metic change. Only when the fundamental purpose of an organization is changed would there be a result like that projected. The reason that government is organized into separate functioning departments has to do more with the reality of human ability than with any public policy determination. We fragment ourselves into various units simply because, without some discreet boundaries of responsibility, the mission of a group of workers would be so abstract as to be meaningless in terms of daily work product. For example, when and where was the sanitation department ever connected to the public u tilit ies agency or to the economic development department? If it didn’t happen in a simpler time, is it unusual to expect different organization in these more complex times? A mega organization would quickly find itself sorted in to d iscree t compartmen ts of responsibility and task, whether the creators intended this or not. This by human nature, not insubordination. The suggested materials czar would still confront this phenomenon as a daily reality. The answer probably lies more in the realm of designing the missions of agencies more carefully and evaluating their progress against measurable standards. Another reality which provides a barrier is the arduous process of convincing consumers to change their market demands. Mr. Morris points out the several benefits of ethanol, both in terms of environmental effects and the state economy. Yet, m^py consumers do not want ethanol in their automobile because they still believe the engine will not work well. Why should they burn ethanol, which would produce many effects external to their lives, and take the risk that their second largest life investment will be threatened? This parallels the thinking which occurred during the last oil shortage. Namely everyone tried to get as much gas as they could, rather than suffer, by making adjustments, for the greater good. Eventually, price in the market created conservation the government could only dream about. Waste reduction and reuse is now the highest policy priority. The increasing cost of garbage fees could provide an incentive to people to reduce their waste, but only to a certain extent. The cost of waste to an individual household is still, after many increases and a new tax coming into play, a relatively small part of their budget. The benefits of waste reduction seem very remote to most consumers, except of course those who drink water tainted by a leaky landfill or who suffer other effects from incineration. For many people in rural areas, creating their own dump is a faster cheaper and more effective short term solution. How will society ever know about those dumps? Recycling appears attractive to one who seriously studies the situation. But who will buy the product and for what will it be used? In the case of reu se - reuses for what and by whom? Can the consumer trust that a product, in its reuse form, will perform as expected? The marketplace has not identified these actors nor answered these questions yet. The horns of a dilemma seem to protrude into this picture. But there are some things government can do towards the suggested ends. Mostly they fall into the arena of doing the research and demonstration that the marketplace is unlikely or unwilling to do, taking some risks against the large possible gains. Washington does not have to be the leader. Minnesota can lead. But only if the citizens are willing to put up with the difficulty entailed in being first and progressive. Some failures will occur. There may be the appearance of wasted money if apparently good ideas don’t pan out. If the citizens can be informed of the choices and provided with solid and practical information for daily decision making, then at least the proposed changes have a chance. Without the will of the people, good ideas will wither on the vine. By The Minnesota State Planning Agency COMMENTS In October 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway, presented a report entitled Our Common Future: Seizing the Opportunity to the United Nations General Assembly. Two years later, it appears that the potential exists for the approach recommended in the report to become a megatrend which is the basis of policies worldwide. The Commission calls for a “ new era of environmentally sound economic growth.” This new growth, the Commission argues, must be based on preserving our environment and natural resource base for future generations. All development must be (1) environmentally sound and (2) economically sustainable. The Commission also concludes that governments must become “ directly responsible for ensuring that their policies, programs, and budgets support development that is economically and ecologically sustainable.” These conclusions require our attention. Whether called a “ materials policy,” as David Morris refers to it, or “ sustainable development,” as the World Commission on Environment and Development calls it, we must look to ways in Minnesota to assure that development occurs in a way that preserves our environment and natural resources. We have the opportunity to make ecologically sustainable development a major thrust of the State of Minnesota, placing the state in a leadership role within the nation. We are in a unique position to take advantage of this opportunity because Minnesota has long recognized the importance of a co-exist- ence of the goals of environmental protection and economic growth and encouraged government agencies to work cooperatively toward this end. Morris points out several examples, but there are many more, ranging from “ environmen ta lly sensitive energy plann ing” e fforts of the Department of Public Service to the proactive effort to structure an environmentally acceptable permitting process for precious metal mining in Minnesota. The need in Minnesota, however, is not for a “ materials czar” to oversee this approach. There is an adequate institutional structure in place. For example, it clearly would be within the State Planning Agency’s authority to provide a focus for ecologically sustainable development within the state. Rather than an organizational solution, a public consensus that this is the policy direction which the state must take is needed. Unfortunately, this consensus may be difficult. Industry has reasons to be suspicious about this policy direction. Industry might be expected to be very cautious because of the fear of further environmental regulation. However, there are also reasons for industry to be enthusiastic: • Environmentally sound plants are efficient plants, especially when what was previously considered