undeveloped national game refuge in the

Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. The case posed the

now-famous question: Do trees have standing? The Supreme

Court held that the Sierra Club was not “injured in fact” by

the development and therefore did not have standing. The

Sierra Club reworded its petition, gained standing and

stopped the development.

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) estab-

lished the so-called “hard look” test to which agencies must

adhere even during informal rule making. It opened the way

for more intense judicial review of the administrative record

to determine if an agency had made a “clear error of judg-

ment.” The plaintiffs, local residents and conservationists,

sued to stop the U.S. Department of

Transportation

from

approving a six-lane interstate through a public park in

Memphis, Tennessee. The court found that Secretary Volpe

had not carefully reviewed the facts on record before making

his decision and had not examined possible alternative routes

around the park. The case was sent back to the agency, and

the road was never built.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978) was the first

major test of the

Endangered Species

Act and gained the

tiny

snail darter

fish fame throughout the land. The Su-

preme Court authorized an injunction against completion

of a multi-million dollar dam in Tennessee because it threat-

ened the snail darter, an endangered species. The court

balanced the act against the money that had already been

spent and ruled that Congress’s intent in protecting endan-

gered species was paramount.

Just v. Marinette County (1972) involved

wetlands

the

public trust

doctrine and private property rights. The

499

plaintiffs claimed that the county’s ordinance against filling

in wetlands on their land was unconstitutional, and that

the restrictions amounted to taking their property without

compensation. The county argued it was exercising its nor-

mal police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare

of citizens by protecting its

water resources

through zoning

measures. The Wisconsin appellate court ruled in favor of

the defendant, holding that the highest and best use of land

does not always equate to monetary value, but includes the

natural value. The opinion reads, “...we think it is not an

unreasonable exercise of that [police] power to prevent harm

to public rights by limiting the use of private property to its

natural uses.”

Although some progress was made in curbing

envi-

ronmental degradation

through environmental law in the

1970s, environmental legislation was significantly weakened

by the Supreme Court in the 1980s.

[Cathryn McCue]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Anderson, F., D. R. Mandelker, and A. D. Tarlock. Environmental Protec-

tion: Law and Policy. New York: Little, Brown, 1984.

Findley, R., and D. Farber. Environmental Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul,

MN: West Publishing Co., 1988.

Plater, Z., R. Abrams, and W. Goldfarb. Environmental Law and Policy:

Nature, Law and Society. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1992.

Environmental Law Institute

Environmental Law

Institute (ELI) is an independent re-

search and education center involved in developing environ-

mental laws and policies at both national and international

levels. The institute was founded in 1969 by the Public Law

Education Institute and the Conservation Foundation to

conduct and promote research on environmental law. In

the ensuing years it has maintained a strong and effective

presence in forums ranging from college courses to law con-

ferences. For example, ELI has organized instructional

courses at universities for both federal and non-governmental

agencies. In addition, it has sponsored conferences in con-

junction with such bodies as the American Bar Association,

the American Law Institute, and the Smithsonian Institute.

Within the field of environmental law, ELI provides

a range of educational programs and services. In 1991, for

instance, the institute helped develop an environmental law

course for practicing judges in the New England area.

Through funding and endowments, the institute has since

managed to expand this particular judicial education program

into other regions. A similar program enables ELI to offer

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental liability

training courses to federal judges currently serving in district,

circuit, and even bankruptcy courts.

ELI also offers various workshops to the general pub-

lic. In New Jersey, the institute provided a course designed

to guide citizens through the state’s environmental laws and

thus enable them to better develop pollution-prevention pro-

grams in their communities. Broader

right-to-know

guid-

ance has since been provided—in collaboration with the

World Wildlife Fund

—at the international level.

ELI’s endeavors at the federal level include various

interactions with the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). The two groups worked together to develop the

National

Wetlands

Protection Hotline, which answers pub-

lic inquiries on wetlands protection and regulation, and to

assess the dangers of exposure to various pollutants.

Since its inception, ELI has evolved into a formidable

force in the field of environmental law. In 1991, it drafted

a statute to address the continuing problem of

lead poison-

ing

in children. The institute has also worked—in conjunc-

tion with federal and private groups, including scientists,

bankers, and even realtors—to address health problems at-

tributable to

radon

gas.

