Rooted in Production

The current rise in interest inenvironmental issues has provoked a flurry of new books which advise people about what they, as individuals, can do to save the environment. Such projects are good, but they will not be enough. Individuals can make changes in their habits to work toward creating a sustainable culture; they will, in fact, have to. But until manufacturers make--or are forced to make--a transition to environmentally sound production processes, the bulk of the damage that is being inflicted on the environment will continue.

Increasing awareness of the wasteful practices embedded in daily, modern life is important, but focusing exclusively on individual lifestyle and consumer decisions distracts from the question of who makes the production decisions which are fundamentally responsible for the pollution contaminating the environment. Individual consumption choices only have a limited effect; corporate executives and government officials, however, have choices that other citizens do not. For example, while people can use energy-efficient appliances and conserve energy in their homes, they cannot make up for the underfunding of solar energy research by the federal government, and they cannot effect the system-wide shift away from fossil fuels which will eventually be necessary. Recycling paper in homes and offices is important, but until newspapers and other large paper-users agree to use more than 11 percent recycled paper, the bulk of the paper that is accumulating in this country's landfills will continue to amass. Drivers can cut down on their use of cars; but they cannot build their own, fuel-efficient vehicles or mass transit systems.

The decisions about what and how to produce lie in the hands of those who direct industrial and governmental institutions. Unfortunately, business and government have failed to take the lead in developing ecologically sound technologies. Companies have strongly resisted investing their profits in research for environmentally sound alternatives, and the selective budget cuts of the Reagan years hit environmental research especially hard. The Department of Energy funding for solar energy research and development, for example, reached $560.9 million in fiscal year 1981, but it had dropped to only $94.6 million by fiscal year 1990.

The auto industry's struggle against fuel efficiency clearly demonstrates the intensity of industry's resistance to environmental reform. In 1981, the Department of Transportation forecast that, with improved technology and without restricting large car sales, the average fuel economy standard for cars produced in 1995 would be 48 miles per gallon (mpg); yet today, almost 10 years later and only five years from the target date, the federal standard is only 27.5 mpg. Auto manufacturers have successfully thwarted legislation mandating higher standards, claiming that such restrictions increase the cost of the automobiles and decrease consumers' choices.

Some environmentalists and business representatives argue that as consumers make their preferences for "greener" products known, their buying power will direct production and there will be fewer wasteful products on the market. But, as the example of solar energy demonstrates, pressuring individuals or even corporations to use existing alternatives to environmentally destructive products and processes is not sufficient. Industries must increase their investment in research oriented toward developing environmentally sustainable alternatives. Refrigerators and air conditioners that are just more energy- efficient, for example, are not what is needed; it is necessary to develop alternative coolants to CFCs.

By focusing on consumer-end projects like the promotion of greener products, environmentalists are demonstrating the degree to which the corporate decision-makers have convinced workers and consumers that they are powerless to effect change on a broader scale. There is nothing wrong with buying green, but it must be coupled with strong challenges to the larger consumers and producers in the business community and with heavy pressure on government to invest in research that can produce alternatives to make possible an environmentally sustainable future.

Here are ten demands that environmentalists can make of government and business:

• Ban all hazardous waste exports.
• Mandate recycling for paper, glass and plastic.
• Immunize environmental protection and health and safety laws from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other trade accords so that they will not be overturned as non-tariff trade barriers.
• Stop all pesticide use and make a transition to organic farming techniques.
• Expand government cost-benefit analyses to include the environmental impact of products and projects so that agencies no longer make choices without taking into account the full costs associated with their decisions.
• Build and maintain mass transit systems. Stop the tax subsidies going to individual auto transport.
• Close all nuclear power plants and institute a national energy policy centered on solar energy and conservation.
• Ban all non-essential use of plastic and asbestos.
• Stop all production of CFCs.
• Require environmental impact statements for private ventures.

Ultimately, environmentalists must recognize that the issues they raise are not isolated. The debate over how to save the environment will be lost before it is begun if it is restricted to questions like whether CFC production will cease in five or 50 years. In order to move towards a society based on clean products, derived from safe technology, environmentalists will have to address themselves to the fundamental question of who controls the production process.