Between Two Worlds: Science, the Environmental Movement and Policy Choice.

Perspectives vary on how environmental science should be integrated into law and public policy. This Review considers the perspectives of a scientist and a policy maker. While both agree that scientists should become more involved in the education of the public and decision makers, they differ on how this should be accomplished. Edmondson advocates scientific vigilance to environmental problems and ad hoc, event-specific solutions to them. Caldwell maintains that science is fueling a radical reorientation of social perspectives and objectives that will form the policies of our post-modern world. The authors agree that the future is uncertain and will be determined by how we address major environmental challenges of the present.

I. INTRODUCTION

The environmental movement has fueled widespread public interest in the scientific bases of environmental problems.(1) This popular interest, in turn, has been translated into a multitude of state and federal legislative efforts to clean up, protect, and conserve the environment and its resources. Agencies implement most of these statutes through rules based on scientific advances and technologies.(2)

Some technologies are widely accepted for the purpose of fashioning simple and useful standards to guide individual behavior. For example, new methods of chemical analysis led to effluent and water quality standards used in controlling the dumping of pollutants into the nation's rivers. However, some technologies have raised questions about environmental problems, or have suggested solutions of debatable effectiveness that are not easily implemented. For example, scientific experiments have suggested that human combustion of organic materials may indirectly lead to the global greenhouse effect and warming.(3)

In forming decisions about environmental policy, many agencies must consider easily applied scientific findings as well as those that are more difficult to apply.(4) But critics often question the adequacy of the government's consideration of prospective scientific theory, and reports that governmental decisions are often based more on special financial interests than on environmental considerations are nearly cliche. While most agree that policy makers should make better use of science, perspectives vary on how science and policy could be better integrated.

This Review examines the views of two authors. Section II considers The Uses of Ecology: Lake Washington and Beyond, by W.T. Edmondson.(5) Professor Edmondson is well-known for his pioneering research on lake ecosystems and his involvement in public education regarding environmental problems. Section III reviews Between Two Worlds: Science, the Environmental Movement, and Policy Choice, by Lynton Keith Caldwell.(6) Professor Caldwell has been heavily involved in the political side of the environmental movement for several decades and was a driving force behind enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970.(7) Section IV compares the perspectives of the two authors, finding that, while the authors' views differ concerning how to integrate science into law and policy and how the policies themselves should be implemented, they agree that major problems such as global human population growth must be confronted if there is to be hope for the future of our environment.

II. THE USES OF ECOLOGY: A SCIENTIST'S PERSPECTIVE

Edmondson uses his experiences as a scientist on Lake Washington to answer the question: "What can an ivory-tower, egghead ecologist do to help the people understand and solve problems of environmental deterioration?"(8) In Part 1 of the book, Professor Edmondson recounts his experiences as a limnologist working on Lake Washington and his involvement in a campaign to clean up the lake. The story began in 1955 when coworkers in Edmondson's lab found an abundant concentration of the blue-green algae, Oscillatoria rubescens, in a water sample from the lake. This is the same species that heralded a sewage-related eutrophication, fouling of the water, and loss of fisheries in Switzerland's Lake Zurich at the turn of the century.(9) The abundance of this indicator species in Lake Washington implied that the water was on the verge of precipitous deterioration. Although, at the time of the discovery, the quality of Lake Washington's water was still acceptable,(10) concern that the quality would further deteriorate from over-use by the growing population led the City of Seattle to appoint a committee to study the problem.(11) The committee, with Edmondson as unofficial science advisor, eventually stopped the deterioration by diverting sewage through improved primary and secondary sewage treatment plants that emptied into Puget Sound rather than the lake.(12) If Seattle had not taken action, the lake would likely have become murky and foul smelling. However, within several years of the diversion, the lake showed significant improvement. Today it is clear and widely used for recreation.(13) While Seattle's solution sounds easy, it involved lobbying for a special state Metro Enabling Act(14) that, after a public vote, allowed several Seattle suburbs and local communities to work together on a solution, funded by various agencies administrating on several levels and working under a special regional agency.(15)

The importance of the story is that the local public reacted to predicted environmental damage and implemented preemptive solutions before the problem became unmanageably bad. Knowing when enough information is available to warrant action based on scientific predictions is difficult.(16) However, Edmondson is satisfied that, given an adequate scientific hearing, the public, through the political process, will choose the proper course of action.(17)

Part 2 applies the ecological principles and ideas learned in Part 1 to problems in Puget Sound, Mono Lake, the Panama Canal, and the global atmosphere. Edmondson also discusses ecology in the context of the phosphorus detergent controversy of the 1970s to demonstrate the types of conflicts that can occur between economic interests and environmental interests. Essentially, the problems arise when one party takes an action that benefits itself, while at the same time causing a detriment to another without giving the other a compensatory benefit.(18) In the detergent controversy, the industry's continued use of high-phosphorus detergents benefitted the industry through profits(19) (and consumers through cleaner clothes because more powerful cleaners had not yet been developed), but the added nutrients stimulated vegetative and microbial growth, choking the nation's waterways at a cost to everyone.