ELI has compiled and produced several publications.

Among the leading ELI books are Law of Environmental

Protection, a two-volume handbook (updated annually) on

pollution control

law, and Practical Guide to Environmental

Management, a resource book on worker health and safety.

In addition, ELI has worked with the EPA in producing

Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment.

The institute’s principal periodical is Environmental Law

Reporter, which provides analysis and coverage of topics

ranging from courtroom decisions to regulation develop-

ments. ELI also publishes Environmental Forum—a policy

journal intended primarily for individuals in environmental

law, policy, and management—and National Wetlands News-

letter, which reports on ensuing developments—legal, scien-

tific, regulatory—related to wetlands management.

[Les Stone]

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

Environmental Law Institute, 1616 P St., NW, Suite 200, Washington,

D.C. USA 20036 (202) 939-3800, Fax: (202) 939-3868, Email:

law@eli.org, <http://www.eli.org>

Environmental liability

Environmental liability refers primarily to the civil and crimi-

nal responsibility in the environmental issues of hazardous

substances that threaten to endanger public health. Compli-

ance with the standards issued by the U.S.

Environmental

500

Protection Agency

(EPA) became a major issue following

the December 11, 1980 enactment by Congress of the origi-

nal

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-

sation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA). In 1986, the

Su-

perfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

(SARA)

provided an amendment to CERCLA. The initial legislation

created a tax on chemical and

petroleum

companies, and

gave the federal government authority to handle the releases

or threatened releases of the

hazardous waste

. That tax

created $1.6 billion over the first five years of the act, put

into a trust fund that would cover the costs of cleaning up

abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. When

“Superfund” was created, changes to the original legislation,

as well as additions, were made that reflected the experience

gained from the first years of administering the program. It

also raised the trust fund to $8.5 billion.

The complex issue of liability was made more complex

following 1986 when regulations increased state involve-

ment, and encouraged greater citizen participation in the

decisions of site cleanup. In addition to the civil liability of

claims due to federal, state, and local governments, a possibil-

ity of criminal liability emerged as a matter of particular

concern. As those who might be responsible, CERCLA

defines four categories of individuals and corporations

against whom judgment could be rendered, referred to as

potentially responsible parties (PRPs):

current owners or operators of a specific piece of real estate

past owners if they owned or operated the property at the

time of the hazardous contamination

generators and possessors of hazardous substances who

arranged for disposal, treatment, or transport

certain transporters of hazardous substances

In acting under EPA-expanded powers, some states

have provided exemptions from liability in certain cases. For

example, the state of Wisconsin has provided that the person

responsible for the

discharge

of a hazardous substance is

the one who is required to report it, investigate, it and clean

up the contamination. According to Wisconsin Department

Natural Resources

information, the state defines the

responsible person as the one who “causes, possesses, or

controls” the contamination—the one who owns the prop-

erty with a contaminant discharge or owns a container that

has ruptured. Other Wisconsin exemptions include limiting

liability for parties who voluntarily remediate contaminated

property; limiting liability for lenders and representatives,

such as banks, credit unions, mortgage bankers, and similar

financial institutions, or insurance companies, pension funds

or government agencies engaged in secured lending; limiting

liability for local government units; and, limiting liability for

property affected by off-site discharge.

Courts have also acted in finding persons responsible

not specifically listed as PRPs:

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental literacy and ecocriticism

lessees of contaminated property

lessors of the contaminated property for contamination

caused by their lessees

Landlords and lessees for the contamination cause by their

sub-lessees

corporate officers in their personal capacity

shareholders

parent corporations liable for their subsidiaries

trustees and personal representatives personally liable for

contaminated property owned by a trust or estate

successor corporation

donees

lenders who foreclose on and subsequently manage con-

taminated property

In an environmentally aware, health-conscious society,

both in America and throughout the world, environmental

liability continues into the early twenty-first century to be

a matter of grave concern not only with land, but also in

maritime issues.

[Jane E. Spear]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

American Insurance Association. Asbestos and Environmental Liability.

[cited June 2002]. <http://www.aiadc.org/IndustryIssues/Asbestos/>.

Amos, Bruce. “A Free Market for Environmental Liability.” Pollution Engi-

neering Online 1998 [June 2002]. <http://www.pollutionengineering.com>.

