Will Bush's Record On Waste Be Better Than Reagan's?

TI: Will Bush's Record On Waste Be Better Than Reagan's AU: JEFFREY MERVIS DT: January 23, 1989 PG: 7 TY: NEWS (The Scientist, Vol:3, #2, pg. 7-8, January 23, 1989) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WASHINGTON--Environmental problems have become so pervasive, that such complex issues as toxic wastes, global warming, and depletion of the ozone layer have become the topics of casual conversation among an otherwise scientifically illiterate public. And yet the one government agency that is supposed to protect the U.S. public from these threats has been prevented from doing its job, many scientists believe. The Reagan Administration cut the Environmental Protection Agency's research staff by more than 20%, and dealt even more harshly with the agency's R&D budget, cutting it by one-third before gradually allowing it to return to the still-meager levels of the Carter administration. This week, however, marks the beginning of the George Bush presidency. And environmental advocates are eager to put the setbacks of the past behind them. No fewer than three major reports have appeared since last fall outlining the direction that the new administration must take to tackle dozens of thorny issues. With respect to waste management, the messages of these reports are remarkably consistent: EPA must get away from regulating pollution after it has been produced and instead take steps to encourage its prevention. One way to do that, say environmental experts, is for EPA to support more research and to strengthen its ties with the scientific community. A report by the agency's own science advisory board, entitled "Future Risk: Research Strategies for the 1990s," proposes that an Environmental Research Institute set up along the lines of the National Institutes of Health. The report also recommends a doubling of EPA's research budget, to $700 million, over the next five years and calls on the agency to "increase the numbers and sharpen the skills of the scientists and engineers who conduct environmental research." Such increased efforts couldn't come too soon for scientists like Robert Ham, a municipal waste landfill expert. "EPA has dropped the ball on municipal waste," says the University of Wisconsin professor of civil and environmental engineering. "In the past 10 years all the advances have come from private industry and from foreign governments." That neglect, he notes, has slowed progress on such problems as reducing toxic air emissions from incineration, and disposing of hazardous incinerator ash in landfills. And it has helped fuel bitter debates over the safety of incinerators and landfills. "You can't assure people that you know what you're doing," says Ham about his appearances at public hearings on proposals to build new landfills. "We just don't have the data." Even as meager budgets have hampered EPA efforts to clean up waste, they have also prevented the agency from tackling the problem of waste at its roots. Environmental scientists now agree that the best strategy for dealing with pollution is preventing it in the first place rather than regulating it. And they are urging the new administration to foster innovative new methods of prevention. "We must recognize that there really is no more `away' where we can throw things," declares a report, entitled "Blueprint for the Environment," given to Bush last month by a coalition of 30 environmental groups. "The new administration," it adds, "should make waste reduction and recycling a national imperative." That's also the message of a third new report, called Project 88. A private sector study backed by Sens. Timothy Wirth (D-Colo.) and John Heinz (R-Pa.), the report urges the federal government to foster recycling programs in local communities. The economic and environmental advantages of recycling over other methods of disposal will become clear, notes the study's director, Harvard economist Robert Stavins, "once you allow recycling to compete in the market." Stavins believes the new administration will be a stronger advocate of reducing waste and protecting the environment than was the Reagan administration. "Both Reagan and Bush are in favor of encouraging economic incentives," he notes about the thrust of many of his group's proposals. "But the previous administration's way of making that happen was to not enforce the law. I think the Bush team is more likely to be strong on the environmental aspects of the issue as well as the economic ones." (The Scientist, Vol:3, #2, pg. 7-8, January 23, 1989) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A. -------- NXT: --------------------------------------------------

Will Bush's Record On Waste Be Better Than Reagan's?

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of