Edmondson recounts how, in the context of the phosphorus problems of the 1970s--as well as the tobacco smoke and acid rain problems of today--the industry defended its interests by attempting to discredit scientific studies that suggested its products or procedures were environmentally unsafe. Industrial opponents often have similar reactions to such studies(20) and use the same tactics, including creative misinterpretation or omission of relevant data or statistics, focus on irrelevant information,(21) and attacks on opposing scientists' credibility.(22) While these may be good strategical moves in the legal game, they are inappropriate and frustrating to a scientist who is trying to evaluate and present evidence in an objective manner.(23) These distracting arguments also interfere with the efficient transfer of information to the public and to decision makers.

Part 3 reviews several long-term study sites, stressing that long-term ecological research is needed to detect and avoid environmental problems. Many ecological processes and environmental problems occur over an extended period that short-term studies can not evaluate, and the answers to many questions related to quicker-paced processes and environmental problems depend on having a record of prior conditions.(24)

Edmondson draws a bright line between long-term studies that answer a series of questions concerning one ecological system and studies that take a long time to answer a single question. The former studies are more easily funded because they generate tangible results in the short run, but the latter are needed to detect changes in systems that occur over long time scales. Edmondson is careful to note that, in his opinion, long-term research does not mean merely the sustained monitoring of environmental parameters; it means research about various facets of a single system over time.(25) The value of accumulated data sets from various studies concerning one system is worth more than the sum of the separate studies because a scientist looking for answers to unpredicted results in one project can examine data collected in another project on the same system.

The value of research is an important issue in today's politics. Research is expensive and there is no consensus on how the government should distribute its limited research dollars or how it can get the highest value out of those dollars. Currently, most granting systems rely on the ingenuity of individual researchers, and award grants to unsolicited proposals within areas of study designated by the grantor based on a system of critical and anonymous peer review. Competition is keen among researchers vying for the few government dollars, and very few proposals are actually funded.(26)

Environmental and other civilian researchers hoped that the end of the Cold War and the down-scaling of the military budget would relieve some of the competition pressure by freeing up research money.(27) Instead, Congress has expressed a desire to reevaluate the role that research plays in achieving national policy goals, and has threatened to exert more control in setting research priorities.(28) As Edmondson describes, this is not a new idea. The National Science Foundation used a similar granting system when it solicited grant proposals to examine previously identified questions for its Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program.(29) But not everyone believes this system would be better. For one thing, it relies less on the ingenuity of individual researchers.(30) It also tends to discourage so-called "basic" research, which may not be immediately applicable.(31) As with the LTER program, granting and systems other than peer review generally have not been successful.(32)

Part 4 is a cacophony of issues that may often be part of the public perception of an environmental problem. For example, Edmondson discusses the meaning of the terms "pollution"(33) and "chemical"(34) and the public emotion that is raised when these terms are used. In another chapter, he examines a judicial opinion that misused expert evidence to demonstrate the difficulties in weighing scientific evidence and the role of the scientific expert in clarifying environmental issues.(35) This part is both a handbook for scientists on how to best present testimony and a series of criteria that citizens, activists, and decision makers may use when trying to separate scientific fact from speculative policy-based opinion.

In the last chapters, Edmondson comments on characteristics that many environmental problems share. First, most environmental problems result from increases or accelerations of the ecological and physical processes that normally occur without human intervention.(36) Second, solutions require definition of the problem, goals, and evaluation of methods to accomplish the goals. It is important to realize that there may be more than one alternative solution and that in deciding between them, decisionmakers should consider possible side-effects in their risk analysis.(37) In the final pages, Edmondson discusses the world population problem, and notes that, if the population continues to grow, all other efforts at environmental control will fail. He closes with the question: "Is There Intelligent Life On Earth?"(38)

The Uses of Ecology, based on a series of lectures, has a casual story-telling tone and is entertaining to read.(39) Through the stories, Edmondson discusses the scientific bases of aquatic environmental problems and shows how "natural" states and cycles can be disrupted by human interference. But, while he makes liberal use of biology and chemistry, he explains the science in a way that should not be daunting to most, and may serve as an important education to some.(40) The book is a charge to scientists to become involved as sources of relevant information in the political process, and a pleading to the masses to carefully evaluate the science presented to them so that they can competently direct the course of policy through the political process.

