Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Integrated pest management

Integrated

pest

management (IPM) is a newer science that

aims to give the best possible pest control while minimizing

damage to human health or the

environment

. IPM means

either using fewer

chemicals

more effectively or finding

ways, both new and old, that substitute for

pesticide

use.

Technically, IPM is the selection, integration and im-

plementation of pest control based on predicted economic,

ecological and sociological consequences. IPM seeks maxi-

mum use of naturally occurring pest controls, including

weather, disease agents, predators and

parasites

. In addi-

tion, IPM utilizes various biological, physical, and chemical

control and

habitat

modification techniques. Artificial con-

trols are imposed only as required to keep a pest from sur-

passing intolerable population levels which are predeter-

mined from assessments of the pest damage potential and

the ecological, sociological, and economic costs of the control

measures. Farmers have come to understand that the pres-

ence of a pest

species

does not necessarily justify action for

its control. In fact, tolerable infestations may be actually

desirable, providing food for important beneficial insects.

Why this change in farming practices?

The introduction of synthetic organic pesticides such

as the insecticide DDT, and the

herbicide 2,4-D

(half the

formula in

Agent Orange

) after World War II began a

new era in pest control. These products were followed by

hundreds of synthetic organic fungicides, nematicides, ro-

denticides and other chemical controls. These chemical ma-

terials were initially very effective and very cheap. Synthetic

chemicals eventually became the primary means of pest con-

trol in productive agricultural regions, providing season-long

crop protection against insects and weeds. They were used

in addition to fertilizers and other treatments.

The success of modern pesticides led to widespread

acceptance and reliance upon them, particularly in this coun-

try. Of all the chemical pesticides applied worldwide in

agriculture, forests, industry and households, one-third to

one-half were used in the United States. Herbicides have

been used increasingly to replace hand labor and machine

cultivation for control of weeds in crops, in forests, on the

rights-of-way of highways, utility lines, railroads and in

cities. Agriculture consumes perhaps 65% of the total quan-

tity of synthetic organic pesticides used in the United States

each year. In addition, chemical companies export an increas-

ingly larger amount to

Third World

countries. Pesticides

banned in the United States such as DDT, EDB and

chlor-

dane

, are exported to countries where they are applied to

crops imported by the United States for consumption.

For more than a decade, problems with pesticides have

become increasingly apparent. Significant groups of pests

have evolved with

genetic resistance

to pesticides. The

757

increase in

resistance

among insect pests has been exponen-

tial, following extensive use of chemicals in the last forty

years. Ticks, insects and spider mites (nearly 400 species)

are now especially resistant, and the creation of new insecti-

cides to combat the problem is not keeping pace with the

emergence of new strains of resistant insect pests. Despite

the advances in modern chemical control and the dramatic

increase in chemical pesticides used on U.S. cropland, annual

crop losses from all pests appear to have remained constant

or to have increased. Losses caused by weeds have declined

slightly, but those caused by insects have nearly doubled.

The price of synthetic organic pesticides has increased signif-

icantly in recent years, placing a heavy financial burden on

those who use large quantities of the materials. As farmers

and growers across the United States realize the limitations

and human health consequences of using artificial chemical

pesticides, interest in the alternative approach of integrated

pest management grows.

Integrated pest management aims at management

rather than eradication of pest species. Since potentially

harmful species will continue to exist at tolerable levels of

abundance, the philosophy now is to manage rather than

eradicate the pests. The

ecosystem

is the management unit.

(Every crop is in itself a complex ecological system.) Spraying

pesticides too often, at the wrong time, or on the wrong

part of the crop may destroy the pests’ natural enemies

ordinarily present in the ecosystem. Knowledge of the ac-

tions, reactions, and interactions of the components of the

ecosystems is requisite to effective IPM programs. With this

knowledge, the ecosystem is manipulated in order to hold

pests at tolerable levels while avoiding disruptions of the

system.

The use of natural controls is maximized. IPM empha-

sizes the fullest practical utilization of the existing regulating

and limiting factors in the form of parasites, predators, and

weather, which check the pests’

population growth

. IPM

users understand that control procedures may produce unex-

pected and undesirable consequences, however. It takes time

to change over and determination to keep up the commit-

ment until the desired results are achieved.

An interdisciplinary systems approach is essential. Ef-

fective IPM is an integral part of the overall management

of a farm, a business or a forest. For example, timing plays an

important role. Certain pests are most prevalent at particular

times of the year. By altering the date on which a crop is

planted, serious pest damage can be avoided. Some farmers

simultaneously plant and harvest, since the procedure pre-

vents the pests from migrating to neighboring fields after

the harvest. Others may plant several different crops in the

same field, thereby reducing the number of pests. The variety

of crops harbor greater numbers of natural enemies and make

it more difficult for the pests to locate and colonize their

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Integrated pest management

host plants. In Thailand and China, farmers flood their

fields for several weeks before planting to destroy pests.

Other farmers turn the

soil

, so that pests are brought to the

surface and die in the sun’s heat.

The development of specific IPM program depends

on the pest complex, resources to be protected, economic

values, and availability of personnel. It also depends upon

adequate funding for research and to train farmers. Some

of the techniques are complex, and expert advice is needed.

However, while it is difficult to establish absolute guidelines,

there are general guidelines that can apply to the manage-

ment of any pest group.