Battelle. Managing Corporate Environmental Liability. 2001 [June 2002].

<http://www.battelle.org/Environment>.

Environmental Liability. 1993 [cited July 2002]. <http://www.law-

text.com>.

Goldstein, Michael R., and Howard D. Rosen. “Environmental Liability

in the 90s.” Asset Protection News 2, no. 3 (April/May 1993).

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Liability Ex-

emptions. April 12, 2002 [June 2002]. <http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org>.

RGANIZATIONS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC USA 20460 202-260-2090, , <http://www.epa.gov>

Environmental literacy and

ecocriticism

Environmental literacy and ecocriticism refer to the work

of educators, scholars, and writers to foster a critical under-

standing about environmental issues. Environmental literacy

includes educational materials and programs designed to

provide lay citizens and students with a broad understanding

of the relationship between humans and the natural world,

borrowing from the fields of science, politics, economics,

and the arts. Environmental literacy also seeks to develop

the knowledge and skills citizens and students may need to

501

identify and resolve environmental crises, individually or as

a group. Ecocriticism is a branch of literary studies that

offers insights into the underlying philosophies in literature

that address the theme of

nature

and have been catalysts

for change in public consciousness concerning the

envi-

ronment

Americans have long turned to literature and popular

culture to develop, discuss, and communicate various ideals

about the natural world and their relationship to how Ameri-

cans see themselves and function together. This literature

has also made people think about the idea of progress: what

constitutes advancement in culture, what are the goals of a

healthy society, and how nature would be considered and

treated by such a society. In contemporary times, the power

and

visibility

of modern media in influencing these debates

is also widely recognized. Given this trend, understanding

how these forms of communication work and developing

them further to broaden public participation, which is a task

of environmental literacy and ecocriticism, is vital to the

environmental movement.

Educators and ecocritics take diverse approaches to

the task of raising consciousness about environmental issues,

but they share a collective concern for the global environ-

mental crisis and begin with the understanding that nature

and human needs require rebalancing. In that, they become

emissaries, as writer Barry Lopez suggests in Orion magazine,

who have to “reestablish good relations with all the biological

components humanity has excluded from its moral universe.”

For Lopez, as with many generations of nature writers, in-

cluding

Henry David Thoreau

John Muir

, Edward Abbey,

and Terry Tempest Williams, and Annie Dilliard, the les-

sons to be imparted are learned from long experience with

and observation of nature. Lopez suggests another pervasive

theme, that observing the ever-changing natural world can

be a humbling experience, when he writes of “a

horizon

rather than a boundary for knowing, toward which we are

always walking.”

The career of Henry David Thoreau was one of the

most influential and early models for being a student of the

natural world and for the development of an environmental

awareness through attentive participation within nature.

Thoreau also made a fundamental contribution to Ameri-

can’s identification with the ideals of individualism and self-

sufficiency. His most important work, Walden, was a book

developed from his journal written during a two-and-a-half-

year experiment of living alone and self-sufficiently in the

woods near Concord, Massachusetts. Thoreau describes his

process of education as an awakening to a deep sense of his

interrelatedness to the natural world and to the sacred power

of such awareness. This is contrasted to the human society

from which he isolated himself, of whose

utilitarianism

materialism, and consumerism he was extremely critical.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental literacy and ecocriticism

Thoreau famously writes in Walden: “I went to the woods

because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essen-

tial facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to

teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not

lived.” For Thoreau, living with awareness of the greater

natural world became a matter of life and death.

Many educators have also been influenced by two

founding policy documents, created by commissions of the

United Nations, in the field of environmental literacy. The

Belgrade Charter (UNESCO-UNEP, 1976) and the Tbilisi

Declaration (

UNESCO

, 1978) share the goal “to develop a

world population that is aware of, and concerned about, the

environment and its associated problems.” Later governmen-

tal bodies such as the Brundtland Commission (Brundtland,

1987), the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development in Rio (UNCED, 1992), and the Thessaloniki

Declaration (UNESCO, 1997) have built on these ideas.

