- Email: [email protected]
Furthering our understanding of air quality
Environmental Science & Policy 1 (1998) 149±151
Furthering our understanding of air quality R.S. Whaley * College of Environmental Science and Forestry, SUNY, 224 Bray Hill, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
1. Introduction A few months ago I was invited to be the wrap-up speaker and to present a conference synthesis at this event. I was honored and ¯attered to be asked. I checked the calendar. The time was free and I accepted. That was before I saw the program. If I had had any idea of the richness and diversity and vastness of the array of speakers, I would clearly have declined. How can one synthesize the oerings of over 90 presenters? The ®rst dilemma for anyone looking over the whole conference was to decide, `what was it about?' The Adirondacks? Understanding air quality and ecosystem relationships? Or, exploring science and policy linkages in some broader context than the Adirondacks or ecosystem impacts of air quality? If I take my clue from the ®rst morning and the plenary session this morning, it was the latter, `exploring science and policy', with ecosystem impacts of air quality and the Adirondacks largely serving as the backdrop for how environmental policy is shaped in general and how to improve the ecacy of science in shaping policy in particular. From here on out, my comments will be in the form of bulleted observations and major summary points.
2. How much progress? Part of the election rhetoric of the mid-1990s, was to congratulate ourselves for the marvelous accomplishments of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act (and they were marvelous) and to suggest, that if we would get the heavy hand of government regulation o our back, everything would * Tel.: +1-315-470-6681; [email protected]
fax:
+1-315-470-6977;
e-mail:
be ®ne. I do not adhere to the notion that everything will be ®ne. Certainly not if you listen to Dr. Kraft's reminder that by the year 2025, the US population will grow by another 67 million people. That is another New York, California, Florida and New England, combined. Much of what I heard suggests that the data do support that substantial progress has been made in air quality and, in the beginning, restoration of some lakes. Yet in one of the breakout sessions I attended, it was pointed out that `all that we don't know should lead to a sense of urgency that seems to be missing from this conference'. 3. Science, progress and policy implementation The Canadian example that Guy Fenech presented in his keynote was a perfect introduction to much of what I heard later. After presenting his statistical evidence on the condition of air quality in Canada he mentioned, almost in passing, that while there seemed to be agreement on the facts, there was considerably less success in agreeing on recommendations. That always seems to surprise and disappoint us more analytical types, but I do not think it should. May I suggest three ways in viewing reality: the facts, that which is quantitative, measurable and often comes from scienti®c investigation, about which most reasonable people would agree; perception, my interpretation of those facts, on which reasonable people of similar backgrounds may agree; and, opinion, what I think about that perception. I like it. I hate it. It scares me. What is the big deal? We may disagree strongly. Whether or not I think it is a big deal has to do with my distance from the problem. My point is that common agreement on information supplied by the best of science does not assure agreement on policy solutions. Policy will be more shaped by opinion than by science. Or, to paraphrase Herman Daly, ``Right action in the world depends upon knowing how the world works
1462-9011/98 $ - see front matter # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved PII: S 1 4 6 2 - 9 0 1 1 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 2 6 - 4
150
R. Whaley / Environmental Science & Policy 1 (1998) 149±151
and knowing what is right''. The former is a matter of science. The latter is not. 4. Role of NGO's and science Gary Randorf applauded the eectiveness of the public relations skills of NGO's when supported by good science-based information. While we might all share the pleasure of the success that resulted from a collaboration between the scienti®c and advocacy communities, I think we also should remember that advocacy groups of all stripes (environmental or industrial) will, of course, use the best science-based information when it suits their needs. Should we expect anything less from them? 5. Technology and air quality improvement We were told that the greatest contributor to improvements in air quality has been technology. Dr. Lents also gave us illustrations of where national regulations and criteria were an impediment to controlling automobile emissions in Colorado. I think these are linked. While I am personally an advocate for strong, well-crafted federal laws and regulations, my own experience in Washington leads me to believe that we too often promulgate average regulations designed to solve nonexistent average problems, resulting in disappointment to the regulator and the regulated. Technology is usually more ¯exible. 6. Lifestyle changes and environmental policy I share the concerns that we heard about limited success in lifestyle changes. The environmental era was a wonderful period of awakening and awareness-building of the American public who responded admirably in the passage of the Clean Air Act and its various amendments. That progress should be appropriately recognized and applauded, but I sometimes think that it was public conscience on the cheap. When put to the test, we buy more house than we need, drive cars on the Washington beltway that were designed to climb mountains and opt for a consumptive de®nition of the good life. 7. Role of research There was considerable discussion about research Ð how reliable is it? It is used for policmaking? How much more of it do we need? What kind? Who will pay the bill? A participant, representing the legislative
