Obstacles to Environmental Progress

Front matter

OBSTACLES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS

A U.S. PERSPECTIVE

PETER SCHULZE

PART III: Obstacles to effective responses 15 16 17 18

Devising effective responses Compromises that doom responses Mismatched or overlapping authority Breakdown in policy implementation

Appendix: the six anti-environmental biases of cost-benefit analysis

203 219 226 234 253

294 306

1.1

1.2

1.3

Top: Municipal sign instructing residents to dump garbage at the edge of a waterway. Source: unattributed, Reclamation Era, ‘Pollution Control Agency Welcomed to Interior’, 61. Bottom: Air pollution in Los Angeles, March 1960. Source: Charles E. Young Research Library, ‘Los Angeles Times Photographs Collection’.

Declines in US atmospheric concentrations of the toxic air pollutants carbon monoxide (1980 to 2020) and lead (2010 to 2020). Carbon monoxide declined 81% from 1980 to 2020 while lead declined 86% from 2010 to 2020. Data source: EPA, ‘National air quality: status and trends of key air pollutants’, n.d. The concentration of lead had already declined some 70 per cent from 2001 to 2010 (EPA, ‘Our nation’s air: status and trends through 2010’, 2012, 16).

Pre-2010 lead data are not displayed here because the EPA changed protocols during 2009, so pre-2010 data are not directly comparable to later data (EPA, ‘AQS memos - technical note — lead data reporting to AQS’, n.d.).

Major environmental laws passed per year during each presidential administration since the 1950s.

Republican presidencies in red, Democratic presidencies in blue. Neither ‘environmental’ nor ‘major’ law is precisely definable. This graph includes the following laws: 1955 National Air Pollution Control Act, 1956 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, 1963 Clean Air Act, 1964 Wilderness Act, 1965 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, Water Quality Act, 1966

2.1

2.2

4.1

4.2

Endangered Species Preservation Act, 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, 1970 Clean Air Act amendments, 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 1973 Endangered Species Act, 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act, Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act, 1975 Eastern Wilderness Areas Act, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, 1977 Clean Water Act amendments, 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, 1988 Ocean Dumping Ban Act, 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Oil Pollution Act, 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, 2006 Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.

June 1947 Women’s Day magazine advertisement for DDT-containing wallpaper for babies’ nurseries.

Source: Science History Institute, ‘Digital Collections’, n.d.

X-ray shoe-fitting device. The customer stood holding the bar while placing their feet in the dark opening. An X-ray source below the feet enabled the customer, salesperson, and a third person to view the foot bones from above. This particular machine was manufactured by the Pedoscope Company of London and is housed at the museum of the University Hospital of Lyon, France. Photographers: Roxanne Poudenas and Léo Lespets. https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Podoscope_par_The_ Pedoscope_Compagny_01.jpg. CC BY-SA 4.0.

A typical textbook diagram illustrating the steps of the scientific method. Figure by the author.

Some of the small plots that serve as replicates for

5.1

5.2

5.3

6.1

8.1

8.2

8.3 ecosystem experiments at the US National Science Foundation’s Cedar Creek Long-Term Ecological Research station. Source: US National Science Foundation Long Term Ecological Network, ‘Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve’, n.d.

Variation in clarity of patterns in hypothetical data. 61 Figure by the author.

Did these dice land this way after being rolled, or 62 were they set this way? Photographer: Peter C.

Schulze.

Range of possible p-values. Note how much larger a 68 range of p-values may result in a type II error (false negative) than a type I error (false positive). Figure

by the author.

Daphnia giving birth to several young (oneemerging 75 from mother’s carapace). Photographer: Marek Mis.

Accessed 11 November 2021. https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rodz%C4%85ca_dafnia. jpg#file. CC BY 4.0.

Skeptical Science graph illustrating how focusing ona 113 particular subset of data can give an erroneous

impression. Source: Skeptical Science, ‘The escalator’,

n.d.

Image from US public service television channel 114 C-SPAN showing Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe

implying that a February snowstorm in Washington

DC constitutes meaningful evidence that humans are

not affecting the climate during a congressional

debate on 26 February 2015. Source: C-SPAN user

clip: Inhofe Snowball. Accessed 11 November 2021. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529935/ user-clip-inhofe-snowball.

Yale Project on Climate Change Communication 116 2020 county map of estimated percentage of adults

who believe most scientists think global warming is happening. (Map provided courtesy of Yale Program

on Climate Change Communication. See also Howe

et al., ‘Geographic variation in opinions on climate

change at state and local scales in the USA, 2015.)

Source: Marlon et al., “Yale Climate Opinion Maps’, xi

9.1 Relationship of birth rates to average income for the world’s nations. Fertility data are 2021 estimates. Most GDP data are 2019 estimates, with some from earlier during the 2010s. Data source: US Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Guide to country comparisons’, n.d.

9.2 Worldwide arable land per person, 1961-2018. Data source: World Bank, ‘Arable land (hectares per person)’, n.d.

10.1 Top: A natural resource. Photographer: Peter C.

Schulze. Bottom: A market response to scarcity of places to swim. Swimming pool photographer: Wade Morgen. Original photo cropped. Accessed 16 November 2021. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ lash9420/7505370490/. CC BY 2.0.

11.1 A charming home whose durable stone construction would have failed a cost-benefit analysis.

Discounting would have limited the estimated benefits to the home’s first few decades, overlooking its long-term value. Photographer: Peter C. Schulze.

11.2 Romans built the Pont Julien in the Luberon region of southern France some 2,000 years ago. It remains durable and was used by modern vehicles until this century. Photographer: Peter C. Schulze.

12.1 One way a member of Congress might perceive concerns, with the environment as just one of many.

Figure by the author.

12.2 The economy as a subset of and wholly dependent upon the planetary ecosystem. Source: Beyond Growth by Herman E. Daly, 49. Copyright © 1996 by Herman E. Daly. Reprinted by permission of Beacon Press, Boston.

13.1 The boundaries of the Texas 30th Congressional district created after the 1990 census. Source: Bush v. Vera (94-805), 517 US 952 (1996), 987.

15.1 A Sherman, Texas household recycling bin, the visible contents of which consist entirely of contaminants — materials the sorting facility is not equipped to recycle. Photographer: Peter C. Schulze.

15.2 Photographs of a black and white Secchi disk suspended 20 cm below the water surface of Lake Texoma (on the Texas-Oklahoma border). The top photo is from a location near the Red River inflow while the bottom photo is from the opposite end of the lake near the dam. Except during floods, as water moves downstream through the reservoir, suspended material responsible for the turbidity in the upper image sinks to the lake bottom, thereby displacing water storage capacity. Photographer: Peter C. Schulze.

15.3 Three similar, nonsustainable positive feedbacks that result from attempting to overcome shortages by increasing supplies without considering system-level effects. Figure by the author.

16.1 Designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, in areas northwest and east of Azalea, Glendale, and Wolf Creek, southwestern Oregon, US. Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants’, 2021.

17.1 The construction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal enabled the Chicago and Calumet Rivers to drain to the Des Plaines River (and thus eventually to the Mississippi River), rather than to Lake Michigan. Source: Unattributed Wikimedia Commons image, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Category:Chicago_Sanitary_and_Ship_Canal#/ media/File: ChicagoRiver.svg, accessed 16 November 2021, redrawn from original source: Terrio, ‘Relations of changes in wastewater-treatment practices to changes in stream-water quality during 1978-88 in the Chicago area, Illinois, and implications for regional and national water-quality assessments’, 1994, 5.

17.2 Collapse of the cod fishery off Newfoundland, Canada. Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Living Beyond Our Means: Natural assets and human well being, 2005, 18.

18.1 Minimal expenditure on pipeline safety. Oil pipelines at Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge, Grayson County, Texas, US. In wetter weather, water routinely flows over this road while large tree trunks float down the stream that floods this area.

Photographer: Peter C. Schulze.

xiii

18.2 Average annual number of taxa newly listed as 243 threatened or endangered per year per US presidential administration from 1970 through 2020. Data source: US Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘US federal endangered and threatened species by calendar year’, n.d.

19.1 Worldwide annual greenhouse gas emissions from 257 burning fossil fuels and cement production (solid line) and the same variable per US dollar of 2015 gross domestic product (GDP) (dotted line). Data source: World Bank, ‘CO2 emissions (kt)’ (https:// data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT) and ‘CO2 emissions (kg per 2015 US$ of GDP)’ (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.

CO2E.KD.GD). Emissions per dollar of GDP have declined but total emissions have nevertheless increased.

19.2 Greenhouse gas emissions (2001 tons of CO, 258 equivalent per capita) of various economic sectors in various countries as a function of per capita expenditures. Each point represents one nation.

Source: Redrawn from the data used for Figure 3 of Hertwich and Peters, ‘Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis’, 2009, 6418. Requests for further permission to reuse this figure or its contents should be directed to the American Chemical Society.

20.1 The Lackawanna Valley by George Inness c. 1856. Oil 270 on canvas, 86 X 127.5 cm. Source: National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC (1945.4.1).

20.2 Early 1960s recommendation for motor oil disposal. 271 Reproduced with permission of Popular Science magazine. Of course, the magazine would not recommend such a procedure today; many recent Popular Science articles explore more sustainable options. Source: Popular Science, ‘Hints from the model garage’, 1963, 166.

20.3 Hypothetical potential trajectories of environmental 277 damage to (negative values) and repair of (positive values) the planet’s life-support potential, showing some damage preceding the start of the industrial xiv OBSTACLES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS

A.l revolution, higher rates of damage than repair as of the early-twenty-first century, but future reduction in damage rate and increase in repair rate until repair exceeds damage and society learns to avoid new damage (damage rate becomes zero). As that situation continues, the cumulative impact approaches zero but remains negative because some damage is never successfully repaired. Figure by the author.

Ben and Matt Schulze with our adopted dog Sparky in 2005. Sparky allowed small children to climb on her, did not beg for food, did not jump on furniture, and could be walked without a leash. According to the market, a nearly imperceptible dent in a car door was worth 50 dogs like Sparky. Photographer: Peter C. Schulze.

XV xvi

List of tables and boxes

Table 5.1 Possible outcomes of statistical analyses.

Box 7.1 Conventional procedures for reducing the likelihood of errant scientific conclusions.

Table 8.1 Possible climate change realities, policy options and consequences.

Box 11.1 Six features that bias cost-benefit analyses against environmental protection.

Table 13.1 US political contribution limits.

66 83

List of abbreviations

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EU European Union

GDP gross domestic product

GMO genetically modified organism

GNP gross national product

NASA United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration PAC political action committee

UN United Nations

US United States

WTO World Trade Organization

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xvii

Preface

Achieving real environmental sustainability will require bringing present environmental impacts within sustainable limits and preventing creation of new problems. Neither would be sufficient alone; both are necessary. This book is limited to one aspect of the challenge of bringing impacts within sustainable limits — better understanding of immediate obstacles that impede progress on existing problems. As we shall see, the same obstacles apply to both modest and momentous problems. I focus on the United States (US) because that is the country I know best. Most of the obstacles are applicable in similar cultural and political settings elsewhere, but additional obstacles are important in other circumstances, and some discussed here, such as resistance to perceived infringements on individual liberties, would be less important in other cultural settings.

I hope a compendium of obstacles to progress on existing environmental problems will be useful for three purposes. First, I hope to help readers better anticipate, and thus more readily overcome, obstacles they may encounter as they strive for environmental progress. Second, I hope to attract scholarly attention to the set of obstacles as related, mutually reinforcing phenomena that need to be better understood. Finally, I hope to help expand awareness of how opponents of environmental protection distort and exaggerate obstacles in efforts to manipulate public opinion.

All obstacles discussed here receive attention separately in the diverse literature of various academic disciplines, but I have not seen them considered together. Various books and articles by authors, from philosophers to statisticians to historians of science, address obstacles to detecting and understanding problems. Multiple exposés use narrative accounts to illuminate how opponents of environmental protection exaggerate scientific uncertainty to quell demands for action — prominent examples include the Ehrlichs’ Betrayal of Science and Reason (1996), Beder’s Global Spin (2002), Oreskes and Conway’s Merchants of Doubt (2010), Layzer’s Open for Business (2012), Jamieson’s Reason in a Dark

PREFACE xix

XX

Time (2014) and Mayer’s Dark Money (2016). Some of these, as well as environmental law and policy textbooks, address political obstacles to action. In advance of the 2020 US presidential election and 2022 congressional elections, the media gave much attention to efforts to suppress voting and otherwise stymie the will of the US majority. The adaptive management and socioecological resilience literature of C. S. Holling and his successors considers aspects of why responses to problems sometimes fail. I intend to add to these contributions by succinctly synthesizing all major immediate, practical obstacles to progress on existing environmental problems.

I focus on obstacles to progress on specific, individual problems. I do not address the reasons we cause environmental problems or propose any sort of theory of comprehensive solutions. This limited objective of addressing particular problems can be criticized as naive because our environmental predicament cannot be overcome by attacking problems piecemeal, and many problems are interrelated.' Moreover, efforts to alleviate one problem may cause or exacerbate others, and addressing existing problems may have no bearing on creation of new problems. However, the track record of environmental protection demonstrates problems can often be productively addressed one by one. Such piecemeal efforts cannot be sufficient but are necessary.

Even though attacking problems individually risks unintended consequences and, by itself, cannot achieve sustainability, we nevertheless must become better at overcoming obstacles to progress on existing problems because many problems exist. Moreover, when ignored, processes such as climate change, soil degradation, overharvesting and biodiversity loss not only persist but worsen. If we are to achieve real sustainability, rather than just win battles here and there yet lose the war, we must get systematically better at both preventing new environmental problems and bringing existing impacts within sustainable limits.

I perceive three broad categories of obstacles to environmental progress. Limits on our ability to understand the world around us and value systems that deprioritize environmental concerns comprise two deep, conceptual categories. Practical factors that repeatedly and predictably cause failure of environmental initiatives make up the third. The latter include obstacles to detecting and understanding environmental problems, deciding to respond, and responding effectively.

For five reasons explained in the Introduction, this book focuses on the third category of practical obstacles to overcoming existing environmental problems, but the deeper, conceptual obstacles are ultimately at least as important. I find compelling the arguments of Aldo

Leopold, Jared Diamond and others that achieving real sustainability will require expansion of the range of questions considered matters of ethics and concomitant shrinkage of those considered merely on the basis of self-interest, or in other words, changes in value systems such that environmental sustainability enjoys priority. Meanwhile, I take solace in Martin Luther King Jr.’s paraphrasing of nineteenth-century Unitarian Theodore Parker, that ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but bends toward justice’, and Aldo Leopold’s similar conclusion when he observed that in the three thousand years since Odysseus’s Greece, ‘ethical criteria have been extended to many fields of conduct, with corresponding shrinkages in those judged by expediency only’.? I hope Leopold’s and King’s expectations for the future will be borne out, but I do not aspire to assess that question. In other words, though I believe real sustainability will require shifts in conceptual obstacles rooted in value systems and world views, not merely overcoming immediate, practical obstacles to individual problems as they occur, I neither attempt to advance broader discussions of what would be required to achieve justice, nor do I seek to provide a thorough road map to sustainability. This book’s objective is much more modest.

