Adapted from Peter Montague in Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly #613 of August 27, 1998.

After 20 years of intense efforts to reverse the trends of environmental destruction, the question is, are we succeeding?

So far as we know, only one study has tried to answer this question in a rigorous way. The study, called INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS, was published in April 1995 by the National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives in Washington, D.C.[5] In it, the authors measured trends in a wide range of serious environmental problems facing industrial societies. The study relied on the best available data, most of it gathered and maintained by national governments.

The study examined 21 indicators of environmental quality, summarizing the data into a single numerical "environmental index." The index shows that, despite 20 years of substantial effort, each of the nine countries has failed to reverse the trends of environmental destruction. See Table 1.

=================================================================

Denmark: -10.6%

Netherlands: -11.4%

Britain: -14.3%

Sweden: -15.5%

West Germany: -16.5%

Japan: -19.4%

United States: -22.1%

Canada: -38.1%

France: -41.2%

Data from: Gar Alparovitz and others,

INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL

TRENDS, pg. 2.

==================================================================

 Here is a brief discussion of the 21 categories of data from which the summary index was calculated:

Air Quality: The study used six measures of air quality: sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, particulate matter (essentially, soot), and carbon dioxide. The first five are called "criteria pollutants" in the U.S. The sixth, carbon dioxide, is a greenhouse gas, now thought to be contributing to global warming.

The study found successful reductions of sulfur oxides in all nine countries, but also found that acid rain --caused by sulfur oxides -- continues to damage forests in Denmark, Britain and Germany. The same is true in the U.S. and Canada, so additional reductions will be needed. The study did not include "the vast range of hazardous air pollutants, called ‘air toxics’ in the United States, because regulatory bodies in the nine countries have failed to comprehensively monitor or regulate most hazardous air pollutants." The study says, "There are roughly 48,000 industrial chemicals in the air in the United States, only a quarter of which are documented with toxicity data."[pg.11]

The study also did not include indoor air pollution which is "virtually unmonitored and... probably on the rise in many of the countries surveyed."

The study notes that, "The necessary reductions in NOx [nitrogen oxides] and CO2 [carbon dioxide], it seems, may require far more change than seems politically possible --major reductions in the use of private automobiles, for example."[pg.11]

Water quality in the index is represented by pollution trends of major rivers within countries. Specific measures include dissolved oxygen, nitrates, phosphorus, ammonium, and metals. Unfortunately, national trend data on water quality is generally poor, compared to data on air quality. For example, in the U.S., only 29% of the nation’s river miles have been monitored.

The study did not include trends in groundwater quality "because most countries do not produce national trend data on groundwater pollution. Yet groundwater in all index countries is contaminated, and by most measures, the problem has worsened since 1970," the study says.[pg.13] The study did measure groundwater withdrawals, compared to the natural rate of replenishment of groundwater.

Chemicals: The study measured production of fertilizers, pesticides, and industrial chemicals.

The chemical industry continues to grow at a rate of 3.5% each year, thus doubling in size every 20 years. Of the 70,000 chemicals in commercial use in 1995, only 2% had been fully tested for human health effects, and 70% had not been tested for any health effects of any kind. At least 1000 new chemicals are introduced into commercial use each year, largely untested. If all the laboratory capacity currently available in the U.S. were devoted to testing new chemicals, only 500 could be tested each year, the study notes.[pg.14] Therefore, even if the necessary funding were made available, there would be no way of ever testing all the chemicals that are currently in use, or all of the new ones being introduced each year.

Wastes: The study examined trends in municipal wastes and nuclear wastes in the nine countries. Both kinds of waste are increasing steadily. Trend data for industrial wastes and hazardous wastes are not available. The study concludes that, "The United States is arguably the most wasteful -- that is, waste-generating -- society in human history."[pg.8]

Land: The study examined the area of wetlands, and the amount of land devoted to woods in each of the nine countries.

Structural Barometers of Sustainability: Two additional measures were used in developing the index of environmental trends: the amount of energy used by each country, and the total number of automobile miles traveled.

Summary: In sum, this study of environmental quality in nine nations reveals that environmental destruction is continuing, and in some cases accelerating, despite 20 years of substantial effort to reverse these trends. The study concludes, "The index data suggest that achieving across-the-board environmental protection and restoration will require deeper, more fundamental change than has yet been attempted in the countries surveyed."[pg.5]

The questions raised by this study seem obvious, at least for the environmental movement:

** Given that we are clearly not succeeding in reversing the trend of environmental destruction, how can we think that by merely redoubling our efforts we will begin to succeed?

** Isn't it time we made some serious effort to evaluate what has worked in the past and what has not worked in the past? It seems clear that most of what has been tried in the past has not worked well enough to make a real difference. How, then, can we justify spending money and time on more of the same?

** Shouldn't we be asking ourselves what path we want to take in the future? Don’t we need to identify a path that might achieve "deeper, more fundamental change" than we have aimed for in the past?

Ref. Gar Alparovitz and others, INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives, 1995). Available for $10 from: National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives, 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 330, Washington, D.C. 20036; telephone (202) 835-1150.