Growers must analyze the “pest” status of each of

the reputedly injurious organisms and establish economic

thresholds for the “real” pests. The economic threshold is,

in fact, the population level, and is defined as the density

of a pest population below which the cost of applying control

measures exceeds the losses caused by the pest. Economic

threshold values are based on assessments of the pest damage

potential and the ecological, sociological, and economic costs

associated with control measures. A given crop, forest area,

backyard, building, or recreational area may be infested with

dozens of potentially harmful species at any one time. For

each situation, however, there are rarely more than a few

pest species whose populations expand to intolerable levels

at regular and fairly predictable intervals. Key pests recur

regularly at population densities exceeding economic thresh-

old levels and are the focal point for IPM programs.

Farmers must also devise schemes for lowering equilib-

rium positions of key pests. A key pest will vary in severity

from year to year, but its average density, known as the

equilibrium position, usually exceeds its economic threshold.

IPM efforts manipulate the environment in order to reduce

a pest’s equilibrium position to a permanent level below

the economic threshold. This reduction can be achieved by

deliberate introduction and establishment of natural enemies

(parasites, predators, and diseases) in areas where they did

not previously occur. Natural enemies may already occur in

the crop in small numbers or can be introduced from else-

where. Certain

microorganisms

, when eaten by a pest, will

kill it.

Newer chemicals show promise as alternatives to syn-

thetic chemical pesticides. These include insect attractant

chemicals, weed and insect disease agents and insect growth

regulators or hormones. A

pathogen

such as

Bacillus thur-

ingiensis

(BT), has proven commercially successful. Since

certain crops have an inbuilt resistance to pests, pest-resistant

or pest-free varieties of seed, crop plants, ornamental plants,

orchard trees, and forest trees can be used. Growers can also

modify the pest environment to increase the effectiveness of

the pest’s biological control agents, to destroy its breeding,

feeding, or shelter habitat or otherwise render it harmless.

758

This includes crop rotation, destruction of crop harvest resi-

dues and soil tillage, and selective burning or mechanical

removal of undesirable plant species and pruning, especially

for forest pests.

While nearly permanent control of key insect and plant

disease pests of agricultural crops has been achieved, emer-

gencies will occur, and all IPM advocates acknowledge this.

During those times, measures should be applied that create

the least ecological destruction. Growers are urged to utilize

the best combination of the three basic IPM components:

natural enemies, resistant varieties and environmental modi-

fication. However, there may be a time when pesticides may

be the only recourse. In that case, it is important to coordi-

nate the proper pesticide, the dosage and the timing in order

to minimize the hazards to nontarget organisms and the

surrounding ecosystems.

Pest management techniques have been known for

many years and were used widely before World War II. They

were deemphasized by insect and weed control scientists and

by corporate pressures as the synthetic chemicals became

commercially available after the war. Now there is a renewed

interest in the early control techniques and in new chemistry.

Reports detailing the success of IPM are emerging at

a rapid rate as thousands of farmers yearly join the ranks of

those who choose to eliminate chemical pesticides. Sustain-

able agricultural practice increases the richness of the soil

by replenishing the soil’s reserves of fertility. IPM does not

produce secondary problems such as pest resistance or resur-

gence. It also diminishes soil

erosion

, increases crop yields

and saves money over the long haul. Organic foods are

reported to have better cooking quality, better flavor and

greater longevity in the storage bins. And with less

pesticide

residue

, our food is clearly more healthy to eat. See also

Sustainable agriculture

[Liane Clorfene Casten]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Baker, R. R., and P. Dunn. New Directions in Biological Control: Alternatives

for Supressing Agricultural Pests and Diseases. New York: Wiley, 1990.

Burn, A. J., et al. Integrated Pest Management. New York: Academic

Press, 1988.

DeBach, P., and D. Rosen. Biological Control By Natural Enemies. 2nd ed.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Pimentel, D. The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics and Ethics.

New York: Chapman & Hall, 1992.

ERIODICALS

Bottrell, D. G., and R. F. Smith. “Integrated Pest Management.” Environ-

mental Science & Technology 16 (May 1982): 282A–288A.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Intergenerational justice

One of the key features of an environmental ethic or perspec-

tive is its concern for the health and well-being of

future

generations

. Questions about the rights of future people

and the responsibilities of those presently living are central

to environmental theory and practice and are often asked

and analyzed under the term intergenerational justice. Most

traditional accounts or theories of justice have focused on

relations between contemporaries: What distribution of

scarce goods is fairest or optimally just? Should such goods

be distributed on the basis of merit or need? These and

other questions have been asked by thinkers from Aristotle

through John Rawls. Recently, however, some philosophers

have begun to ask about just distributions over time and

across generations.

The subject of intergenerational justice is a key concern

for environmentally-minded thinkers for at least two reasons.

First, human beings now living have the power to perma-

nently alter or destroy the planet (or portions thereof) in

ways that will affect the health, happiness, and well-being

of people living long after we are all dead. One need only

think, for example, of the radioactive wastes generated by

nuclear

power plants

which will be intensely “hot” and

dangerous for many thousands of years. No one yet knows

how to safely store such material for a hundred, much less

many thousands, of years. Considered from an intergenera-

tional perspective then, it would be unfair—that is, unjust—

for the present generation to enjoy the benefits of

nuclear

power

, passing on to distant posterity the burdens and

dangers caused by our (in)action.