One of the main goals of environmental literacy is to

provide learners with knowledge and experience to assess

the health of an ecological system and to develop solutions

to problems. Models for environmental literacy include cur-

riculums that address key ecological concepts, provide hands-

on opportunities, foster collaborative learning, and establish

atmosphere

that strengthens a learner’s belief in respon-

sible living. Environmental literacy in such programs is seen

as more than the ability to read or write. As in nature writing,

it is also about a sensibility that views the natural world with

a sense of wonder and experiences nature through all the

senses. The element of direct experience of the natural world

is seen as crucial in developing this sensibility. The Edible

Schoolyard program in the Berkeley, California, school dis-

trict, for example, integrates an organic garden project into

the curriculum and lunch program, where students become

involved in the entire process of farming, while learning to

grow and prepare their own food. The program aims to

promote participation and awareness to the workings of the

natural world, and also to awaken all the senses to enrich

the process of an individual’s development.

Public interest in

environmental education

came to

the forefront in the 1970s. Much of the impetus as well as

the funding for integrating environmental education into

school curriculums comes from non-profit foundations and

educators’ associations such as the Association for Environ-

mental and Outdoor Education, the Center for Ecoliteracy,

and The Institute for Earth Education. In 1990, the United

States Congress created the National Environmental Educa-

tion and Training Foundation (NEETF) whose efforts in-

clude expanding environmental literacy among adults and

providing funding opportunities for school districts to ad-

vance their environmental curriculums. The National Envi-

ronmental Education Act of 1990 directed the

Environmen-

tal Protection Agency

(EPA) to provide national leadership

502

in the environmental literacy arena. To that end, the EPA

established several initiatives including the Environmental

Education Center as a resource for educators, and the Office

of Environmental Education, which provides grants, train-

ing, fellowships, and youth awards.

The Public Broadcasting System also plays an active

role in the promotion of environmental literacy as evidenced

by the partnership of the Annenberg Foundation and the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting to create and dissemi-

nate educational videos for students and teachers, and grant

programs such as that sponsored by New York’s Channel

13/WNET Challenge Grants.

A common thread woven through these organizations

is a definition of environmental learning that goes beyond

simple learning to an appreciation of nature. However, ap-

preciation is measured differently by each organization and

segments of the American population differ on which aspects

of the environment should be preserved. At the end of the

1990s, the George C. Marshall Institute directed an inde-

pendent commission to study whether the goals of environ-

mental education were being met. The Commission’s 1997

report found that curricula and texts vary widely on many

environmental concepts, including what constitutes

conser-

vation

. Although thirty-one states have academic standards

for environmental education, a national cohesiveness is

lacking.

Thus, the main challenges to environmental literacy

are the lack of unifying programs that would bring together

the many approaches to environmental education, and the

fact that there is inconsistent support for these programs

from the government and public school system. Observers

of environmental literacy movements suggest that the new

perspectives that learners gain may often be at odds with

the concerns and ethics of mainstream society, issues that

writers such as Thoreau grappled with. For instance, con-

sumerism and conservationism may be at opposite ends of

the spectrum of how people interact with the natural world

and its resources. To be effective, literacy initiatives must

address these dilemmas and provide tools to solve them.

Environmental literacy is thus about providing new ways of

seeing the world, about providing language tools to address

these new perceptions, and to provide ethical frameworks

through which people can make informed choices on how

to act.

Ecocriticism develops the tools of literary criticism to

understand how the relationship of humans to nature is

addressed in literature, as a subject, character, or as a compo-

nent of the setting. Ecocritics also highlight the ways in

which literature is a vehicle to create environmental con-

sciousness. For critic William Rueckert, the scholar who

coined the term ecocriticism in 1978, poetry and literature

are the “verbal equivalent of fossil fuel, only renewable,”

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental literacy and ecocriticism

through which abundant energy is transferred between na-

ture and the reader.

Ecocritics highlight aspects of nature described in lit-

erature, whether frontiers, rivers, regional ecosystems, cities,

garbage

, and ask what the purposes of these descriptions

are. Their interests have included understanding how histor-

ical movements such as the Industrial Revolution have

changed the relationship between human society and nature,

giving people the false illusion that they can completely

control nature, for instance. Ecocriticism also brings together

perspectives from various academic disciplines and draws

attention to their shared purposes. Studies in

ecology

and

cellular biology, for example, echo the theme of intercon-

nectedness of the individual and the natural world seen in

poetry, by demonstrating how the life of all organisms is

dependent upon their on-going interactions with the envi-

ronment around them.