Edmondson is perhaps too quick to air his frustrations as an involved scientist and environmentalist in holding industry profit motives responsible for environmental decay. And, he gives short shrift to the idea that the public should share responsibility because it failed to force industry to internalize costs of doing business and pass them on to consumers. However, if this is a weakness, it merely supports Edmondson's view that scientists should be more effective as sources of information for the public and government so that changes may be made through the political processes.

III. BETWEEN TWO WORLDS: A POLICY MAKER'S PERSPECTIVE

Caldwell picks up where Edmondson left off. He begins by stating that "[i]t should be apparent that effective interaction of scientific inquiry with informed citizenry is a condition necessary to an optimal future for life on earth."(41) With this certainty, he seeks to address what use can be made of science to advance human welfare in ways compatible with the integrity, diversity, and continuity of the biosphere; what beliefs, values and institutions must be changed; and what strategies might be necessary to increase our future options and quality of life.

Caldwell addresses the social and political barriers that science must overcome to be considered by those who make environmental policy decisions. Essentially, he believes the problem is two-fold. First, scientists often do not adequately explain the relevant policy implications of their findings.(42) Second, government policy makers often do not understand the significance of scientific findings. The latter is partly because policy makers generally know a great deal about economics and politics but often do not have training in science.(43) When they sit down at the table to make a decision, they are likely to base that decision on things they know and understand. In addition, they may believe that science can tell them how to do what they have already decided to do but that science can not tell them which action ought to be taken among various alternatives.(44) These factors lead to "economism" where economic and political factors are given disproportionately more weight than scientific factors in policy decisions.(45) Caldwell notes that this notion is slowly changing as a result of public pressure.(46)

Caldwell urges the reader to overcome barriers to integration of science and policy, but he questions whether this currently can be attained. Unfortunately, effective communication between scientists and policy makers is only accomplished through direct interaction.(47) Indirect ad hoc scientific involvement, or involvement through volunteer nongovernmental organizations, is seldom a practical way to integrate science into politics because political recognition of ad hoc science generally depends on the influence the science has on public understanding and opinion.(48)

Public discourse on the future of the environment has been influenced through scientific understanding of humankind's interconnectedness with the environment in space and time.(49) The photographic images of Earth brought back by Apollo VIII and the philosophical image of earth as the Goddess Gaia have solidified public sentiment that the Earth is fragile and finite.(50) But, Caldwell says, if we are to give these new ideas serious political consideration, society must change the way it perceives and values the environment and the way governmental institutions prioritize the perceived public values.(51) Part of the problem is that not everyone agrees on how science and policy should interpret environmental problems and questions, how to address them, or even where to begin.(52) While the effort to reach a solution requires coordinated action, it is difficult to coordinate the various parties whose fundamental assumptions differ so greatly. One answer to the coordination problem might be found in technological advances that have improved the quality of scientific forecasting of environmental opportunities and risks. To the extent that simulation models and scientific predictions prove to be true, Caldwell believes they will win greater acceptance as tools for coordinated political decision making.(53)

Scientists have generally supported the environmental movement even though they have offered constructive criticisms of its scientific claims at times.(54) Still, "science remains the most solid and durable element in [environmentalism's] intellectual foundation."(55) The environmentalist paradigm is simple:

[T]he world of humans is unequivocally dependent on the Earth

and its biogeochemical systems which make life on Earth possible

. . . . Nature . . . [is] 'indifferent' to human affairs, which, in

part, succeed or fail to the extent that they are consistent with natural

forces .... [T]he term |growth' . . . must be used in a more

qualified and specified sense than is usually encountered in the

rhetoric of political economy.(56)

Not everyone agrees with the paradigm, and a great deal of energy is spent debating the environmentalist ideal of no growth--meaning no expansive "more and bigger" economic growth.(57) While people on both sides seem satisfied to debate the apparent contradictions between environmentalism and economic growth,(58) Caldwell explains that the difference is primarily psychological;(59) both ideals require limited growth.(60) Economics is concerned with allocation of limited resources, and these limits preclude indeterminate growth. Ecology concerns sustained cycles of growth, death, disintegration, and regrowth. Conflict over the term growth has led to the term "sustainable development," a value-neutral term that can be used by both sides of the debate.(61) Once the rhetoric surrounding growth and sustainable development is cut away, economists appear more concerned with the means of growth ("opportunities for realization of value preferences") while environmentalists are concerned with its ends ("possible consequences of indiscriminate growth . . . [contributing] to the qualitative diminution of the biosphere").(62)

Recognizing that there will be growth in some sense, the question becomes one of allocation. How shall limited resources be allocated in a manner acceptable to both environmentalists and economists? Essentially, there are two methods of allocation which may be used separately or in combination. First, resources could be allocated through authoritarian force.(63) While environmentalists tend to favor this command-and-control approach,(64) authoritarian decisions often are not based on rational ecological values. Also, authoritarian forces have no inherent self-correcting feature that allows for optimalization of resource use.

Second, resources may be allocated through the cumulative individual actions of public free-market decisions.(65) The free-market system, in theory, has the advantage of self-correction; incentives created by market demands stimulate optimal allocation and reduce waste. This system also does not require consensual value choices because it responds to individual decisions. However, the free-market does not meet its theoretical expectations because political manipulation of prices, supplies, and subsidies distort actual market value.(66) Also, market prices tend to ignore external costs of production and therefore "are poor at making ecologically rational allocations of natural and common property resources such as air and water."(67)

This makes unregulated free trade difficult at the national level and even more problematic in the world market. In the context of global trade and economics, deregulation of trade markets and opening up of new markets to free trade paradoxically necessitates increased levels of international environmental regulation to protect those traders who do internalize costs of production from those who do not.(68) Further, in another paradox, economic power gained through free market processes can be used in an authoritarian manner to support the individual values of the wielder of the economic power.

Caldwell notes that current political schemes use a combination of market processes and authoritarian controls to allocate resources. How these strategies are combined is a matter of political choice and involves public opinion and "wisdom." It is difficult, however, for a policy maker to weigh public opinion and choose the wise alternative action from the multitude presented. The "correctness" of environmentalism has been established in a broad sense,(69) but environmentalists have not been completely successful in translating this into political action. Caldwell explains that environmentalists fail to elect political representatives because they are less organized than other associations and unions; their goals are not as firm as other groups; and at the ballot box, their members may react to other, local, or immediate issues of personal concern.(70) Furthermore, economic interests are capable of greater effective opposing pressure, and there may be institutional limits to the decision maker's range of choice.

Caldwell argues that the current national and international institutions cannot adequately address global environmental problems and there is a need for a new planetary politic. Science has been instrumental in educating the masses about global environmental problems and "people in growing numbers have begun to comprehend the world in planetary terms."(71) The new understanding has led to international agreements to control environmental hazards like pathogens as they directly relate to health and international commerce.(72) Humankind has been slower to recognize and deal with other global problems that do not affect commerce as directly.(73)

Caldwell is "cautiously hopeful" that changes in policy will be made; popular dissatisfaction indicates that people have faith that improvement is possible and that a new planetary policy will emerge.(74) This new policy is likely to be driven by the influence of scientific knowledge; it is likely to result in greater privatization of governmental functions to obtain a higher degree of accountability; and its methods for resource allocation will be more consonant with social responsibility than private interest.(75) Fundamentally, the new policy must change political perspective from a balanced approach between ecology and economy to an integration of the two(76) where economy is used as a means to achieve a policy goal, but not the goal itself.(77)

Many would agree with Caldwell that, in the future, more use of economic incentives and market forces for environmental protection will be made.(78) However, increased use of the market does not mean increased libertarian freedoms. In fact, Caldwell believes that the current focus on generalized and personal freedoms will likely give way to stronger authoritarian controls.(79) Some might find his prognosis of a vastly new planetary paradigm to be a little unsettling because it will arise naturally from unknown corners and because its nature cannot be predicted. However, changing social paradigms are not new. Caldwell notes that human history has been punctuated with periods of radical change that separate one era from another.(80) The transitions are fueled by new circumstances that necessitate social change from outdated customary behaviors.

Between Two Worlds spends very little time detailing our environmental predicament and does not offer solutions. Instead, it examines the social and political context in which these problems have arisen and the effect that science has had in defining the environmental questions and redefining social expectations for solution. The book is not intended to motivate readers to action, but to objectively inform them about the pathways of social progress toward solution. Caldwell notes that we are in an historical discontinuity, a time of rapid transition, between the troubled death of our modern world and the birth of an unknown post-modern world.(81) The form of this post-modern world can not be known, but, it will be shaped by decisions we make today. These decisions, in turn, will be shaped by science and the popular understanding of it.

Caldwell is careful to note that an "optimistic" forecast for change in environmental attitudes and behavior is not realistic because "collective discipline in a common effort" is a behavior that humans find most difficult.(82) Instead, he is "cautiously hopeful" that, as science becomes more interdisciplinary and focuses more on interpretation, it will facilitate social education about the environmental necessity for change and lead the political machine toward rational environmental policies.