Second, we not only have the power to affect future

generations, but we know that we have it. And with such

knowledge comes the moral responsibility to act in ways

that will prevent harm to future people. For example, since

we know about the health effects of radiation on human

beings, our having that knowledge imposes upon us a moral

obligation not to needlessly expose anyone—now or in the

indefinite future—to the harms or hazards of radioactive

wastes. Many other examples of intergenerational harm or

hazard exist: global warming,

topsoil erosion

, disappearing

tropical rain forests, depletion and/or

pollution

of aquifers,

among others. But whatever the example, the point of the

intergenerational view is the same: the moral duty to treat

people justly or fairly applies not only to people now living,

but to those who will live long after we are gone. To the

extent that our actions produce consequences that may prove

harmful to people who have not harmed (and in the nature

of the case cannot harm) us is, by any standard, unjust. And

yet it seems quite clear that we in the present generation

are in many respects acting unjustly toward distant posterity.

This is true not only for harms or hazards bequeathed to

759

future people, but the point applies also to deprivations of

various kinds.

Consider, for example, the present generation’s profli-

gate use of

fossil fuels

. Reserves of oil and

natural gas

are

both finite and nonreplaceable; once burned (or turned into

plastic or some other petroleum-based material), a gallon of

oil is gone forever; every drop or barrel used now is therefore

unavailable for future people. As Wendell Berry observed,

the claim that fossil fuel energy is cheap rests on a simplistic

and morally doubtful assumption about the rights of the

present generation: “We were able to consider [fossil fuel

energy] “cheap” only by a kind of moral simplicity: the

assumption that we had a “right” to as much of it as we

could use. This was a “right” made solely by might. Because

fossil fuels, however abundant they once were, were never-

theless limited in quantity and not renewable, they obviously

did not “belong” to one generation more than another. We

ignored the claims of posterity simply because we could, the

living being stronger than the unborn, and so worked the

“miracle” of industrial progress by the theft of energy from

(among others) our children.”

And that, Berry adds, “is the real foundation of our

progress and our affluence. The reason that we are a rich

nation is not that we have earned so much wealth — you

cannot, by any honest means, earn or deserve so much. The

reason is simply that we have learned, and become willing,

to market and use up in our own time the birthright and

livelihood of posterity.”

These and other considerations have led some environ-

mentally-minded philosophers to argue for limits on present-

day consumption, so as to save a fair share of scarce resources

for future generations. John Rawls, for instance, constructs

a just savings principle according to which members of each

generation may consume no more than their fair share of

scarce resources. The main difficulty in arriving at and

applying any such principle lies in determining what counts

as fair share. As the number of generations taken into ac-

count increases, the share available to any single generation

then becomes smaller; and as the number of generations

approaches infinity, any one generation’s share approaches

zero.

Other objections have been raised against the idea of

intergenerational justice. These objections can be divided

into two groups, which we can call conceptual and techno-

logical. One conceptual criticism is that the very idea of

intergenerational justice is itself incoherent. The idea of

justice is tied with that of reciprocity or exchange; but rela-

tions of reciprocity can exist only between contemporaries;

therefore the concept of justice is inapplicable to relations

between existing people and distant posterity. Future people

are in no position to reciprocate; therefore people now living

cannot be morally obligated to do anything for them. An-

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

other conceptual objection to the idea of intergenerational

justice is concerned with rights. Briefly, the objection runs

as follows: future people do not (yet) exist; only actually

existing people have rights, including the right to be treated

justly; therefore future people do not have rights which we

in the present have a moral obligation to respect and protect.

Critics of this view counter that it not only rests on a too-

restrictive conception of rights and justice, but that it also

paves the way for grievous intergenerational injustices.

Several arguments can be constructed to counter the

claim that justice rests on reciprocity (and therefore applies

only to relations between contemporaries) and the claim that

future people do not have rights, including the right to be

treated justly by their predecessors. Regarding reciprocity:

since we acknowledge in ethics and recognize in law that it

is possible to treat an infant or a mentally disabled or severely

retarded person justly or unjustly, even though they are in

no position to reciprocate, it follows that the idea of justice

is not necessarily connected with reciprocity. Regarding the

claim that future people cannot be said to have rights that

require our recognition and respect: one of the more inge-

nious arguments against this view consists of modifying John

Rawls’s imaginary veil of ignorance. Rawls argues that princi-

ples of justice must not be partisan or favor particular people

but must be blind and impartial. To ensure impartiality in

arriving at principles of justice, Rawls invites us to imagine an

original position in which rational people are placed behind a

veil of ignorance wherein they are unaware of their age, race,

sex, social class, economic status, etc. Unaware of their own

particular position in society, rational people would arrive

at and agree upon impartial and universal principles of jus-

tice. To ensure that such impartiality extends across genera-

tions, one need only thicken the veil by adding the proviso

that the choosers be unaware of the generation to which

they belong. Rational people would not accept or agree to

principles under which predecessors could harm or disadvan-

tage successors.

Some critics of intergenerational justice argue in tech-

nological terms. They contend that existing people need

not restrict their consumption of scarce or

nonrenewable

resources

in order to save some portion for future genera-

tions. For, they argue, substitutes for these resources will be

discovered or devised through technological innovations and

inventions. For example, as fossil fuels become scarcer and

more expensive, new fuels—gasohol or fusion-derived nu-

clear fuel—will replace them. Thus we need never worry

about depleting any particular resource because every re-

source can be replaced by a substitute that is as cheap, clean,

and accessible as the resource it replaces. Likewise, we need

not worry about generating nuclear wastes that we do not

yet know how to store safely. Some solution is bound to be

devised sometime in the future.