Although nature writers have expressed their philoso-

phies of nature and reflected on their modes of communica-

tion since the nineteenth century, as a self-conscious practice,

ecocriticism’s history did not began until the late 1970s. By

the 1990s, it had gained wide currency. In his 1997 article

“Wild Things,” published in Utne Reader, Gregory

McNamee notes that courses in environmental literature are

available at colleges across the nation and that “’ecocritcism’

has become something of an academic growth industry.”

In 1992, the Association for the Study of Literature and

Environment (ASLE) was founded with the mission “to

promote the exchange of ideas and information about litera-

ture and other cultural representations that consider that

human relationships with the natural world".

Nature’s role in theatre and film are also popular eco-

criticism topics for academic study in the form of seminars

on, for example, The Nature of Shakespeare, and suggested

lists of commercial films for class discussion that include

Chinatown, Deliverance, The China Syndrome, Silkwood, A

Civil Action and Jurassic Park.

Ecocritics Carl Herndl and Stuart Brown suggest that

there are three underlying philosophies in evaluating nature

in modern society. The language used by institutions that

make government policies usually regards nature as a re-

source to be managed for greater social welfare. This is

described as an ethnocentric perspective, which begins with

the idea that one opinion or way of looking at the world is

superior to others. Thus, the benefits of environmental issues

are always measured against various political and social inter-

ests, and not seen as important simply in themselves.

Another viewpoint is the anthropocentric perspective,

wherein human perspectives are central in the world and are

the ultimate source of meaning. The specialized language

of the sciences, which treats nature as an object of study, is

an example of this. The researcher is seen as existing outside

503

of or above nature, and science is grounded on the faith that

humans can come to know all of nature’s secrets.

In contrast, poetry often describes nature in terms of

its beauty and emotional and spiritual power. This language

sees man as part of the natural world and seeks to harmonize

human values and actions with a respect for nature. This is

the ecocentric perspective, which means putting nature and

ecology as the central viewpoint when considering the vari-

ous interactions in the world, including human ones. That

is, this perspective acknowledges that humans are a part and

parcel of nature and ultimately depend upon the ecology’s

living and complex interactions for survival.

Scholars make the distinction between environmental

writing and other kinds of literature that use images of nature

in some fashion or another. Environmental writing explores

at length ecocentric perspectives. They include discussions

about human ethical responsibility towards the natural

world, such as in Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac,

considered one of the best explorations of

environmental

ethics

. Many ecocritics also share a concern for the environ-

ment, and one aim of eco-criticism is to raise awareness

within the literary world about the environmental movement

and nature-centered perspectives in understanding human

relationships and cultural practices.

In Silent Spring, a major text in the field of environ-

mental literacy and ecocriticism, Rachel Carson writes that

society faces two choices: to travel as we now do on a super-

highway at high speed but ending in disaster, or to walk the

less traveled “other road” which offers the chance to preserve

the earth. The challenge of ecocriticism is to spread the word

of the “other road,” and to simultaneously offer constructive

criticism to the environmental movement from within.

[Douglas Dupler]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1994.

Finch, Robert, and John Elder, eds. The Norton Book of Nature Writing.

New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1990.

Herndl, Carl, and Stuart Brown, eds. Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric

in Contemporary America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press,

1996.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1966.

Rueckert, William. “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriti-

cism.” The Ecocriticism Reader, edited by Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold

Fromm. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1996.

Snyder, Gary. Practice of the Wild. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1990.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. 1854; Reprint, Boston: Beacon Press, 1997.

Williams, Terry Tempest. Refuge: An Unnatural History of Family and Place.

New York: Pantheon, 1991.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental monitoring

ERIODICALS

Lopez, Barry. “The Naturalist.” Orion Autumn 2001 [cited June 2002].

<http://www.oriononline.org>.

McNamee, Gregory. “Wild Things.” Utne Reader November-December

1997 [cited July 2002]. <http://www.asle.umn.edu/archive/intro/ut-

ne.html>.

THER

Association for the Study of Literature and Environment. [cited July 2002].

<http://www.asle.umn.edu>.

