The Environment

Most ''green'' issues are presented as choices between protecting the environment and growing the economy: You can have a logging industry or save the spotted owl. You can reduce greenhouse gases or have industrial growth. You can have clean oceans or offshore oil drilling.

Most Americans, however, seem to be seeking a choice that includes and rather than just or. They tell pollsters they care about the environment and fear it will get worse, yet seem torn on how to respond and unready to accept the sacrifices that some environmentalists believe are necessary.

Progress and problems

Twenty-five years ago, environmentalists could target ''point sources'' -- pollution that could be tied to a specific source, such as smokestack industries, toxic waste dumping, and ocean discharge pipes. It was a war against pollution that people could see (and frequently smell). It was also a war with significant victories. Between 1975 and 1985, for example, lead emissions in the air were reduced by 90 percent. Substantial progress has also been made on other aspects of air quality. Water quality in many lakes and streams improved.

That struggle, difficult as it was, at least had the advantage of clarity, both in the causes and the solutions. Now much environmental effort has shifted to more diffuse ''non-point'' pollution, caused by problems on a regional or even global scale. In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, the fight against ocean pollution concentrated on industrial outfall pipes, improved sewage treatment, and dumping garbage at sea. Now environmental regulators in many areas are contending with problems like "runoff"; pollutants washed into the sea from farms, businesses and lawns.

A recent study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warned that the nation's coastlines are deteriorating to the point where they can no longer fully support marine life or human activity. It cited as an example the Gulf of Mexico's ''dead zone'' -- an area that is uninhabitable by marine life during the summer because of a lack of oxygen; in the last decade, it has doubled in size to 7,000 square miles. And the most recent annual report by the environmental organization American Rivers said dams, dredging and development are wreaking havoc in the nation?s waterways, most notably ''draining the life'' out of the Missouri River.

A Changing Climate

The big argument overn climate change used to be whether we really needed to worry about it –
whether global warming was real, and whether "greenhouse gases" produced by fossil fuels were to blame. There are a few doubters still, but the vast majority – scientists, elected officials, even the companies that produce oil, coal, and gas – now accepts the reality of global warming. Most governments and leaders around the world have accepted this as well, including the United Nations, the European Union and, after some initial doubts, President Bush. (For the scientific evidence and impact in detail, see the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the U.S. Climate Change Science Program).

The scientific consensus is that the Earth is getting warmer. Global temperatures have risen a full degree Fahrenheit in the last century. The warming trend is speeding up, with seven of the eight hottest years recorded occurring since 2001. And most scientists say the warming is because of “greenhouse gases” like that come from the kinds of fuel we use most – primarily oil, (which is mostly used for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel) and coal (almost all of which is used to produce electricity). Since people in the U.S. and around the world are burning more of these so-called fossil fuels, greenhouse emissions have also increased – they’re already 35 percent above what they were it was before the Industrial Revolution.

Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3.2 to 7.2 degrees higher by the end of the century. We can at least slow down this warming trend by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions, by using less fossil fuel or switching to cleaner alternatives. The impact of climate change could include coastal flooding, extreme weather, drought and social instability in many countries. The world's richest nations, the so-called G-8, have pledged to seek to cut greenhouse emissions worldwide in half by 2050, but many environmentalists argue the world has to act more quickly than that.

The United States has been the largest producer of greenhouse gases, so what we do makes a big difference. And the U.S. has been reluctant to act aggressively on curbing emissions, worried about the economic consequences. But this is generally agreed to be a global problem requiring worldwide action. Many European nations like Britain and France, and Japan as well, have acted much more aggressively on cutting emissions. They rely more on nuclear power and relatively clean natural gas than we do. They have also mandated significantly higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and invested more in mass transit and rail. The story is mixed in developing countries, especially the economic powerhouses like China and India. Because their economies are growing so rapidly, they are usinguse much more energy and produceing more greenhouse gases than they have in the past. At the same time, they have the chance to start fresh with cleaner and more efficient technologies if they can be persuaded to do so.

The public view

Public concern about pollution and identification with environmentalism have declined over the past two decades. Half of Americans say they consider themselves environmentalists, but that's down from three-quarters of the public in 1989. Yet most Americans, particularly younger people, also tell survey researchers they expect the environment to get worse in the 21st century. Although relatively few people regard the environment as one of the nation's most pressing issues, most regard it as an important one.

Surveys suggest the public resists the either-or choices that are so often presented in environmental policy. Whether the issue is consumption and conservation, or environmental protection and economic growth, people seem to reach for a middle ground -- and their views can change depending on the state of the economy.

Choicework

For additional perspective on how society could address this issue, visit our Discussion Guide which sets out three alternative approaches.
The points of view are drawn both from what the experts say about an issue and from what the public thinks about it, based on surveys and focus groups. We call this section "Choicework." Each point of view comes with the arguments for and against, along with some potential costs and tradeoffs.

• One perspective holds that the United States has made progress on environmental protection, but the situation needs ongoing attention. Through prudent regulation, we can achieve a balance between environmental protection, economic growth, and other social goods.
• A second perspective believes that the measures needed to protect natural resources are already in place, and there's no compelling reason to go much further. Environmentalists
  have become a special interest group who insist on unreasonable and enormously costly measures that often infringe on private property rights.
• The third perspective maintains that a safe and sound environment is the precondition for everything else we do, so environmental protection must take precedence over other public goals. Government has to go much further in reducing pollution and radical changes are necessary to change environmentally unsafe practices, products, and lifestyles.