760

Environmentally-minded critics of this technological

line of argument claim that it amounts to little more than

wishful thinking. Like Charles Dickens’s fictional character

Mr. Micawber, those who place their faith in technological

solutions to all environmental problems optimistically expect

that “something will turn up.” Just as Mr. Micawber’s faith

was misplaced, so too, these critics contend, is the optimism

of those who expect technology to solve all problems, present

and future. Of course such solutions may be found, but that

is a gamble and not a guarantee. To wager with the health

and well-being of future people is, environmentalists argue,

immoral.

There are of course many other issues and concerns

raised in connection with intergenerational justice. Discus-

sions among and disagreements between philosophers, econ-

omists, environmentalists, and others are by no means purely

abstract and academic. How these matters are resolved will

have a profound effect on the fate of future generations.

[Terence Ball]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Auerbach, B. E. Unto the Thousandth Generation: Conceptualizing Intergener-

ational Justice. New York: Peter Lang, 1995.

Ball, T. Transforming Political Discourse. Oxford, England: Blackwell, 1988.

Barry, B., and R. I. Sikora, eds. Obligations to Future Generations. Philadel-

phia: Temple University Press, 1978.

Barry, B. Theories of Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Berry, W. The Gift of Good Land. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1981.

De-Shalit, A. Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future

Generations. London and New York: Routledge, 1995.

Fishkin, J., and P. Laslett, eds. Justice Between Age Groups and Generations.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991.

MacLean, D., and P. G. Brown, eds. Energy and the Future. Totawa, NJ:

Rowman & Littlefield, 1983.

Partridge, E., ed. Responsibilities to Future Generations. Buffalo, NY: Pro-

metheus Books, 1981.

Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Wenz, P. S. Environmental Justice. Albany: State University of New York

Press, 1988.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

was established in 1988 as a joint project of the

United

Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) and the

World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The primary

mission of the IPCC is to bring together the world’s leading

experts on the earth’s climate to gather, assess, and dissemi-

nate scientific information about climate change, with a view

to informing international and national policy makers. The

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

IPCC has become the highest-profile and best-regarded

international agency concerned with the climatic conse-

quences of “greenhouse gases,” such as

carbon dioxide

and

methane

, that are a byproduct of the

combustion

fossil

fuels

. The IPCC is an organization that has been and con-

tinues to be at the center of a great deal of controversy.

The IPCC was established partly in response to Nobel

Laureate Mario Molina’s 1985 documentation of chemical

processes which occur when human-made

chemicals

de-

plete the earth’s atmospheric

ozone

shield. Ozone depletion

is likely to result in increased levels of

ultraviolet radiation

reaching the earth’s surface, producing a host of health,

agricultural, and environmental problems. Molina’s work

helped to persuade most of the industrialized nations to ban

chlorofluorocarbons

and several other ozone-depleting

chemicals. It also established a context in which national

and international authorities began to pay serious attention

to the global environmental consequences of atmospheric

changes resulting from industrialization and reliance on fos-

sil fuels.

Continuing to operate under the auspices of the United

Nations and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the

IPCC is organized into three working groups and a task

force, and meets about once a year. The first group gathers

scientific data and analyzes the functioning of the climate

system with special attention to the detection of potential

changes resulting from human activity. The second group’s

assignment is to assess the potential socioeconomic impacts

and vulnerabilities associated with climate change. It is also

charged with exploring options for humans to adapt to po-

tential climate change. The third group focuses on ways to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to stop or reduce cli-

mate change. The task force is charged with maintaining

inventories of greenhouse emissions for all countries.

The IPCC has published its major findings in “Full

Assessment” Reports, first issued in 1990 and 1995. The

Tenth Session of the IPCC (Nairobi, 1994) directed that

future full assessments should be prepared approximately

every five years. The Third Assessment Report was entitled

“Climate Change 2001". Special reports and technical papers

are also published as the panel identifies issues.

The IPCC has drawn a great deal of criticism virtually

from its inception. Massive amounts of money are at stake

in policy decisions which might seek to limit greenhouse

gas emissions, and much of the criticism directed at the

IPCC tends to come from lobbying and research groups

mostly funded by industries that either produce or use large

quantities of fossil fuels. Thus, a lobbying group sponsored

by energy,

transportation

, and manufacturing interests

called the Global Climate Coalition attacked parts of the

1995 report as unscientific. At the core of the controversy

was Chapter Eight of the report, “Detection of Climate

761

Change and Attribution of Causes". Although the IPCC

was careful to hedge its conclusions in various ways, acknowl-

edging difficulties in measurement, disagreements over

methodologies for interpreting data, and general uncertainty

about the conclusions of its findings, it nevertheless sug-

gested a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and

global warming. Not satisfied with such caveats, the Global

Climate Coalition charged that the IPCC’s conclusions had

been presented as far less debatable than they actually were.

This cast a cloud of uncertainty over the report, at least for

some United States policymakers. However, other leaders

took the report more seriously. The Second Assessment

Report provided important input to the negotiations that

led to the development of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, a

treaty aimed at reducing the global output of

greenhouse

gases

In the summer of 1996, results of new studies of the

upper

atmosphere

were published which provided a great

deal of indirect support for the IPCC’s conclusions. Investi-

gators found significant evidence of cooling in the upper

atmosphere and warming in the lower atmosphere, with this

effect being especially pronounced in the southern hemi-

sphere. These findings confirmed the predictions of global

warming models such as those employed by the IPCC.

Perhaps emboldened by this confirmation, but still

facing a great deal of political opposition, the IPCC released

an unequivocal statement about global warming and its

causes in November 1996. The IPCC declared that “the

balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human

influence on global climate". The statement made clear that

a preponderance of evidence and a majority of scientific

experts indicated that observable climate change was a result

of human activity. The IPCC urged that all nations limit

their use of fossil fuels and develop more energy-efficient

technologies.

