Abstract

Despite excesses, environmental sensitivity in the United States has improved many aspects of the physical environment, and little argument exists that these positive changes should be reversed. However, the environmental movement has lost much credibility over the last few years owing to extreme positions of vocal splinter groups, lack of sensitivity to social needs, shrinkage of wealth, and bureaucratic implementation of extreme agendas, sufficiently so that the media now disparagingly document negative aspects of environmental laws and regulations. Although a balance may be struck, political history suggests that policy may swing to unbridled exploitation and lessened concern for the physical quality of life.

Consequently, reestablishing the basic tenets of a national environmental policy that preserves an acceptable quality of life for mainstream society while including the disadvantaged and disheartened of America in equations of cost and benefits is absolutely necessary. Five areas of weakness must be addressed: lack of recognition of societal needs to preserve the standard of living; establishment of priorities; development of consensus standards; balancing of special interests; and application of holistic and high quality science to analysis of issues (with rejection of spurious issues).

Earth resources are the basis of wealth. Societal needs for these resources will direct the ultimate resolution of the debate, but with proper education and development of goals, an appropriate policy balance can be gained.