Center for Ecoliteracy. [cited June 2002]. <http://www.ecoliteracy.org>.

Environmental Education Page U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

[cited July 2002]. <http://www.governmentguide.com/officials_and

_agencies/u.s./indepdendent/govsite.adp>.

Institute for Earth Education. [cited July 2002]. <http://www.eartheducati-

on.org>.

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. [cited July

2002]. <http://www.neetf.org>.

North American Association for Environmental Education. [cited June 2002].

<http://www.naaee.org>.

Environmental mediation and

arbitration

see

Environmental dispute resolution

Environmental monitoring

Environmental monitoring detects changes in the health of

ecosystem

and indicates whether conditions are improv-

ing, stable, or deteriorating. This quality, too large to gauge

as a whole, is assessed by measuring indicators, which repre-

sent more complex characteristics. The concentration of

sul-

fur dioxide

, for example, is an indicator that reflects the

presence of other air pollutants. The abundance of a predator

indicates the health of the larger

environment

. Other indi-

cators include

metabolism

, population, community, and

landscape. All changes are compared to an ideal, pristine

ecosystem. The SER (stressor-exposure-response) model, a

simple but widely used tool in environmental monitoring,

classifies indicators as one of three related types:

Stressors, which are agents of change associated with physi-

cal, chemical, or biological constraints on environmental

processes and integrity. Many stressors are caused by hu-

mans, such as

air pollution

, the use of pesticides and

other toxic substances, or

habitat

change caused by forest

clearing. Stressors can also be natural processes, such as

wildfire

, hurricanes, volcanoes, and

climate

change.

Exposure indicators, which link a stressor’s intensity at any

point in time to the cumulative dose received. Concentra-

tions or accumulations of toxic substances are exposure

indicators; so are

clear-cutting

and urbanization.

Response indicators, which shows how organisms, commu-

nities, processes, or ecosystems react when exposed to a

504

stressor. These include changes in physiology, productivity,

mortality

, as well as changes in

species

diversity within

communities and in rates of

nutrient

cycling.

The SER model is useful because it links ecological

change with exposure to

environmental stress

. Its effec-

tiveness is limited, however. The model is a simple one, so

it cannot be used for complex environmental situations. Even

with smaller-scale problems, the connections between stres-

sor, exposure, and response are not understood in many

cases, and additional research is required.

Environmental monitoring programs are usually one

of two types, extensive or intensive. Extensive monitoring

occurs at permanent, widely spaced locations, sometimes

using remote-sensing techniques. It provides an overview of

changes in the ecological character of the landscape, often

detecting regional trends. It measures the effects of human

activities like farming, forestry, mining, and urbanization.

Information from extensive monitoring is often collected by

the government to determine such variables as water and

air quality

, to calculate allowable forest harvests, set bag

limits for

hunting

and fishing, and establish the production

of agricultural commodities.

Extensive monitoring usually measures stressors (such

as emissions) or exposure indicators (concentration of pollut-

ants in the air). Response indicators, if measured at all in

these programs, almost always have some economic impor-

tance (damage to forest or agricultural crops). Distinct spe-

cies or ecological processes do not have economic value and

are not usually assessed in extensive-monitoring programs,

even though these are the most relevant indicators of

ecolog-

ical integrity

Intensive monitoring is used for detailed studies of

structural and functional

ecology

. Unlike extensive moni-

toring, a relatively small number of sites provide information

on stressors such as climate change and

acid rain

. Intensive

monitoring is also used to conduct experiments in which

stressors are manipulated and the responses studied, for ex-

ample by acidifying or fertilizing lakes, or by conducting

forestry over an entire

watershed

. This research, aimed at

understanding the dynamics of ecosystems, helps develop

ecological models that distinguish between natural and

an-

thropogenic

change.

Support for ecological monitoring of either kind has

been weak, although more countries are beginning programs

and establishing networks between monitoring sites. The

United States has founded the Long-Term Ecological Re-

search (LTER) network to study extensive ecosystem func-

tion, but little effort is directed toward understanding envi-

ronmental change. The

Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program

(EMAP) of the

Environmental

Protection Agency

(EPA) studies intensive environmental

change, but its activities are not integrated with LTER. In

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental policy

comparison, an ecological-monitoring network being de-

signed by the government of Canada to study changes in

the environment will integrate both extensive and intensive

monitoring.