These conclusions and recommendations provoked

considerable criticism from less-developed countries. Lead-

ers of the less-industrialized areas of the world tend to view

potential restrictions on the use of fossil fuels as unfair hin-

drance of their efforts to catch up with the United States

and Western Europe in industry, transportation, economic

infrastructure, and standards of living. The industrialized

nations, they point out, were allowed to develop without

any such restrictions and now account for the vast majority

of the world’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emis-

sions. These industrialized nations therefore should bear the

brunt of any efforts to protect the global climate, substantially

exempting the developing world from restrictions on the use

of fossil fuels.

The IPCC’s conclusions and recommendations have

also drawn strong opposition from industry groups in the

United States, such as the American

Petroleum

Institute,

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Internalizing costs

and conservative Republican politicians. These critics charge

that the IPCC’s new evidence is only fashionable but

warmed-over theory, and that no one has yet proven conclu-

sively that climate change is indeed related to human influ-

ence. In view of the likely massive economic impact of any

aggressive program aimed at the reduction of emissions,

there is no warrant for following the IPCC’s dangerous and

ill-considered advice. Under Republican leadership, Con-

gress slashed funds for

Environmental Protection Agency

and Department of Energy programs concerned with global

warming and its causes, as well as funds for researching

alternative and cleaner sources of energy.

These funding cuts and the signals they sent created

foreign relations problems for the Clinton Administration.

The United States was unable to honor former President

Bush’s 1992 pledge (at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit)

to reduce the country’s

emission

carbon

dioxide and

methane to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Indeed, owing in

part to low oil prices and a strong domestic economy, the

United States was consuming more energy and emitting

more greenhouse gases than ever before by 2000.

In the summer of 2001, the IPCC released its strongest

statement to date on the problem of global warming, in its

Third Assessment Report. The report, “Climate Change

2001", provides further evidence for global warming and its

cause—the widescale burning of fossil fuels by humans. The

report projects that global mean surface temperatures on

earth will increase by 2.5–10.4°F (1.5–5.9°C) by the year

2100, unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced well be-

low current levels. The report also notes that this warming

trend will represent the fasting warming of the earth in

10,000 years, with possible dire consequences to human

society and the

environment

In the early 2000s, the administration of President

George W. Bush, a former oilman, was resistant to the ideas

of global warming and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The administration strongly opposed the Kyoto Treaty and

domestic

pollution

reduction laws, claiming such measures

would cost jobs and reduce the standard of living, and that

the scientific evidence was inconclusive. In June 2001, a

National Academy of Science (NAS) panel reported to Presi-

dent Bush that the IPCC’s studies on global warming were

scientifically valid. In April 2002, with pressure from the oil

industry, the Bush administration forced the removal of

IPCC Chairman Robert Watson, an American atmospheric

scientist who had been outspoken over the issue of climate

change and the need for greenhouse gas reduction in indus-

trialized countries.

The IPCC elected Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri as its

next Chairman at its nineteenth session in Geneva. Dr.

Pachauri, a citizen of India, is a well-known world-class

762

expert in economics and technology, with a strong commit-

ment to the IPCC process and to scientific integrity.

[Lawrence J. Biskowski and Douglas Dupler]

ESOURCES

OOKS

McKibbin, Warwick J., and Peter Wilcoxen. Climate Change Policy After

Kyoto: Blueprint for a Realistic Approach. Washington DC: The Brookings

Institution Press, 2002.

ERIODICALS

McKibben, Bill. “Climate Change 2001: Third Assessment Report.” New

York Review of Books, July 5, 2001, 35.

Trenberth, Kevin E. “Stronger Evidence of Human Influences on Climate:

The 2001 IPCC Assessment.” Environment, May 2001, 8.

THER

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Home Page. [cited July 2002].

<http://www.ipcc.ch>.

Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Web Page. [cited July 2002].

<http://www.ucsusa/warming>.

World Meteorological Organization Home Page. [cited July 2002]. <http://

www.wmo.ch>.

RGANIZATIONS

IPCC Secretariat, C/O World Meteorological Organization, 7bis Avenue

de la Paix, C.P. 2300, CH- 1211, Geneva, Switzerland 41-22-730-8208,

Fax: 41-22-730-8025, Email: ipcc.sec@gateway.wmo.ch, <http://

www.ipcc.ch>

Internal costs

see

Internalizing costs

Private market activities create so-called externalities. An

example of a negative

externality

air pollution

. It occurs

when a producer does not bear all the costs of an activity

in which he or she engages. Since external costs do not enter

into the calculations producers make, they will make few

attempts to limit or eliminate

pollution

and other forms of

environmental degradation

Negative externalities are a type of market defect all

economists believe is appropriate to try to correct. Milton

Friedman refers to such externalities as “neighborhood ef-

fects,” (although it must be kept in mind that some forms

of pollution have an all but local effect). The classic neighbor-

hood effect is pollution. The premise of a free market is

that when two people voluntarily make a deal, they both

benefit. If society gives everyone the right to make deals,

society as a whole will benefit. It becomes richer from the

aggregation of the many mutually beneficial deals that are

made. However, what happens if in making mutually benefi-

cial deals there is a waste product that the parties release

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

International Atomic Energy Agency

into the

environment

and that society must either suffer

from or clean up? The two parties to the deal are better off,

but society as a whole has to pay the costs. Friedman points

out that individual members of a society cannot appropriately

charge the responsible parties for external costs or find other

means of redress.

