Vol. 15 No.5 (May 2005), pp.449-452

A NEW PROGRESSIVE AGENDA FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT, by Christopher H. Schroeder and Rene Steinzor (eds). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2005. 228pp.  Paperback.  $22.00.  ISBN: 1-59460-082-1.

Reviewed by Michele Morrone, Environmental Health Science, Ohio University. Email: morrone@ohio.edu .

You only have to look as far as the title of this book to realize that the authors have an agenda. If you are a critic of the way in which the Bush Administration is managing environmental issues, reading this book will strengthen and focus your arguments. On the other hand, if you are a supporter of Bush environmental policy, this book will help you understand the positions of your adversaries. The authors, who are legal scholars from various academic institutions across the country, systematically summarize issues and shortcomings with environmental regulations, specifically during George W. Bush’s Administration, and present a plan based on progressive principles to address these shortcomings.

One of the major philosophical shifts that we have made since the inaugural 1970 Earth Day is that environmental laws were originally enacted to protect public health from harms caused by pollution. When the U.S. government first started writing and implementing environmental and public health laws and regulations, there was very little scientific information about what the priorities should be. However, no one doubted that rivers catching on fire and needing headlights in the middle of the day were probably bad signals for the environment and human health. In this short 35-year time span, science has evolved at a fantastic rate, and this evolution may have actually contributed to inadequate environmental protection. One major emphasis of this book is the misuse of science in environmental decision-making, because conservative policymakers have exploited uncertainties in science for political reasons.

The book opens with an extremely brief summary of some of the successes in environmental policymaking before launching into an in-depth discussion of the “unfinished agenda” in environmental protection. Items on the unfinished agenda include: air pollution issues of global warming, mercury, and old power plants; nonpoint source water pollution; workplace safety issues such as accidents and asbestos; and natural resource extraction activities including overfishing. After summarizing the unfinished agenda, the authors argue that the Bush Administration’s environmental approaches have not only failed to address unfinished issues, but have systematically instituted policies that lead to backsliding on successes of the past 35 years. This first chapter of the book leaves not doubt in the reader’s mind that the Center for Progressive Regulation is a liberal organization, and to say that it is “critical” of Bush would be a true understatement.

To address the current problems that are creating an unsafe environment, the [*450] book’s main purpose and is to present ten progressive principles to get decision-making back on track to protect environmental and public health. Each principle is explained in a separate chapter that describes the problems with current environmental decision-making, defines the principle, and presents suggestions to implement each principle.

The first principle is based on the Bush Administration’s approach to “shifting the blame.”  The authors argue that we have now come to a point in U.S. history of environmental regulation in which the approach has shifted from protecting the public to blaming the public. It is becoming increasingly common for environmental regulations to focus on providing information so that people can protect themselves from pollution rather than requiring polluters to clean up their acts. One clear example of this is the ozone alerts that encourage people who are sensitive to ozone to stay inside on poor air quality days; this type of regulation places the onus on the public and “shifts the blame” according to the authors. To address this situation, the progressive agenda requires a cultural and ideological shift back to the one that makes the “polluter pay,” the basis for many environmental regulations.

The “best efforts” approach, which is the second progressive principle, is identified as a precautionary way in which to protect the environment. The basis of this principle is that environmental regulations should be technology-forcing. That is, industry should be required to use the best technology available to reduce pollution, rather than addressing pollution by monitoring the environment and minimizing emissions to merely maintain environmental quality. The focus on technology rather than risk is the foundation of some existing environmental statutes, including portions of the Clean Air Act; however, progressives argue that this approach must be extended to all entities that pollute the land, air, water, and even the food supply.

Progressives agree with conservatives in how science is used in environmental decision-making—up to a point. The third progressive principle argues that environmental decision-makers must accept uncertainties in science, and conservatives agree with this concept. The major difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives believe that decisions should be made in the face of this uncertainty, while conservatives generally call for more “sound science” to minimize the uncertainty. The authors argue that the Bush Administration has taken the science debate further by implementing such laws as the Information Quality Act, which invites challenges in the science used to make environmental decisions. The chapter on “rescuing science from politics” introduces the term “clean science,” which is not influenced by the government or corporations.  Finding clean science has become increasingly difficult, with increased scrutiny from government and enhanced corporate funding of research projects. The solutions presented to this dilemma include understanding and valuing peer review, increasing public funding to scientists, and ensuring that the public has access to research studies.

Cost-benefit analysis and mandating sound science in developing [*451] environmental regulations has undermined the progressive principle of putting “safety first.” This fourth principle advocates for policies that focus on worst-case scenarios to ensure that decisions will be made that optimize environmental and public health protection. By requiring agencies to complete significant analyses to justify regulatory decisions, progressives argue that too many people have been exposed to dangerous substances such as asbestos, lead, radiation, and benzene. One solution presented here is to require the polluters to justify the need for the pollution, rather than placing the burden of proof on the regulatory agency or the stakeholders.

Environmental justice is discussed in the context of the progressive principle of fairness. This principle requires that all people have access to the decision-making process and that health-based standards are adjusted to reflect diversity. Additionally, removing the burden of proving discriminatory intent as part of environmental justice is a critical element of the progressive approach.

Additional progressive principles include ensuring that public resources are protected from private interests, including developers. The Bush Administration’s position on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Healthy Forest Initiative are presented as examples that go against the progressive approach of prioritizing and funding public land preservation. While the principle to preserve public resources is a domestic issue, global issues are also a component of the progressive agenda. The authors argue for the U.S. to cooperate more fully with international efforts to reduce environmental problems (e.g., Global Warming), to apply U.S. environmental laws to activities in which the government is involved overseas (e.g., defense activities), and to abandon the unilateral decision-making that has defined the Bush White House. [*452]

Throughout the book, the authors argue for federal environmental policy that embraces citizen participation. The progressive principles of a transparent decision-making process that truly empowers citizens to participate are critical to this participation. The Bush Administration has a history of making important environmental decisions behind closed doors and including mainly corporate interests in the process. This has led to an accountability problem in which the federal government does not believe it needs to answer to public criticism.

One of the best sections of the book presents tools that the policymakers can use in regulating the environment. In this section, the authors find technology-based standards and substance bans to be “useful” tools. Instruments such as the Toxic Release Inventory, which requires industry to disclose information and emissions trading approaches to air pollution control, are labeled “neutral” tools. The approaches that are most harmful to the environment are currently being used by the administration. These include spending an excessive amount of time analyzing and gathering additional information before decisions are made and so-called “voluntary” programs. The progressive agenda calls for strategies to eliminate tools such as cost-benefit analysis in lieu of making precautionary decisions.

Throughout the book, industry is portrayed as conservative evildoers who are in collusion with the Bush Administration to increase profits at the expense of the environment and public health. Phrases such as “regulated industries and their conservative political allies” (which appears on more than one occasion in this book) and “conservative judges favoring industry outcomes more often than liberal judges” explicitly identify the political orientation of the book’s authors. While this tone may be inflammatory to some, the authors make no apologies for their emphatic appeal to refocus government priorities on environmental policies that they believe truly protect the environment.

*************************************************

© Copyright 2005 by the author, Michele Morrone.