IV. COMPARISON OF VIEWS

Both authors are concerned with the progression of environmental decay. Edmondson and Caldwell agree that science should play a central role in the remedy, but their perspectives differ on how this should be accomplished. Edmondson takes the more pragmatic and mundane approach. He advocates scientist involvement in political decisions, but is careful to note that these decisions must be made by politicians, and that scientists, acting in their role as scientists, should maintain an objective view of the problems and not engage in strategic distortions of scientific knowledge. His perspective seems to be that science should be alert to specific environmental problems, "identify the kind of knowledge required to assess [them] and the kinds of corrective actions available," and help motivate political action to avert unnecessary harm before the problems become unmanageable.(83) An important aspect of this alertness is an ability to recognize danger signals once they appear. In order for society to be cognizant of what indicators may occur and when they might be significant, Edmondson emphasizes the need for long-term ecological research, and that the best approach to directing the path of research is the current system where unsolicited grants are critically reviewed and evaluated by experts in the field. This, he believes, is the most efficient way to stimulate creative minds to work on the most important problems.

Caldwell also notes the importance of extended-term scientific inquiry into the environmental future,(84) but he prefers a politically coordinated granting system to one where individual scientists direct the focus of their own research. This is because scientific researchers are specialists and may not be cognizant of the broader societal implications of their work,(85) and because policy makers should be able to get the answers they need to questions on which they are ready to act.(86) Caldwell agrees with Edmondson that scientists have a responsibility to educate citizens and public officials so that decision makers consider scientific knowledge along with values, ethics, and other nonscientific factors.(87) He also would advocate solving particular problems with particular solutions when possible.(88) However, Caldwell goes further. He sees environmental deterioration as part of a larger trend requiring international policy decisions to create a scientific agenda to reunify goals.

Caldwell does not believe that current institutions can take environmental protection where it needs to go, and he discusses some of the changes in social behavior that will be necessary for better institutions. Caldwell thinks institutions must move in the direction of decreasing use of market forces and increasing regulation. Edmondson believes we should move in the other direction. Edmondson does not advocate gross change in regulatory structure, but suggests that fine tuning of the regulatory procedures may improve the efficiency of the system.(89) He favors using the market approach and advocates the balancing of environmental protection with human desires.(90)

Both authors pose the fundamental policy question: can humankind learn to react to predicted problems and to deal with them before they become unmanageable?(91) This question seems particularly pertinent in light of the most pressing environmental problem, overpopulation,(92) as well as reported planetary changes(93) consisting of global warming,(94) ozone depletion,(95) and loss of biological diversity.(96) If Edmondson's experience on Lake Washington is an indication, we are able to make preemptive changes. But the circumstances of Lake Washington may have been unusual. There, the problem was essentially local, it could be solved by immediate technology, there were no large industrial opponents, and there was a solution to the problem that benefitted all parties.(97) As Caldwell notes, local solutions to problems of society's waste usually neglect the underlying causes and fail to consider permanent solutions.(98) Often the reaction to a predicted environmental problem will require hard choices between alternatives that are not altogether perfect, and the question of how much hard information about the prediction is needed to warrant action will always exist.(99) Still, public reaction to reports of ozone depletion quickly led to international conventions to deal with the causes,(100) which, while not immediate nor complete in controlling ozone-depleting substances, shows that people can react to environmental problems on a global scale when the risks of no action are greater than the costs of action.