Communication between the two types of monitoring

is important. Intensive information provides a deeper under-

standing of the meaning of extensive-monitoring indicators.

For example, it is much easier to measure decreases in sur-

face-water

and alkalinity caused by

acid

rain than to

monitor resulting changes in fish or other biological vari-

ables. These criteria can, however, be measured at intensive-

monitoring sites, and their relationships to pH and alkalinity

used to predict effects on fish and other

fauna

at extensive

sites where only pH and alkalinity are monitored.

The ultimate goal of environmental monitoring is to

measure, anticipate, and prevent the deterioration of ecologi-

cal integrity. Healthy ecosystems are necessary for healthy

societies and sustainable economic systems. Environmental

monitoring programs can accomplish these goals, but they

are expensive and require a substantial commitment by gov-

ernment. Much has yet to be accomplished.

[Bill Freedman and Cynthia Staicer]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Freedman, B., C. Staicer, and N. Shackell. A Framework for a National

Ecological-Monitoring Program for Canada. Ottawa: Environment Can-

ada, 1992.

ERIODICALS

Franklin, J. F., C. S. Bledsoe, and J. T. Callahan. “Contributions of the

Long-term Ecological Research Program.” Bioscience 40 (1990): 509–524.

Odum, E. P. “Trends Expected in Stressed Ecosystems.” Bioscience 35

(1985): 419–422.

Schindler, D. W. “Experimental Perturbations of Whole Lakes as Tests

of Hypotheses Concerning Ecosystem Structure and Function.” Oikos 57

(1990): 25–41.

Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program

The

Environmental Monitoring

and Assessment Program

(EMAP), established in 1990 by the

Environmental Protec-

tion Agency

(EPA), is a federal project designed to create

a continually updated survey of ecological resources in the

United States. This comprehensive list monitors and links

resource data from several U.S. agencies, including the

Na-

tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

, the

Fish

and Wildlife Service

, and the

U.S. Department of Agri-

culture

Research from the program is intended to illustrate

changes in specific ecosystems in the U.S. and to determine

505

if those changes could have resulted from “human-induced

stress.”

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, , Email:

emap@epa.gov, <http://www.epa.gov/emap>

Environmental policy

Strictly, an environmental policy can be defined as a govern-

ment’s chosen course of action or plan to address issues

such as

pollution

wildlife

protection,

land use

, energy

production and use, waste generation, and waste disposal.

In reality, the way a particular government handles environ-

mental problems is most often not a result of a conscious

choice from a set of alternatives. More broadly, then, a

government’s environmental policy may be characterized by

examining the overall orientation of its responses to environ-

mental challenges as they occur, or by defining its policy as

the sum of plans for, and reactions to, environmental issues

made by any number of different arms of government.

A society’s environmental policy will be shaped by

the actions of its leaders in relation to the five following

questions:

Should government intervene in the regulation of the

envi-

ronment

or leave resolution of environmental problems to

the legal system or the market?

If government intervention is desirable, at what level should

that intervention take place? In the United States, for exam-

ple, how should responsibility for resolution of environ-

mental problems be divided between and among federal,

state and local governments and who should have primary

responsibility?

If government intervenes at some level, how much protec-

tion should it give? How safe should the people be and

what are the economic trade-offs necessary to ensure that

level of safety?

Once environmental standards have been set, what are the

methods to attain them? How does the system control the

sources of environmental destruction so that the environ-

mental goals are met?

Finally, how does the system monitor the environment for

compliance to standards and how does it punish those who

violate them?

Policy in the United States

The United States has no single, overarching environ-

mental policy and its response to environmental issues—

subject to conflicting political, corporate and public influ-

ence, economic limitation and scientific uncertainty—is

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Environmental policy

rarely monolithic. American environmental policies are an

amalgamation of Congressional, state and local laws, regula-

tions and rules formulated by agencies to implement those

laws, judicial decisions rendered when those rules are chal-

lenged in court, programs undertaken by private businesses

and industry, as well as trends in public concerns.