side of our discussions observed, ``congress likes to fund studies, not research'', suggesting to me that congress sees research as abstract, taking too long, the `sandbox of academics'. Herein lies a major problem for the incorporation of the best science into policy. The job of the scientist is to seek truth. It is the role of the policy maker or manager to make decisions on the best information available, whether or not it is the truth. So when asked a question, the researcher hesitates, states, `the question is a highly complex one for which a clear answer will take several years and considerable money', by which time the policy makers have moved on to several other concerns put before them by their constituents. This is why organizations such as Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation, Electric Power Research Institute, National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health are essential. At their best, they can be anticipatory, more reliable in funding and function to hold the researcher accountable using the appropriate measures. In a hallway conversation, I heard someone quote from a breakout session that I did not attend, ``research should be policy relevant, not policy driven''. Whether or not I got the quote right, I like it. If we as a society do not fund this kind of research, we do so at our peril. 8. Relationship between acidi®cation: toxics and ozone We learned from several speakers that there are complex interrelationships between acidi®cation, toxics and ozone; but we did not learn much about these interrelationships. We also heard in other breakout sessions that from a policy standpoint there are interrelationships between ecological impacts and health impacts from air pollutants, but again did not explore these interrelationships in any detail. These omissions may tell us something about who was missing as participants in the conference, if our primary focus was how to incorporate science into policy. 9. Modeling and decision making I found the discussions on modeling interesting and informative. I have a twofold reaction to those discussions. First, I would compliment the scienti®c community for their humility in honestly addressing weaknesses in the models. Second, we need to do a better job in dierentiating between models that help us organize our thinking about complex processes and models that are useful for predictive purposes and policy formation. While I praise your humility regarding the sophistication of your models, it drives policy makers crazy. They would prefer models which are
R. Whaley / Environmental Science & Policy 1 (1998) 149±151
precisely wrong than models which are approximately right. 10. Conclusion In conclusion, we may be leaving this conference with the same questions with which we started, but we have clari®ed and simpli®ed them. . Can we convincingly explain the impacts of air pollution? . Are these explanations backed by credible science? . Can we design national policy that is responsive to a variety of goals that may be con¯icting: economic growth, human health and ecological health?
151
. Can we explain air pollution and its impact to mere mortals who are neither scientists nor policy makers? Can we make it a story with appropriate intrigue, mystery and a happy ending? Ross S. Whaley has served as President of the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry since 1984. He previously held academic positions at University of Massachusetts, Colorado State University and Utah State University, and has worked as Director of Forest Resources Economics Research at the USDA/Forest Service in Washington, DC. Dr Whaley has a B.S. in Forestry from University of Michigan, an M.S. in Forest Economics from Colorado State University, and a Ph.D. in Natural Resources Economics from University of Michigan.
Furthering our understanding of air quality R.S. Whaley * College of Environmental Science and Forestry, SUNY, 224 Bray Hill, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
1. Introduction A few months ago I was invited to be the wrap-up speaker and to present a conference synthesis at this event. I was honored and ¯attered to be asked. I checked the calendar. The time was free and I accepted. That was before I saw the program. If I had had any idea of the richness and diversity and vastness of the array of speakers, I would clearly have declined. How can one synthesize the oerings of over 90 presenters? The ®rst dilemma for anyone looking over the whole conference was to decide, `what was it about?' The Adirondacks? Understanding air quality and ecosystem relationships? Or, exploring science and policy linkages in some broader context than the Adirondacks or ecosystem impacts of air quality? If I take my clue from the ®rst morning and the plenary session this morning, it was the latter, `exploring science and policy', with ecosystem impacts of air quality and the Adirondacks largely serving as the backdrop for how environmental policy is shaped in general and how to improve the ecacy of science in shaping policy in particular. From here on out, my comments will be in the form of bulleted observations and major summary points.