Friedman’s answer to this dilemma is simple: society,

through government, must charge the responsible parties

the costs of the clean-up. Whatever damage they generate

must be internalized in the price of the transaction. Polluters

can be forced to internalize environmental costs through

pollution taxes and

discharge

fees, a method generally fa-

vored by economists. When such taxes are imposed, the

market defect (the price of pollution which is not counted

in the transaction) is corrected. The market price then re-

flects the true social costs of the deal, and the parties have

to adjust accordingly. They will have an incentive to decrease

harmful activities and develop less environmentally damag-

ing technology. The drawback of such a system is that society

will not have direct control over pollution levels, although it

will receive monetary compensation for any losses it sustains.

However, if the government imposed a tax or charge on the

polluting parties, it would have to place a monetary value

on the damage. In practice, this is difficult to do. How much

for a human life lost to pollution? How much for a vista

destroyed? How much for a plant or animal

species

brought

extinction

? Finally, the idea that pollution is all right as

long as the polluter pays for it is unacceptable to many

people.

In fact, the government has tried to control activities

with associated externalities through regulation, rather than

by supplementing the price system. It has set standards for

specific industries and other social entities. The standards

are designed to limit environmental degradation to accept-

able levels and are enforced through the

Environmental

Protection Agency

(EPA). They prohibit some harmful

activities, limit others, and prescribe alternative behaviors.

When market actors do not adhere to these standards they

are subject to penalties. In theory, potential polluters are

given incentives to reduce and treat their waste, manufacture

less harmful products, develop alternative technologies, and

so on. In practice, the system has not worked as well as it

was hoped in the 1960s and 1970s, when much of the

environmental legislation presently in force was enacted.

Enforcement has been fraught with political and legal diffi-

culties. Extensions on deadlines are given to cities for not

meeting clean air standards and to the

automobile

industry

for not meeting standards on fuel economy of new cars, for

instance. It has been difficult to collect fines from industries

found to have been in violation. Many cases are tied up in the

courts through a lengthy appeals process. Some companies

simply declare bankruptcy to evade fines. Others continue

763

polluting because they find it cheaper to pay fines than to

develop alternative production processes.

Alternative strategies presently under debate include

setting up a

trade in pollution permits

. The government

would not levy a tax on pollution but would issue a number of

permits that altogether set a maximum acceptable pollution

level. Buyers of permits can either use them to cover their

own polluting activities or resell them to the highest bidder.

Polluters will be forced to internalize the environmental costs

of their activities so that they will have an incentive to reduce

pollution. The price of pollution will then be determined

by the market. The disadvantage of this system is that the

government will have no control over where pollution takes

place. It is thinkable that certain regions will have high

concentrations of industries using the permits, which may

result in local pollution levels that are unacceptably high.

Whether marketable pollution permits address present pol-

lution problems more satisfactorily than does regulation

alone has yet to be seen. See also Environmental economics

[Alfred A. Marcus and Marijke Rijsberman]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Friedman, M. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1962.

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

Homewood, IL: Irwin Press, 1993.

International Atomic Energy Agency

The first decade of research on

nuclear weapons

and nu-

clear reactors was characterized by extreme secrecy, and the

few nations that had the technology carefully guarded their

information. In 1954, however, that philosophy changed,

and the United States, in particular, became eager to help

other nations use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. A

program called “Atoms for Peace” brought foreign students

to the United States for the study of nuclear sciences and

provided enriched

uranium

to countries wanting to build

their own reactors, encouraging interest in nuclear energy

throughout much of the world.

But this program created a problem. It increased the

potential diversion of nuclear information and nuclear mate-

rials for the construction of weapons, and the threat of

nuclear proliferation grew. The United Nations created the

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957 to

address this problem. The agency had two primary objec-

tives: to encourage and assist with the development of peace-

ful applications of

nuclear power

throughout the world

and to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials to weapons

research and development.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

International Cleaner Production Cooperative

The first decade of IAEA’s existence was not marked

by much success. In fact, the United States was so dissatisfied

with the agency’s work that it began signing bilateral non-

proliferation treaties with a number of countries. Finally,

the 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty more clearly desig-

nated the IAEA’s responsibilities for the monitoring of nu-

clear material.

Today the agency is an active division of the United

Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO), and its headquarters are in Vienna. The IAEA

operates with a staff of more than 800 professional workers,

about 1,200 general service workers, and a budget of about

$150 million. To accomplish its goal of extending and im-

proving the peaceful use of nuclear energy, IAEA conducts

regional and national workshops, seminars, training courses,

and committee meetings. It publishes guidebooks and manu-

als on related topics and maintains the International Nuclear

Information System, a bibliographic database on nuclear

literature that includes more than 1.2 million records. The

database is made available on magnetic tape to its 42-mem-

ber states.

The IAEA also carries out a rigorous program of in-

spection. In 1987, for example, it made 2,133 inspections

at 631 nuclear installations in 52 non-nuclear weapon nations

and four nuclear weapon nations. In a typical year, IAEA

activities include conducting safety reviews in a number of

different countries, assisting in dealing with accidents at

nuclear

power plants

, providing advice to nations interested

in building their own nuclear facilities, advising countries

on methods for dealing with radioactive wastes, teaching

nations how to use radiation to preserve foods, helping uni-

versities introduce nuclear science into their curricula, and

sponsoring research on the broader applications of nuclear

science.

[David E. Newton]

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse

5, Vienna, Austria A-1400 (413) 2600-0, Fax: (413) 2600-7, Email:

official.mail@iaea.org

International Cleaner Production

Cooperative

The International Cleaner Production Cooperative is an

Internet resource (<http://es.epa.gov/cooperative/interna-

tional>) that was implemented to provide access to globally

relevant information about cleaner production and

pollution

prevention to the international community. The site is

hosted by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

and

764

gives access to a consortium of World Wide Web sites that

provides information to businesses, professional, and local,

regional, national, and international agencies that are striving

for cleaner production. The cooperative provides links to

people and businesses involved with cleaner production and

pollution prevention, and to sources of technical assistance

and information on international policy. The

United Na-

tions Environment Programme

(UNEP) is one of the pri-

mary members of the cooperative.

[Marie H. Bundy]

International Convention for the

Regulation of Whaling (1946)

The International

Whaling

Commission (IWC) was estab-

lished in 1949 following the inaugural International Conven-

tion for the Regulation of Whaling, which took place in

Washington, D.C., in 1946. Many nations have membership

in the IWC, which primarily sets quotas for

whales

. The

purpose of these quotas is twofold: they are intended to

protect the whale

species

from

extinction

while allowing

a limited whaling industry. In recent times, however, the

IWC has come under attack. The vast majority of nations

in the Commission have come to oppose whaling of any

kind and object to the IWC’s practice of establishing quotas.

Furthermore, some nations—principally Iceland, Japan, and

Norway—wish to protect their traditional whaling industries

and are against the quotas set by the IWC. With two such

divergent factions opposing the IWC, its future is as doubtful

as that of the whales.

Since its inception, the Commission has had difficulty

implementing its regulations and gaining approval for its

recommendations. In the meantime whale populations have

continued to dwindle. In its original design, the IWC con-

sisted of two sub-committees, one scientific and the other

technical. Any recommendation that the scientific commit-

tee put forth was subject to the politicized technical commit-

tee before final approval. The technical committee evaluated

the recommendation and changed it if it was not politically

or economically viable; essentially, the scientific committee’s

recommendations have often been rendered powerless. Fur-

thermore, any nation that has decided an IWC recommen-

dation was not in its best interest could have dismissed it

by simply registering an objection. In the 1970s this gridlock

and inaction attracted public scrutiny; people objected to

the IWC’s failure to protect the world’s whales. Thus in

1972 the

United Nations Conference on the Human Envi-

ronment

voted overwhelmingly to stop commercial whaling.

Nevertheless, the IWC retained some control over the

whaling industry. In 1974 the Commission attempted to

bring scientific research to management strategies in its

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme

“New Management Procedure.” The IWC assessed whale

populations with finer resolution, scrutinizing each species

to see if it could be hunted and not die out. It classified

whales as either “initial management stocks” (harvestable),

“sustained management stocks” (harvestable), or “protection

stocks” (unharvestable). While these classifications were nec-

essary for effective management, much was unknown about

whale population

ecology

, and quota estimates contained

high levels of uncertainty.

Since the 1970s, public pressure has caused many na-

tions in the IWC to oppose whale

hunting

of any kind. At

first, one or two nations proposed a whaling moratorium

each year. Both pro- and anti-whaling countries began to

encourage new IWC members to vote for their respective

positions, thus dividing the Commission. In 1982, the IWC

enacted a limited moratorium on commercial whaling, to

be in effect from 1986 until 1992. During that time it would

thoroughly assess whale stocks and afterward allow whaling

to resume for selected species and areas. Norway and Japan,

however, attained special permits for whaling for scientific

research: they continued to catch approximately 400 whales

per year, and the meat was sold to restaurants. Then in

1992—the year when whaling was supposed to have re-

sumed—many nations voted to extend the moratorium. Ice-

land, Norway, and Japan objected strongly to what they saw

as an infringement on their traditional industries and eating

customs. Iceland subsequently left the IWC, and Japan and

Norway have threatened to follow. These countries intend

to resume their whaling programs. Members of the IWC

are torn between accommodating these nations in some way

and protecting the whales, and amid such controversy it is

unlikely that the Commission can continue in its present

mission.

Although the IWC has not been able to marshall its

scientific advances or enforce its own regulations in manag-

ing whaling, it is broadening its original mission. The Com-

mission may begin to govern the hunting of small cetaceans

such as

dolphins

and porpoises, which are believed to suffer

from

overhunting

[David A. Duffus and Andrea Gacki]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Burton, R. The Life and Death of Whales. London: Andre Deutsch Ltd.,

1980.

Kellog, R. The International Whaling Commission. International Technical

Conference on Conservation of Living Resources of the Sea. New York:

United Nations Publications, 1955.

ERIODICALS

Holt, S. J. “Let’s All Go Whaling.” The Ecologist 15 (1985): 113–124.

Pollack, A. “Commission to Save Whales Endangered, Too.” The New

York Times, May 18, 1993, B8.

765

International Council for Bird

Preservation

see

BirdLife International

International Geosphere-Biosphere

Programme (U.N. Environmental

Programme)

Research scientists from all countries have always interacted

with each other closely. But in recent decades, a new type

of internationalism has begun to evolve, in which scientists

from all over the world work together on very large projects

concerning the planet.

An example is research on global change. A number

of scientists have come to believe that human activities, such

as the use of

fossil fuels

and

deforestation

of tropical rain

forests, may be altering the earth’s

climate

. To test that

hypothesis, a huge amount of meteorological data must be

collected from around the world, and no single institution

can possibly obtain and analyze it all.

A major effort to organize research on important,

worldwide scientific questions such as climate change was

begun in the early 1980s. Largely through the efforts of

scientists from two United States organizations, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the

National Research Council

, a proposal was developed for

the creation of an International Geosphere-Biosphere Pro-

gramme (IGBP). The purpose of the IGBP was to help

scientists from around the world focus on major issues about

which there was still too little information. Activity funding

comes from national governments, scientific societies, and

private organizations.

IGBP was not designed to be a new organization,

with new staff, new researchers, and new funding problems.

Instead, it was conceived of as a coordinating program that

would call on existing organizations to attack certain prob-

lems. The proposal was submitted in September 1986 to the

General Assembly of the International Council of Scientific

Unions (ICSU), where it received enthusiastic support.

Within two years, more than 20 nations agreed to

cooperate with IGBP, forming national committees to work

with the international office. A small office, administered

by Harvard oceanographer James McCarthy, was installed

at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm.

IGBP has moved forward rapidly. It identified existing

programs that fit the Programme’s goals and developed new

research efforts. Because many global processes are gradual,

a number of IGBP projects are designed with time frames

of ten to twenty years.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

International Institute for Sustainable Development

By the early 1990s, IGBP had defined a number of

projects, including the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study, the

Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone study, the

Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle research, Past

Global Changes, Global Analysis, Interpretation and

Mod-

eling

, and Global Change System for Analysis, Research

and Training.

[David E. Newton]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Kupchella, C. E. Environmental Science: Living within the System of Nature.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1986.

ERIODICALS

Edelson, E. “Laying the Foundation.” Mosaic (Fall/Winter 1988): 4–11.

Perry, J. S. “International Institutions for the Global Environment.” MTS

Journal (Fall 1991): 27–8.

THER

International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. [cited June 2002]. <http://

www.igbp.kva.se>.

International Institute for Sustainable

Development

The International Institute for

Sustainable Development

(IISD) is a nonprofit organization that serves as an informa-

tion and resources clearinghouse for policy makers promot-

ing sustainable development. IISD aims to promote sustain-

able development in decision making worldwide by assisting

with policy analysis, providing information about practices,

measuring sustainability, and building partnerships to fur-

ther sustainability goals. It serves businesses, governments,

communities, and individuals in both developing and indus-

trialized nations. IISD’s stated aim is to “create networks

designed to move sustainable development from concept to

practice.” Founded in 1990 and based in Winnipeg, Canada,

IISD is funded by foundations, governmental organizations,

private sector sources, and revenue from publications and

products.

IISD works in seven program areas. The Business

Strategies program focuses on improving competitiveness,

creating jobs, and protecting the

environment

through sus-

tainability. Projects include several publications and the

EarthEnterprise program, which offers entrepreneurial and

employment strategies. IISD’s Trade and Sustainable Devel-

opment program works on building positive relationships

between trade, the environment, and development. It exam-

ines how to make international accords, such as those made

by the

World Trade Organization

, compatible with the

goals of sustainable development. The Community

Adapta-

766

tion

and Sustainable Livelihoods program identifies adaptive

strategies for drylands in Africa and India, and it examines

the influences of policies and new technology on local ways

of life. The Great Plains program works with community,

farm, government, and industry groups to assist communities

in the Great Plains region of North America with sustainable

development. It focuses on government policies in agricul-

ture, such as the Western Grain

Transportation

Act, as

well as loss of transportation subsidies, the

North American

Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA),

soil

salination and loss

wetlands

, job loss, and technological advances. Measure-

ment and Indicators aims to set measurable goals and pro-

gress indicators for sustainable development. As part of this,

IISD offers information about the successful uses of taxes

and subsidies to encourage sustainability worldwide. Com-

mon Security focuses on initiatives of peace and consensus-

building.

IISD’s Information and Communications program of-

fers several publications and Internet sites featuring informa-

tion on sustainable development issues, terms, events, and

media coverage. This includes Earth Negotiations Bulletin,

which provides on-line coverage of major environmental

and development negotiations (especially United Nations

conferences), and IISDnet, with information about sustain-

able development worldwide. IISD also publishes more than

50 books, monographs, and discussion papers, including

Sourcebook on Sustainable Development, which lists organiza-

tions, databases, conferences, and other resources. IISD pro-

duces five journals that include Developing Ideas, published

bimonthly both in print and electronically, and featuring

articles on sustainable development terms, issues, resources,

and recent media coverage. Earth Negotiations Bulletin re-

ports on conferences and negotiations meetings, especially

United Nations conferences. IISD’s Internet journal, /link-

ages/journal/, is a bimonthly electronic multi-media subscrip-

tion magazine focusing on global negotiations. Its reporting

service, Sustainable Developments, reports on environmen-

tal and development negotiations for meetings and symposia

via the Internet. IISD also operates IISDnet (http://iisd1.iis-

d.ca/), an Internet information site featuring research, new

trends, global activities, contacts, information on IISD’s ac-

tivities and projects, including United Nations negotiations

on environment and development, corporate environmental

reporting, and information on trade issues.

IISD is the umbrella organization for Earth Council,

an international

nongovernmental organization

(NGO)

created in 1992 as a result of the

United Nations Earth

Summit

. The organization creates measurements for achiev-

ing sustainable development and assesses practices and eco-

nomic measures for their effects on sustainable development.

Earth Council coordinated the Rio+5 Forum in Rio

de Janeiro in March 1997, which assessed progress towards