The fact that we are demanding more environmental protection on the local and world scales supports Caldwell's contention that as the masses become more aware of environmental deterioration, environmental concerns will become increasingly important as political and economic motivators. However, these solutions are still only piecemeal steps toward the radical change in social and political behavior that Caldwell believes is necessary and imminent. Caldwell wonders whether humankind will be able to redefine its position in the cosmos in a manner harmonious with nature. Similarly, Edmondson wonders whether there is intelligent life on Earth. The answers to these questions await us in the future, but "a reason for hope lies in the demonstrated capacity of humans to learn and, when necessary, to learn quickly."(101) (1.) See, e.g., Senator Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (1992). (2.) E.g., see generally Protection of Environment, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (3.) See infra note 94. (4.) See infra note 7. (5.) W.T. Edmondson, The Uses of Ecology: Lake Washington and Beyond (1991). (6.) Lynton Keith Caldwell, Between Two Worlds: Science, The Environmental Mental Movement, and Policy Choice (1990, corrected ed. 1992). (7.) NEPA, 42 U.S.C. [subsections] 4321-4370c (1988). NEPA was designed to force federal agencies to consider consequences of their actions on the human environment. Id. [sections] 4332(B). As part of the consideration requirements, agencies must generate a paper trail that may be reviewed by the public. Id. [sections] 4332(C); Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Caldwell notes that NEPA is an ingenious mechanism to ensure that environmental science is given a coordinative role in federal policy. Caldwell, a note 6, at 80. See also Lynton Keith Caldwell, NEPA Revisited: A Call for a Constitutional Amendment, Envtl. F. Nov.-Dec. 1989. (8.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at xiii. (9.) Id. at 12-13. (10.) Although water quality had decreased from previous years; phosphorus concentrations had doubled from previous years and dissolved oxygen concentrations where lower at certain times of the year. Id. at 12. (11.) Id. at 21. (12.) This action did not merely transfer the problem to Puget Sound because the microbial food web of Puget Sound was capable of handling the nutrient-rich effluent. Id. at 139-40, 145. But see infra note 89. (13.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 52. (14.) Metropolitan Municipal Corporations Act, 1965 Wash. Laws ch. 7, [sections] 35.58.460 (codified as amended at Wash. Rev. Code [sections] 35.58.460 (1990)). (15.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 22. (16.) William H. Rogers, Jr., The Porcupine's Dilemma: Strategic and Psychological Uncertainty in the Face of Global Warming 9 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 267 (1992) (When faced with an environmental problem that may be exacerbated if not addressed, and which has not been studied well enough to warrant choice between alternate solutions, the best choices are "no regrets" options that provide some meaningful steps toward solution but which preserve flexibility for the future.). Id. at 272. (17.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 53. (18.) Id. at 191. See also Garrett Hardin, Tragedy of the Commons, 168 Sci. 1243 (1968) (discussing the inevitability of individual actions leading to overuse of common resources). These and other costs that are not incorporated into market forces are called "externalities" that lead to market failure. See Robert V. Percival et al., Environmental Regulation: Law, Science, and Policy 40-42 (1992). These costs should be internalized as part of the cost of doing business. Edmondson supra note 5, at 148. (19.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 92. (20.) Edmondson notes that while many industrial leaders have a responsible environmental attitude, "the struggle for profits can overwhelm common sense." Edmondson, supra note 5, at 289. Of course, business common sense demands maximization of profits; so Edmonsdson's "common sense" is actually a value judgement about the manner in which the profits are made. Still, the typical sequence of industry responses to questions about environmentally damaging effects of business practices does seem to defy logic:

