Celebrating Earth Day

[Contents] [Next]

Laura Jones

On the eve of the thirtieth anniversary of Earth Day, a date which has put the issue of environmental degradation on the front burner of political discourse in North America, it is time to take stock of the health of the environment in which we live, work, and play. "Earth Day" was born when 20 million Americans participated in demonstrations across the country to protest environmental degradation in the spring of 1970. According to Gaylord Nelson, the US senator from Wisconsin who founded Earth Day: "The objective was to organize a national demonstration of concern for the environment so large that it would shake up the political establishment and force this issue onto the national agenda."1 The demonstration succeeded. During the next three decades, not only did governments pass laws to protect the environment and create agencies to enforce those laws, but environmental education became part of the school curriculum, corporations started including environmental statements in their annual reports, and the term "sustainable development" became part of the lexicon.

Environmental condition: perceptions and reality

But despite this proliferation of initiatives to address environmental concerns, and much measurable success in doing so, many people are pessimistic about the actual progress that has been made to reduce pollution over the past 30 years. They are concerned that since 1970, the air they breathe is dirtier, the water they drink is more polluted, natural resources are being depleted, and solid waste is becoming unmanageable. A recent survey of university students, for example, found that 70 percent think that air quality in Canada has deteriorated over the past 20 years, 50 percent believe that the amount of wood harvested from Canadian forests each year exceeds new growth, and 75 percent believe that Canada needs to expand public recycling programs to prevent a garbage crisis.2 But contrary to these popular beliefs, available evidence suggests that we have made serious gains in reducing pollution since the first Earth Day.

In contrast to student perceptions, some of the most dramatic improvements have been reductions in air pollutants. For example, between 1974 and 1997 the amount of sulphur dioxide measured in the air decreased 61 percent, carbon monoxide levels fell 74 percent, total suspended particulates decreased 53 percent, nitrogen dioxide levels fell 19 percent, and lead levels declined 88 percent (see table 1). While there has also been an increase in ground-level ozone, which can contribute to urban smog, overall air quality in Canada has improved dramatically. Similar improvements are observed in the United States and the United Kingdom.

As for the quality of our water, there has been a 74 percent increase in the municipal population with access to waste water treatment relative to 1983, an 84 percent decline in the amount of dichloro-diphenyl-ethylene (DDE) found in bird eggs near the Great Lakes since 1974, and an 11 percent decline in the number of provincial water quality readings failing local standards since 1984. Improvements in other areas include a 198 percent increase in land set aside for parks and wilderness since 1973, a 130 percent increase in harvested forest area that is replanted since 1975, and a 56 percent increase in paper and glass recycling between 1980 and 1992.

Given these successes, why do we remain pessimistic about environmental quality? Perhaps it is because we have not solved all of our environmental problems. There are still many examples of local problems that attract media attention. Overall, Canadian air quality has improved. But there are local episodes of poor air quality, particularly in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. A period of poor air quality during the summer months will likely receive media attention while the overall improving trend will not. This asymmetry in the way environmental stories are covered likely makes us overly pessimistic about current environmental quality and future environmental trends.

Continuing success

It is clear that we have not yet satisfied our strong demand for more environmental improvement. But we have witnessed some dramatic improvements in the last 30 years. So how do we continue making these impressive gains? First, we must acknowledge them. Many environmentalists refuse to admit any environmental progress. Instead, they continue to insist that everything is a crisis. While 30 years ago predictions of calamity may have been an effective way to raise awareness, it now threatens to limit future environmental progress. Given that resources to address environmental concerns are limited, it makes sense to focus our attention on the most serious problems rather than those that have largely been solved. This task is made all the more difficult, however, if everything is still considered a crisis. Environmentalists may be reluctant to admit some success because they feel that doing so will cause people to become complacent about further reducing pollution. But the other danger in continuing to be alarmist rather than applauding environmental improvements where they have occurred is that environmentalists risk losing credibility, which could adversely affect the causes they support.

Another component critical to the environmental movement's continuing success is recognizing why we have been able to reduce pollution. Although many credit command-and-control style regulation for our success, Canada, the United States, and other developed countries are able to enjoy a clean environment because our affluence allows us to make environmental concerns a priority. It is only once individuals reach a high enough per-capita level of income, where their basic food and shelter requirements are met, that they start demanding better environmental quality. Studies have shown that many indicators of pollution start to fall well before a country reaches a per capita income of US$8,000.3 Other indicators, such as access to safe drinking water and the availability of sanitation, improve almost immediately as incomes rise.4 Contrary to the environmentalists' view, economic growth is not the enemy, but the ally of the environment.

While in Canada and the United States we are afforded the luxury of worrying about infinitesimal levels of pesticide residues on our vegetables, in poor countries many people burn cow dung for fuel and do not have access to safe drinking water. A recent UN report says that a billion people in developing countries do not have access to safe drinking water, a further 2 to 3 billion do not have adequate sanitation, and 5,000 children a day die from waterborne illnesses.5 The fastest way to solve these terrible problems is to encourage economic development. But since many misguided environmentalists look upon consumption as an indicator of environmental degradation, they actively lobby to deny those in developing countries this opportunity by opposing freer trade and emerging technologies.

Pollution versus consumption

It is important that we do not make the mistake of focusing on the wrong indicators of progress. Consumption is not the problem; pollution is. So while monitoring the amount of carbon monoxide in the air gives a good indication of an improvement or deterioration in air quality, counting the number of cars on the road does not. In fact, more cars on the road may indicate improved economic conditions, which, in turn, could be a sign that environmental quality is improving. In many North American cities, the number of cars on the road has increased while air quality has improved because today's cars are far cleaner than cars produced 20 or 30 years ago. Unfortunately, many so-called environmental indicators are really just indicators of consumption, which give no meaningful information about actual environmental quality. The biannual OECD Environmental Indicators report, for instance, unfortunately includes among its indicators road traffic volumes and passenger cars in use. If we are to continue improving environmental quality in developed countries and addressing problems in developing countries, we need good measures of environmental quality so that we can assess whether pollution trends are improving or deteriorating and identify the most serious problems. Many developing countries are just beginning to do this. In Canada and other developed countries, we must continue existing monitoring efforts and make the results more widely available to the public. This will help ensure that the public perception of environmental quality more closely matches reality, which will help ensure that resources are directed effectively. As part of its 2000 budget, the Canadian government announced that it will develop its own set of environmental indicators which it will report regularly to Canadians. This could be useful in helping Canadians have a more accurate understanding of environmental trends. But it is crucial that the indicators be indicators of environmental quality, rather than just indicators of consumption.

Conclusion

Despite the pessimism that will inevitably be trumpeted by environmentalists this Earth Day, there is much to celebrate. Our air and water are cleaner than 30 years ago, our forests are better managed, we are more energy efficient, and we have more parks and protected areas. We should use Earth Day as an opportunity to take stock of these successes. From our successes, we will glean valuable insights into how to address our remaining problems. In Canada, for example, we still face local episodes of air pollution, examples of contaminated lakes and streams, and a serious problem with fisheries management on both coasts. Globally, poorer developing countries face some of the worst remaining air and water quality problems. But, if history is any indication, increasing affluence and the corresponding increase in concern for the environment provides us with much hope that these remaining environmental problems can be solved.

Notes

1. Web site: http://www.earthday.net/about/history.stm
2. The results of this survey will be published by The Fraser Institute in the spring of 2000.
3. Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger, "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1995, p. 370.
4. See Indur Goklany, "Richer is Cleaner," The True State of The Planet, Washington: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1995, p. 342.
Web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/ world/newsid_676000/676064.stm

[Contents] [Next]

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday June 9, 1999.