In Congress, many environmental policies were origi-

nally formed by what are commonly known as “iron trian-

gles.” These involve three groups of actors who form a pow-

erful coalition: the Congressional committee with

jurisdiction over the issue; the relevant federal agency han-

dling the problem; and the interest group representing the

particular regulated industry. For example, the key actors in

forming policy on

clear-cutting

in the national forests are

the House subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms and

Energy, the U.S.

Forest Service

(USFS), and the National

Forest Products Association, which represents many indus-

tries dependent on timber.

For more than a century,

conservation

and environ-

mental groups worked at the fringes of the traditional “iron

triangle.” Increasingly, however, these public interest

groups—which derived their financial support and sense of

mission from an increasing number of citizen members—

began gaining more influence. Scientists, whose studies and

research today play a pivotal role in decision-making, also

began to emerge as major players.

The Watershed years

Catalyzed by vocal, energetic activists and organiza-

tions, the emergence of an “environmental movement” in the

late 1960s prompted the government to grant environmental

protection a greater priority and

visibility

. 1970, the year

of the first celebration of

Earth Day

, saw the federal govern-

ment’s landmark passage of the

Clean Air Act

and the

Na-

tional Environmental Policy Act

, as well as Richard Nixon’s

creation of an

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)

which was given the control of many environmental policies

previously administered by other agencies. In addition, some

of the most serious problems such as DDT and

mercury

contamination began to be addressed between 1969 and

1972. Yet, environmental policies in the 1970s developed

largely in an adversarial setting pitting environmental groups

on one side and the traditional iron triangles on the other.

The first policies that came out of this era were de-

signed to clean up visible pollution—clouds of industrial

soot and dust, detergent-filled streams and so forth—and

employed “end-of-pipe” solutions to target point sources,

such as

wastewater discharge

pipes, smokestacks, and

other easily identifiable emitters.

An initial optimism generated by improvements in air

and

water quality

was dashed by a series of frightening

environmental episodes at

Times Beach

, Missouri, Three

Mile Island,

Love Canal

, New York and other locations.

506

Such incidents (as well as memory of the devastation caused

by the recently-banned DDT) shifted the focus of public

concern to specific toxic agents. By the early 1980s, a fearful

public led by environmentalists had steered governmental

policy toward tight regulation of individual, invisible toxic

substances—dioxin, PCBs and others—by backing measures

limiting emissions to within a few

parts per million

. With-

out an overall governmental framework for action, the result

has been a multitude of regulations and laws that address

specific problems in specific regions that sometimes conflict

and often fail to protect the environment in a comprehensive

manner. “It’s been reactionary, and so we’ve lost the integra-

tion of thought and disciplines that is essential in environ-

mental policy making,” says

Carol Browner

, administrator

of the U.S. EPA.

One example of policy-making gone awry is the 1980

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-

tion and Liability Act

(CERCLA), or Superfund toxic waste

program. The law grew as much out of the public’s percep-

tion and fear of toxic waste as it did from crude scientific

knowledge of actual health risks. Roughly $2 billion dollars

a year has been spent cleaning up a handful of the nation’s

worst toxic sites to near pristine condition. EPA officials

now believe the money could have been better spent cleaning

up more sites, although to a somewhat lesser degree.

Current trends in environmental policy

Today, governmental bodies and public interest groups

are drawing back from “micro management” of individual

chemicals

, individual

species

and individual industries to

focus more on the interconnections of environmental systems

and problems. This new orientation has been shaped by

several (sometimes conflicting) forces, including:

industrial and public

resistance

to tight regulations fostered

by fears that such laws impact employment and economic

prosperity; (2) financial limitations that prevent government

from carrying out tasks related to specific contaminants,

such as cleaning up waste sites or closely monitoring toxic

discharges; (3) a perception that large-scale, global problems

such as the

greenhouse effect

ozone layer depletion

habitat

destruction and the like should receive priority; (4)

the emergence of a “preventative” orientation on the part of

citizen groups that attempts to link economic prosperity

with environmental goals. This approach emphasizes

re-

cycling

, efficiency, and environmental technology and

stresses the prevention of problems rather than their

reme-

diation

after they reach a critical stage. This strategy also

marks an attempt by some citizen organizations to a more

conciliatory stance with industry and government.

This new era of environmental policy is underscored

by the election of Bill Clinton and Albert Gore, who made

the environment a cornerstone of their campaign. In all

likelihood, the Clinton administration will transform the