(a) there is no problem

(b) there is a problem but we didn't cause it

(c) there is a problem, we did cause it but it is so bad we can do nothing

about it

(d) perhaps there never was a man-made problem because the lake has always

been like that, it's the way God made it. Id. at 289-90 (quoting personal discussion with R.B. Wood, University of Coleraine, Northern Ireland). (21.) See, e.g., id. at 111-14. (22.) See, e.g., id. at 127; Roberts, infra note 35. (23.) Id. at 116. "[I]n much of the testimony and in public talks, some people with scientific training were not functioning as scientists. They were debating, not making an objective, thoughtful evaluation of information." Id. (24.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 193, 235. (25.) However, while "monitoring" has the unpleasant connotation of collecting reams of data without a clear purpose, Edmondson notes that a properly designed monitoring program which carefully chooses measurement of environmental factors related to an expected change or problem is an invaluable part of environmental control. Id. at 282-85. (26.) The Ecology Panel of the National Science Foundation has only funded about 15% of the ecology proposals it has reviewed in recent years. Id. at 239. (27.) Richard Stone, Press Urges Doubling for Research, 256 Sci. 734 (1993). (28.) Joseph Palca, Congress Queries Hallowed Principles, 257 Sci. 1620 (1992) (discussing how Congress is considering giving either the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy or the users of research a greater role in defining the direction for governmentally funded research). (29.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 242-43. (30.) Id. at 242-50. But see infra notes 84-86 and accompanying text. (31.) Edmondson notes that there is a need for basic research, especially because applied research stems from it. Edmondson, supra note 5, at 285-86. Explaining how basic research may be risky in terms of potential applicability of each project, the Editor of Science noted that, overall, the rewards are great and have led to innovations such as "x-rays, penicillin, polio vaccines, light-weight polymers, computers, the green revolution, and recombinant DNA." Daniel E. Kosland, Jr., Editorial, Basic Research (I), 259 Sci. 291 (1993). (32.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 237. (33.) Id. at 255-59. (34.) Id. at 280. (35.) Id. at 261-2 (citing C.H. Mortimer, The Lake Michigan Case: A Review and Commentary on the Limnilogical and Other Issues (1981)) (discussing Judge Grady's unreported opinion for the Northern District of Illinois in People of Illinois v. Milwaukee, 599 F.2d 151 (7th Cir. 1979), vacated, 451 U.S. 304 (1981)). See also Leslie Roberts, Science in Court: A Culture Clash 257 Sci. 732 (1992) (discussing differences in philosophies and goals between lawyers and scientific witnesses in United States v. Yee, 134 F.R.D. 161 (N.D. Ohio 1990)). (36.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 273. (37.) Id. at 275-82. (38.) Id. at 303 (quoting Preston Cloud, Is There Intelligent Life on Earth?, in Carbon and the Biosphere 264 (George M. Woodwell & Erene V. Pecan eds., 1973)). (39.) Sometimes the interactions between Professor Edmondson and parties in opposition to the Metro project are almost comical. For example, after Edmondson explained to an attorney in opposition to the Metro project that eutrophication in Lake Washington caused excess biological activity and resulted in deepwater oxygen depletion, the attorney "called back and said something like, |Professor, I have done some research on that oxygen problem and you are wrong. Water is [H.sub.2]O and O means oxygen, so if you have water you have oxygen.'" Id. at 27 (quoting an attorney whose name Edmondson withheld). (40.) For a broad introduction to general ecological principles and their application to environmental problems see Eugene P. Odum, Ecology and our Endangered Life-Support Systems (1989). (41.) Caldwell, supra note 6, at ix. (42.) Id. at 23. (43.) Id. at 28. (44.) Id. at 22. Mark Sagoff explained that the scientist will guide the policy maker in identifying the important biological, historical, and aesthetic properties of ecosystems or natural environments, and in understanding the values that may lead us to preserve them. The scientist, then, would be responsible for helping policy makers not simply to achieve given goals, but also to determine what the goals of environmental law and policy should be. Mark Sagoff, Ethics, Ecology, and the Environment: Integrating Science and Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. 77, 207 (1988). (45.) Id. at 29. Methods to integrate ecology and economics into single mathematical models have shown promise. See Eugene P. Odum, Basic Ecology (1983) (describing the conceptual model of "embodied energy" proposed by Howard T. Odum, Energy, Ecology, and Economics, 2 Ambio 220 (1973) and other models designed to merge ecology and economics). However, some argue that the types of information these two disciplines yield is fundamentally different and that ecology can not, and should not, pursue value-neutral goals. Sagoff, supra note 44, at 163-171. (46.) Caldwell, supra note 6, at 23. (47.) Science can be infused into the political process through: professionally employed government agency scientists, scientists appointed to advise government councils or committees on particular problems, scientists who are part of national academies that generally advise the government, scientists appointed to national commissions to define public policy, and scientists involved in legislative inquiry and investigation. Id. note 6, at 24-26. (48.) Id. at 26-27. (49.) Id. at 48, 64, 66-67. (50.) Id. at 38-39, 53-54. Gaia is the concept that Earth behaves as a super-ecosystem in its capacity to self-regulate and maintain a chemically and physically homeostatic, nurturing environment for the life it contains, and that Earth's biota take the dominant role in maintaining the equilibrium. James E. Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (1979). However, resilience and stability of the biosphere itself does not mean that the human species can survive all man-made catastrophes or that we will be part of the ecological community following natural selection pressures in a changed environment. Odum, supra note 40, at 62. See also Edmondson, supra note 6, at 273. (51.) Caldwell, supra note 6, at 65-66. (52.) Caldwell divides social interpretations of environmental problems into three classes of comprehension: (1) "[accidental,] harmful behaviors occurring in the normal course of human activities . . . [that may be cleaned up through] ad hoc corrections, clean-up campaigns, indoctrination and education, (2) "errors in policy, program planning, and execution [that can be fixed through] corrective laws," and (3) fundamental and systemic "impairment |built into' technoeconomic systems . . . [that must be addressed through b]asic changes in technical and behavioral systems: redesigning of institutions and development of alternative methods . . . ." Id. at 71. He also notes that many, and perhaps the majority of the world's populace, deny the existence of a generalized environmental problem and believe that environmental problems should be responded to under compulsions of needs or cultural motivations. Id. at 75. (53.) Id. note 6, at 37. However, environmental science is often held to a higher standard of predictability than economics. Id. at 28. E.g., compare James L. Huffman, Book Review, Civilization in the Balance: Comments on Senator Al Gore's Earth in the Balance, 23 Envtl. L. 233, 242 (1983) (criticizing the theory of global warming because scientific climate models are not accurate) with id. at 252-53 (defending economic models that are based on unreal assumptions because they are useful tools in understanding economic processes). (54.) Caldwell, supra note 6, at 96. (55.) Id. (56.) Id. at 90. (57.) The environmentalist perspective on growth "threatens certain economic theories, interests and objectives. . . . exposes the short-term expedience that often characterizes politics and personal economic transactions, . . . and accepts, where necessary, authoritative restriction of individual choice and conduct . . . ." Id. at 93. See, e.g., Edward Flattau, |Balance' not Possible in Saving Environment, Oregonian, January 29, 1993, at C7. (58.) But see James L. Huffman, Protecting the Environment from Orthodox Environmentalism, 15 Harv. J. Law & Pub. Pol'y 349 (1992). (59.) Caldwell, supra note 6, at 176-81. (60). Id. at 112-14. (61.) Caldwell criticizes the unqualified use of the term sustainable development because it glosses over differences in values and promotes the same miscommunications as the term growth. Id. at 177. (62.) Id. at 115. (63.) Id. (64.) Perhaps environmentalists use this approach because they can more directly affect changes in the laws governing policy than they can change the policy makers themselves. Caldwell, supra note 6, at 97. (65.) Id. at 115. (66.) See William Funk, Free Market Environmentalism: Wonder Drug or Snake Oil, 15 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 511-16 (1992) (explaining why political solutions are necessary in cases where the market fails to internalize external costs). (67.) Id at 116. See also William Breit, The Academic Scribblers (2d ed. 1982) (discussing A.C. Pigou's criticism that markets do not efficiently allocate resources such as the value of air and water for waste assimilation, Arhtur C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (4th ed. 1952), cited in Odum, supra note 45, at 503-04). (68.) Konrad von Moltke, The Last Round: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Light of the Earth Summit, 23 Envtl. L. 521, 526 (1993). (69.) "What all this suggests is that the argument is no longer about values. That's over, and the environmentalists have won. The argument now is about policies. And those with the best evidence and the best arguments, not just the purest hearts, will prevail." David Broder, Beyond Folk Songs and Flowers, WASH. POST, Apr. 22, 1990, at B7. (70.) Caldwell, supra note 6, at 88-90. (71.) Id. at 127. See also Senator Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (1992). (72.) Caldwell, supra note 6, at 131. For a thorough discussion of the issues concerning international commerce and the environment, see generally Trade and the Environment Symposium, in 23 Envtl. L. 387-721 (1993). (73.) Caldwell discusses the planetary problems of: loss of topsoil, Caldwell, supra note 6, at 133; depletion and degradation of freshwater, id. at 136; contamination of the biosphere, id. at 139; deforestation of rainforests and desertification of grasslands, id. at 141; destruction of habitat, id. at 143; loss of biological diversity, id. at 144; and rapid growth of the human population, id. at 48, 186-87. (74.) Id. at 169, 173. (75.) Id. at 170-71. (76.) Id. at 122. (77.) Id. at 187. (78.) See, e.g., Michael Blumm, The Fallacies of Free Market Environmentalism, 15 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 371, 381 (1992) (arguing that the government will increase its use of taxes, subsidies, changed liability rules, and nonregulatory mechanisms like marketable discharge permits because the costs of enforcing command-and-control regulations will become prohibitive). (79.) Caldwell, supra note 6, at 196. (80). Id. at 192. (81.) Id. at 191-93. (82.) Id. at 173. (83.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 53. (84.) Caldwell, supra note 6, at 9. (85.) Id. at 197. (86.) Id. at 9-10, 194-95. (87.) Id. at 35, 152. (88.) Id. at 183. But Caldwell also notes that short-term successes may distract attention from the need to find long-term comprehensive solutions. Id. at 186. (89.) For example, Edmondson criticizes EPA's demand that all sewage treatment plants convert to secondary treatment because, in the case of Seattle's West Point plant, studies show that natural processes effectively clean the primary sewage effluent. Edmondson, Supra note 5, at 146. Since these secondary treatment procedures are expensive, the money might be better spent cleaning up other problems. W.T. Edmondson, Editorial, Seattle Times, Jan. 26, 1986. Further, if the rationale behind secondary treatment is to remove certain pollutants, like heavy metals that have been added to the sewage, it would be more economical to require these materials to be controlled by the individual discharger than to treat the whole of Seattle's sewage. In this way, the discharger would decide which means of control (changing its process or devising a way to remove the material) would be in its best interest and keep the costs of its goods down. See also Philip H. Abelson, Editorial, Regulatory Costs, 259 Sci. 159 (1993) (discussing the high cost of complying with regulations even when the action will not reduce public exposure and when there are more unfunded pressing health problems). (90.) In discussing "pollution," Edmondson examines its definition in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. [sections] 1362(6), (19) (1988), which incorporates the ideas of physical, biological, chemical, and radiological integrity. But then he suggests his own definition: "Pollution of a lake is the addition of anything . . . that interferes with its best use." Edmondson, supra note 5, at 256. He explains that this definition is "centered on human use of natural resources . . . [because] we have a right to function in the community in accordance with our needs." Id. (91.) See, e.g., Edmondson, supra note 5, at 158, 173; Caldwell, supra note 6, at 105. (92.) Edmondson, supra note 5, at 300-03; Caldwell, supra note