Editor's Page

An alternative to adversarial politics Richard Heckert is senior vice president of Du Pont He recently spoke in Philadel­phia before the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Here, verba­tim, are excerpts from his prepared remarks.

I start with three basic beliefs: • First, that we do not have a solid consensus on environmental goals. • Second, that the trade-offs required to implement existing environmental programs and

directives are not recognized, or tend to be regarded as inconsequential compared with benefits.

• Third, that our current political process involving environmental issues does not provide for thoughtful consideration of all relevant data, and does not allow the flexibility needed in the rate at which we move toward specific objectives.

These three points lead to a fourth: that there is an important role for political and social scientists in this overall process. I'm here today because I think that businessmen and aca­demicians will find some common ground on environmental questions if we give ourselves a chance.

The political process we use to reach decisions on environmental alternatives does not provide for thoughtful consideration of all relevant data. There are several reasons for this failure.

One stems from the political style our society has developed in recent years. It seems that the loudest voices are selling the narrowest views. Some people seem intent not on factoring in all relevant information but on factoring out all pieces of evidence except those supporting their goals.

Recently, Charles Schultze and Alfred Kahn, two outspoken Administration officials, wrote a strong memorandum to the Environmental Protection Agency. They said that EPA's inter­pretation of the 1977 amendments to the clean water act was establishing rules that could be "prohibitively expensive." They suggested that the whole program and its timetables should be re-examined to see if we would be getting our money's worth. Now that is at least a rea­sonable proposition: Look before you leap. A lot of people liked the suggestion from Schultze and Kahn. But to the believers in environmental "purity," any such discussion of values and trade-offs was most unwelcome. They bitterly charged that Schultze and Kahn were "inter­fering" with the decision-making process.

Frequently, the design of the law itself is the problem. When Congress establishes specific environmental objectives and timetables without adequate consideration of costs and al­ternatives, the country suffers. Sometimes with a great deal of educational effort and the exercise of political clout we succeed in getting sensible mid-course corrections. More often we don't and the public pays without receiving environmental or social benefits of corre­sponding values.

If it is not safe to assume, in our climate of adversarial politics and single-issue thinking, that by good luck we will end up with nicely balanced and logical government policies, what must we do? To me, it follows that those who can look at problems in the round and do ob­jective analysis should get deeply involved in the process.

At this point you might think that I'm about to suggest that businessmen and academicians should get together and call the shots. That's not true. If you think that's possible you under­estimate our friends in government, the environmentalists, labor, the media, and the general public.

What I am hoping is that we in business can work more closely with those members of the academic community who are in favor of examining all the basic values and encouraging holistic thinking. I am hoping that social scientists, in consultation with their associates in the physical sciences, can move us toward consensus on environmental objectives, help to develop systems to assess trade-offs that include all relevant considerations, and com­municate their findings to the public—which will then be able to choose more wisely. D

Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS

May 21 , 1979 C&EN 3