waste can be reprocessed and sold for profit. Environmental concerns can become reasons to locate in a state. Further, industry is coming to realize that the cost of pollution control, l iab i l ity exposure, and clean-up is prohibitive; pollution prevention is a cheaper option. • Environmental technology is a business opportunity. The EPA estimates that the environmental market is $50 billion today and could rise to $200 billion by 2000. The environmental market is expected to be one of the most important venture capital areas of the 1990s. This suggests a major opportunity for bringing the recently created Greater Minnesota Corporation together with the environmental community to find opportunities for improving environmental protection technology. And, it is not clear that environmentalists will be willing to accept a policy of ecologically sensitive development, since it implies the acceptance of development. The byproduct of development is usually some degree of pollution. However, environmentalists have much to gain. Such a policy thrust for the state would clearly define environmental protection as a central policy objective with respect to economic development; not as an add-on or an after thought. The concerns of environmentalists are reflected in the recent calls for moratoriums until all environmental questions are answered. This is repeated by Morris. The desires of those who argue for this approach are s imp lis tic and disingenuous. They forsake the opportunity to assure that development be encouraged within our history of strict environmental regulation. Against this back drop of divergent perspectives the need to establish a consensus reoccurs; and the problem of how to establish that consensus remains. The building of the required public consensus must be founded upon a common public understanding of the environment, the economy and how they are interrelated. This public literacy is unfortunately lacking. In particular, we as a state and nation are for the most part environmentally undereducated. Elevating the level of environmental literacy is a fundamental prerequisite to implementing the policy changes required to design and implement environmentally sound, sustainable development. An impossible task? Not at all. In fact, the cost and time required to develop an informed citizenry, capable of directing a policy of environmentally sound development, is likely to be considerably less than the costs associated with regulating business and indust ry and c le a n in g up p o l lu te d resources. A comprehensive system of environmental education would have to concern itself with both formal and in forma l education. The formal system would center on the K-12 public education system, would be integrated into existing curriculum, and would be mandatory. Such a system would teach all students how to think about the environment, not what to think. The potential would then exist for producing an entire generation of environmentally literate individuals in 12 years. Within a 25 year period two generations of environmentally literate individuals would exist, one of which would be the first generation of environmentally literate decision makers. The need for continuing non- formal environmental education would be needed to enhance public knowledge and understanding; of both those individuals who would be products of the new K-12 system and those who would not have had the benefit of that system. In addition, the non-formal system could be coordinated with the foundation provided by the K-12 system. The implementation of a comprehensive system of environmental education will not guarantee the development of consensus, but it will mak^the development of consensus more likely. While much can and should be done at the state level, more attention needs to be paid to national policies than is given by Morris. The critical env ironmen ta l and na tura l resources concerns of today are frequently concerns which cannot be resolved by a single state. The State of Minnesota, with the strongest acid rain control program in the nation, cannot keep acid rain from harming our waters. Ninety percent of the pollutants which cause acid rain are generated outside the borders of the state. To provide an opportunity for states to jointly solve environmental problems and to sustain our environmental and natural resource bases, Governor Perpich has proposed the creation of an Environmental Compact of the States (ECOS). ECOS would bring together governors, legislators, business leaders, environmentalists, and academicians to define major trans-boundary concerns for the environment and ways to resolve these concerns. ECOS is an important addition to any equation which attempts to assure the development of an effective “ materials policy.” In conclusion, it is crucial that the State of Minnesota develop a public consensus on the importance of a future which requires that development be environmentally sound and economically sustainable. To accomplish this goal, we do not need a new state institution, as Morris suggests. We need to focus our existing institutions. This can be done by directing an existing state institution, such as the State Planning Agency, to (1) define “ ecologically sustainable development” to guide the preparation of a state strategy; (2) suggest a process for developing an ecologically sustainable development strategy for Minnesota, including the proposed organization for this effort and who should be involved; and (3) set a timetable for preparing such a strategy. Further, the establishment of an Environmenta l Compact o f the States should be pursued to allow such consensus building to begin at the interstate level. The opportunities of bringing together the resources of the Greater Minnesota Corporation with the concern for ecologically sustainable development should also be pursued. We should begin to work toward ecologica lly sustainable development as a major policy thrust for Minnesota in the 1990s. This winter the CSQ will host a discussion of the ideas presented in this article. For more information call 338-0782. David Morris is an economic development consultant and Co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. He is a regular columnist for the St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch. Lee Clapsadle is a visual artist who has exhibited his work nationally and is studying environmental horticulture at the University of Minnesota. Julie Baugnet is a visual artist and graphic designer living in St. Paul. 14 Clinton St. Quarterly—Winter, 1989-90
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz