Getting the Public Involved in Change

• Pages: 22-23

Page 22 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, Jan./Feb. 2010

noTice & commenT

“e benef‌icial ef‌fect of

nanometer structures

on health is likely to be

revolutionary. But I’m

also very much aware of

the potential toxicological

impacts of nanoparticles.

My view on this is that with

testing and an appropriate

degree of regulation we’ll be

able to reap the benef‌its with

very little in the way of a

downside.”

— Don Eigler, who wrote

“IBM” using 35 xenon atoms

20 years ago, kicking off the

nanorevolution

. . . to protect the envi-

ronment.

“The law contains

very powerful planning

and prevention instru-

ments to mainstream

sustainable develop-

ment in the country. It

requires that the govern-

ment set inventory data

on the environment

“The [new] law

clearly endorses sus-

tainable development

and good governance as

part of the principles in

managing the environ-

ment. It means that all

sectors, including min-

ing, industrial, forestry

or local administrations,

must link their policies

to map . . . natural

resources that are still

available in the region.

The inventory would be

the basis for policymak-

ers to determine stra-

tegic plans on environ-

mental protection and

management. . . .

“The government and

local administrators are

also obliged to formu-

late strategic environ-

mental assessment to

evaluate impacts that

would harm the environ-

ment.”

— Mas Achmad

Santosa, head of envi-

ronmental law reform,

in the Jakarta Post

Indonesia Reforms Environmental Law

Getting the Public

Involved in Change

The modern era of environmen-

tal protection has applied public

policy to make a public good of public

health without meaningfully engaging

the public in reducing harmful activi-

ties. Starting with the Clean Air Act

and Clean Water Act, Congress and

the Environmental Protection Agency

for the most part have regulated in-

dustry, producing the impressive re-

sults so often touted today. However,

mandates that would require action

on the part of ordinary people, from

land use restrictions to taxes on harm-

ful fossil fuels, have not fared well. As

such, there is huge potential for envi-

ronmental improvement by engaging

the citizenry.

is gap has not gone unnoticed.

Every Earth Day, lists appear in news-

papers giving the household environ-

mental footprint reductions that can

be obtained through simple acts like

turning down thermostats and car-

pooling. Unfortunately, people for

the most part avoid any hint of shared

endeavor beyond recycling because

of the sacrif‌ices that are required. En-

lightened public policy would foster

such acts through incentives like re-

bates, disincentives like fees, and edu-

cation campaigns, to name a few, but

where best to aim policy, and by which

mechanisms?

Just one area, household energy use,

accounts for nearly two f‌ifths of all car-

bon emissions in the United States. It

is so large that it dwarfs total national

emissions for all other countries except

China. In an article appearing in the

Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, omas Dietz of Michigan

State University and four coauthors

declare that “household actions can

provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly

reduce U.S. carbon emissions” by aim-

ing at personal energy use. A behav-

ioral wedge leverages public policy in-

terventions into broad social changes.

e authors’ review of the literature

suggests that there is “a large near-term

potential for emissions reductions

from behavioral changes involving

adopted and altered use of available

in-home and personal transportation

technologies, without waiting for new

technologies or regulations or chang-

ing household lifestyle.” ey calculate

the benef‌its of 17 household actions.

eir conclusion? “National imple-

mentation could save an estimated . .

. 20 percent of household direct emis-

sions” within 10 years, with no loss of

“household well-being.”

Dietz, et al., developed their conclu-

sions by a unique analysis. ey f‌irst

calculate the potential emissions reduc-

tions, or PER, from each action. at is

the point at which Earth Day newspa-

per articles usually leave of‌f. What the

authors have contributed is to multiply

that number by a term encompassing

the “plasticity” of the action, meaning

its amenability to public prodding.

eir measure of plasticity amounts

to the “proportion of current non-

adopters that could be induced to take

action. . . . is introduces a behavior-

al realism to our estimates that is not

included in analyses grounded solely

in engineering or economics.” e

authors multiply the PER by the plas-

ticity to derive a number they call the

reasonably achievable emissions reduc-

tion measure. is number, RAER, is

the f‌inal determinant of the ef‌fective-

ness of public policy. e result of

their analysis is a dif‌ferent table than

the ones newspapers print. Instead of

a roadmap to personal action, it is a

guide to the best public policy to pro-