2. How much progress? Part of the election rhetoric of the mid-1990s, was to congratulate ourselves for the marvelous accomplishments of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act (and they were marvelous) and to suggest, that if we would get the heavy hand of government regulation o our back, everything would * Tel.: +1-315-470-6681; [email protected]
fax:
+1-315-470-6977;
e-mail:
be ®ne. I do not adhere to the notion that everything will be ®ne. Certainly not if you listen to Dr. Kraft's reminder that by the year 2025, the US population will grow by another 67 million people. That is another New York, California, Florida and New England, combined. Much of what I heard suggests that the data do support that substantial progress has been made in air quality and, in the beginning, restoration of some lakes. Yet in one of the breakout sessions I attended, it was pointed out that `all that we don't know should lead to a sense of urgency that seems to be missing from this conference'. 3. Science, progress and policy implementation The Canadian example that Guy Fenech presented in his keynote was a perfect introduction to much of what I heard later. After presenting his statistical evidence on the condition of air quality in Canada he mentioned, almost in passing, that while there seemed to be agreement on the facts, there was considerably less success in agreeing on recommendations. That always seems to surprise and disappoint us more analytical types, but I do not think it should. May I suggest three ways in viewing reality: the facts, that which is quantitative, measurable and often comes from scienti®c investigation, about which most reasonable people would agree; perception, my interpretation of those facts, on which reasonable people of similar backgrounds may agree; and, opinion, what I think about that perception. I like it. I hate it. It scares me. What is the big deal? We may disagree strongly. Whether or not I think it is a big deal has to do with my distance from the problem. My point is that common agreement on information supplied by the best of science does not assure agreement on policy solutions. Policy will be more shaped by opinion than by science. Or, to paraphrase Herman Daly, ``Right action in the world depends upon knowing how the world works
1462-9011/98 $ - see front matter # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved PII: S 1 4 6 2 - 9 0 1 1 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 2 6 - 4
150
R. Whaley / Environmental Science & Policy 1 (1998) 149±151
and knowing what is right''. The former is a matter of science. The latter is not. 4. Role of NGO's and science Gary Randorf applauded the eectiveness of the public relations skills of NGO's when supported by good science-based information. While we might all share the pleasure of the success that resulted from a collaboration between the scienti®c and advocacy communities, I think we also should remember that advocacy groups of all stripes (environmental or industrial) will, of course, use the best science-based information when it suits their needs. Should we expect anything less from them? 5. Technology and air quality improvement We were told that the greatest contributor to improvements in air quality has been technology. Dr. Lents also gave us illustrations of where national regulations and criteria were an impediment to controlling automobile emissions in Colorado. I think these are linked. While I am personally an advocate for strong, well-crafted federal laws and regulations, my own experience in Washington leads me to believe that we too often promulgate average regulations designed to solve nonexistent average problems, resulting in disappointment to the regulator and the regulated. Technology is usually more ¯exible. 6. Lifestyle changes and environmental policy I share the concerns that we heard about limited success in lifestyle changes. The environmental era was a wonderful period of awakening and awareness-building of the American public who responded admirably in the passage of the Clean Air Act and its various amendments. That progress should be appropriately recognized and applauded, but I sometimes think that it was public conscience on the cheap. When put to the test, we buy more house than we need, drive cars on the Washington beltway that were designed to climb mountains and opt for a consumptive de®nition of the good life. 7. Role of research There was considerable discussion about research Ð how reliable is it? It is used for policmaking? How much more of it do we need? What kind? Who will pay the bill? A participant, representing the legislative
side of our discussions observed, ``congress likes to fund studies, not research'', suggesting to me that congress sees research as abstract, taking too long, the `sandbox of academics'. Herein lies a major problem for the incorporation of the best science into policy. The job of the scientist is to seek truth. It is the role of the policy maker or manager to make decisions on the best information available, whether or not it is the truth. So when asked a question, the researcher hesitates, states, `the question is a highly complex one for which a clear answer will take several years and considerable money', by which time the policy makers have moved on to several other concerns put before them by their constituents. This is why organizations such as Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation, Electric Power Research Institute, National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health are essential. At their best, they can be anticipatory, more reliable in funding and function to hold the researcher accountable using the appropriate measures. In a hallway conversation, I heard someone quote from a breakout session that I did not attend, ``research should be policy relevant, not policy driven''. Whether or not I got the quote right, I like it. If we as a society do not fund this kind of research, we do so at our peril. 8. Relationship between acidi®cation: toxics and ozone We learned from several speakers that there are complex interrelationships between acidi®cation, toxics and ozone; but we did not learn much about these interrelationships. We also heard in other breakout sessions that from a policy standpoint there are interrelationships between ecological impacts and health impacts from air pollutants, but again did not explore these interrelationships in any detail. These omissions may tell us something about who was missing as participants in the conference, if our primary focus was how to incorporate science into policy. 9. Modeling and decision making I found the discussions on modeling interesting and informative. I have a twofold reaction to those discussions. First, I would compliment the scienti®c community for their humility in honestly addressing weaknesses in the models. Second, we need to do a better job in dierentiating between models that help us organize our thinking about complex processes and models that are useful for predictive purposes and policy formation. While I praise your humility regarding the sophistication of your models, it drives policy makers crazy. They would prefer models which are
R. Whaley / Environmental Science & Policy 1 (1998) 149±151
precisely wrong than models which are approximately right. 10. Conclusion In conclusion, we may be leaving this conference with the same questions with which we started, but we have clari®ed and simpli®ed them. . Can we convincingly explain the impacts of air pollution? . Are these explanations backed by credible science? . Can we design national policy that is responsive to a variety of goals that may be con¯icting: economic growth, human health and ecological health?
151
. Can we explain air pollution and its impact to mere mortals who are neither scientists nor policy makers? Can we make it a story with appropriate intrigue, mystery and a happy ending? Ross S. Whaley has served as President of the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry since 1984. He previously held academic positions at University of Massachusetts, Colorado State University and Utah State University, and has worked as Director of Forest Resources Economics Research at the USDA/Forest Service in Washington, DC. Dr Whaley has a B.S. in Forestry from University of Michigan, an M.S. in Forest Economics from Colorado State University, and a Ph.D. in Natural Resources Economics from University of Michigan.