The goal of sustainability places an emphasis on future generations, but environmental problems and injustices also harm people alive today. Those suffering from injustice or other hardships cannot reasonably be expected to focus their concern on the distant future. Therefore, justice and quality of life for present generations is not only an eminently worthy goal in and of itself, it is almost certainly a necessity for generating deep, broad support for viewing sustainability as an ethical matter. This subject is also, however, generally beyond the present scope, though some chapters necessarily touch on it.

Society will hopefully come to view harm to the environment as a matter of right and wrong, as Aldo Leopold admonished in his Land Ethic. If so, fewer rules and policies will be necessary. But that may take a while. I assume that for the time being, many environmental problems will continue to be addressed as policy matters. In other words, though few of us like to be told what to do, environmental protection will continue to do just that; policies will continue to seek to limit environmentally harmful activities and promote improved practice. I take it for granted that such policies are often necessary and desirable because, on balance, they do more good than harm. Thus, I concur with Gretchen Daily and Paul Ehrlich that in the near term it is most reasonable to expect people to behave more or less as they do now, rather than assuming everyone will become saints, and with David Orr that finding our way out of this

PREFACE xxi xxii predicament will depend on informed, engaged citizens working through a democratically controlled government.‘

Our environmental predicament can be addressed from various perspectives. Mine is rooted in a background in the natural sciences. My professional interests in obstacles to environmental progress first developed during college and graduate school, notably including when I had opportunities to teach ecology courses for Dartmouth College students in Costa Rica, where contrasts between environmental damage and protection are starkly visible across barbed wire fences. My interests expanded when I worked on industrial ecology with engineers at the National Academy of Engineering and have grown ever since while teaching environmental studies, environmental policy, ecology, ecosystem restoration and directing the Austin College environmental studies programme and Sneed Prairie restoration.

1 Lazarus, ‘Environmental law after Katrina: reforming environmental law by reforming environmental lawmaking’, 2007.

2 Diamond, Collapse, 2005, 432-4, 523-4; King, ‘How long?’, 1965; Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949, 202; Parker, Ten Sermons of Religion, 1853, 84-5.

3 Leopold, ‘The land ethic’, in A Sand County Almanac, 1949, 201-26.

4 Daily and Ehrlich, ‘Population, sustainability, and Earth’s carrying capacity’, 1992; Orr, ‘Four challenges of sustainability’, 2002.

Acknowledgements

My interests in the environment began as a child growing up in Rhode Island, Michigan and Colorado. I had an exceptional high school biology teacher, the author Paul Richard, and many other fine teachers during my undergraduate and grad school years, including Sumner Richman at Lawrence University, and Carol Folt, John Gilbert, Dick Holmes, David Peart and Christopher Reed at Dartmouth College, and learned much from fellow graduate students, including Michelle Dionne, Hugh Maclsaac, Marianne Moore, Nick Rodenhouse, Doug Schaefer and Chris Whelan.

Later, working at the National Academy of Engineering and teaching at a liberal arts college have given me opportunities to learn from experts in related fields such as conservation biology and ecosystem restoration, and more distant fields such as environmental policy and the intersections of ecology with economics, engineering and political science. I have also benefited from interactions with local, state and federal officials, environmental attorneys and environmental activists. These various experiences have led me to directly encounter or otherwise learn of all the obstacles discussed here.

Many people have helped directly with this project. In addition to the many fine students with whom I have discussed these issues, I have benefited from conversations with my graduate school cohort, former professors, engineers and others at the National Academy of Engineering, colleagues at Austin College and any number of other environmental advocates and officials. In addition to those mentioned above, I am particularly thankful for conversations with Mark Leighton of Harvard University, Brad Allenby, Jesse Ausubel and Bob Frosch at the National Academy of Engineering, my Austin College colleagues George Diggs, Mari Elise Ewing and Keith Kisselle, and John Ockels, founder and Director of the Texas Illegal Dumping Resource Center. The last-named four also provided helpful comments on various drafts.

Several other individuals also helped with earlier drafts. Jim Yarbrough offered suggestions based on his decades of experience as an

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xxiii xxiv

EPA administrator. My current and former Austin College colleagues Nate Bigelow, Kerry Brock, Bob Cape, Karánn Durland, Mike Imhoff, Rebecca Jones, Jackie Moore, Danny Nuckols, Brian Watkins, and especially Dave Baker all made valuable suggestions or assisted with references. Lehigh University political scientist Al Wurth and retired Austin College sociologist Bart Dredge provided multiple insightful suggestions on every chapter. I doubt that I would have taken on this project if not for everything I learned from Al while I was a postdoc at Lehigh University, and from John Ockels since joining Austin College. (I had not yet included the story about Ockels in Chapter 20 when he read a draft. He is charmingly modest and would have objected.)

Many others also helped. Austin College present and former librarians Shannon Fox, Pat Means, John West and especially Andrew Smith located numerous references, as did my son Ben. Fred Block helped with the chapter on market fundamentalism. Halil Cakir explained changes in EPA procedures for monitoring atmospheric lead concentrations. Cathy Darnell provided the 1994 Chagnon and Harper reference. David Kinkela provided information on the history of DDT. Ya-Wei Li shared his extensive understanding of the Endangered Species Act. Carrie Page explained the complicated history of Dallas-Fort Worth Clean Air Act state implementation plans. Justin Pidot helped with Wyoming bill SF0012. Henry Singer relayed obscure references regarding opposition to highway expansion in northern Michigan. Brian Czech, Drew Jenkins, Julie Smartz and Daniel Wendt assisted with obtaining necessary permissions for using images. Anne Fleming, Tammy Kimbler and Hugh MacIsaac confirmed the correctness of various descriptions. Four anonymous reviewers provided valuable critiques and suggestions.

The Austin College Cullen and Richardson Fund and Austin College alumnus and trustee Joe Sanders enabled this book to be published Open Access. Austin College deans Beth Gill, Steve Goldsmith, and Mike Imhoff provided time during two sabbaticals.

From the initial proposal stage to the book’s final production, the staff of University College London Press and their professional affiliates have done a wonderful job. Most notably, Commissioning Editor Chris Penfold seamlessly evaluated my proposal and administered the review and revision process. Jonathan Dore oversaw the various stages of production, superbly copy-edited the final draft, and also provided extensive advice and guidance through the latter editing stages. I am also grateful for the assistance of Grace Patmore and others at UCL Press and their contractors with whom I did not work directly. I really cannot imagine a more excellent or satisfying process from proposal submission to publication.

My wife Helen and sons Ben and Matt patiently put up with this project for years. All three also offered helpful suggestions here and there, as did my mother, Suzanne Schulze. My father died before I began this project, but I think I inherited much of my love for the outdoors from him. We walked the woods and canoed the streams of northern Michigan almost every summer, and my parents let me have a tiny rowboat on Rhode Island’s Woonasquatucket Reservoir when I was quite young.

I have enjoyed working on this project and cannot adequately thank these people, nor can I appreciate all the ways they and others have helped me better understand our environmental predicament and the possibilities for escaping it. Of course, remaining limitations on my understanding and errors or shortcomings in the following are my responsibility alone.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

XXV

1 Introduction

We have a serious problem. We are beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. Carrying capacity is the population an environment can support. When a population is degrading its environment’s support potential, then, by definition, it is beyond carrying capacity and present practices cannot continue — they are not sustainable.!

We are altering the composition of the atmosphere and the oceans, eroding soil, overharvesting fish and trees, depleting aquifers and nonrenewable resources, releasing persistent toxins, mixing up natural assemblages of species, all but eliminating some ecosystems, and driving species to extinction. All of these reduce the planet’s potential to support life. The longer this situation persists, the poorer an inheritance we will bequeath to our descendants.

The scale of our enterprise is the root cause of our predicament because environmental problems result from too much or too little of something. If there were just a few of us, we would not have an appreciable impact. But there are nearly eight billion of us — nearly three times as many as when I was born — and many of us, myself included, consume a tremendous quantity of resources and produce a great deal of waste. The planet cannot continue to provide what we are asking of it, even though about half of humanity is presently unable to consume enough for a decent life.

Our descendants’ and other species’ well-being depends upon a successful shift to environmental sustainability — by which I mean acting in a manner that does not degrade the planet’s life-support potential. We have a great responsibility and a great challenge, but we also have the luxury of historical perspective, and the fortunate among us have access to resources not previously dreamt of even by royalty. We owe it to future generations to use our awareness, ingenuity and access to resources to shift our trajectory.

To achieve sustainability of an agricultural society is perhaps one of the most challenging problems humans have ever faced, perhaps the greatest problem given its implications for all future generations. The works of George Perkins Marsh, Tom Dale, Vernon Gill Carter, Clive Ponting, Jared Diamond and others suggest no agricultural civilization has achieved true sustainability.2 And our society is not merely agricultural, but industrial.

The challenges are not only complex, but from the perspective of our evolutionary history they are also brand new. To quote E. O. Wilson, ‘The real problem of humanity is the following: we have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology.”

Whether our present systems of government are up to the task remains to be seen.* Only time will tell. But progress is not only possible, it has happened before. A mere half a century ago the air and water in North America and Western Europe were much more polluted than today. The rivers in Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit were so contaminated with oil they often caught fire. Residents of Los Angeles teared up on bad-air days; wastes were disposed of in unregulated ‘dumps’ or even into waterways (Figure 1.1).

Thanks to the nation’s major environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and thanks to the preceding public demand for those laws, US air and water pollution have declined dramatically. Today, Los Angelenos can see clearly across their streets (though often not to the horizon). The last US river fire was in 1969. Dozens of fish species have returned to once flammable, fishless rivers. Following the directions in the photo at the top of Figure 1.1 could now land you in jail, and concentrations of major toxic air pollutants have plummeted (Figure 1.2).

The size of the annual Antarctic stratospheric ozone hole has been declining;® many pesticides are less toxic than their predecessors; and many endangered species are recovering.’ Ecosystem restoration has become an academic subdiscipline and a growing industry. Colleges and universities were just beginning to teach these subjects when I was an undergraduate, but environmental studies and science programmes are now almost ubiquitous.

A longer view leaves an even greater impression of progress. One hundred years ago, smokestacks were a symbol of prosperity. Much city water was not fit to drink. Gaining title to a homestead required

Figure 1.1: Top: Municipal sign instructing residents to dump garbage at the edge of a waterway. Source: unattributed, Reclamation Era, ‘Pollution Control Agency Welcomed to Interior’, 61. Bottom: Air pollution in Los Angeles, March 1960. Source: Charles E. Young Research Library, ‘Los Angeles Times Photographs Collection’.

‘improving’ property by clearing trees. As Aldo Leopold lamented, ‘A stump was our symbol of progress.’®

Historical treatment of wildlife was shocking. During the sixteenth century, the English Parliament directed churchwardens to pay bounties for dead foxes, hawks, hedgehogs, jays, kingfishers, ospreys, otters, polecats, stoats, and weasels. Sixteen centuries earlier the Romans killed me oO J

Carbon monoxide concentration (ppm)

T T 1

0.1

Lead concentration (ug/m?)

Figure 1.2: Declines in US atmospheric concentrations of the toxic air pollutants carbon monoxide (1980 to 2020) and lead (2010 to 2020). Carbon monoxide declined 81% from 1980 to 2020 while lead declined 86% from 2010 to 2020. Data source: EPA, ‘National air quality: status and trends of key air pollutants’, n.d. The concentration of lead had already declined some 70 per cent from 2001 to 2010 (EPA, ‘Our nation’s air: status and trends through 2010’, 2012, 16). Pre-2010 lead data are not displayed here because the EPA changed protocols during 2009, so pre-2010 data are not directly comparable to later data (EPA, ‘AQS memos — technical note — lead data reporting to AQS’, n.d.).