ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES in rocky mountain coniferous ...

For all parties there is a significant economic and social cost to the resolution of
environmental disputes through prolonged litigation. Enormous sums of public and
private money are spent in lobbying, legal fees, and the escalated costs of development
or construction after long, court-imposed delays.
Equally damaqing to society is the growing polarization between those who support
environ~ental caution and those who see a fundamental conflict between environmentalist
goals and the economic and social needs of our society. In the construction,
minirig, and timber industries, where the impact of environmental programs has
been ~onsid~rable, labor and industry leaders tend to regard the environmental
movement as a "no-growth" policy, detrimental to business and society. Environmentalists,
In turn, see their opponents as short-sighted, intransigent, and
self-ce~tered (Train 1978). Such polarization is subsequently ref1 ected in Conyress,
and results in frequent stalemates and sometimes questionable decisions.
CONGRESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS
Congress responds primarily to pressures--social , pol i tical, and industrial
pressures. Most members of the House and Senate admit that they are subject to
pressure tactics. But Congress is desperate to find ways to improve decisionmaking.
Recently a two-day forum was held on Capitol Hill, sponsored by the American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in cooperation with the Joint Senate and
House Committee on Science and Technology. The subject was "Ri sk/Benef i t Analysis
in Decisionmaking." Invitations were extended to scientists and science-related
individuals and organizations. The morninq meeting of each day was a congressional
hearing. Three or more Congressmen or Senators would introduce a subject, and three
scientists would respond with prepared statements. Then followed an audience-
participation discussion. The afternoon meetings were similar, but less tied to
the legislative format.
After 29 presentations and hours of debate and discussion, no profound conclusions
were reached. A glimpse of the dilemma that exists as a part of decisionmaking in
Congress is revealed by an opening remark by one Senator: "I have never seen a
problem, no matter how complex, which, when looked at in the right way, is not even
more complex than original ly thought to be. "
One three-scientist panel produced these remarks:
Scientist, policy and management research: "Richer is
bette-ning the safety and health of a population is
directly correlated with the financial wellbeing of that
population.)
Professor, political science and former newspaperman:
"The press has not done its job adequately in covering
science legislation or science-related events. The press'
self-appointed authority in technical matters frequently
leads to misinforming the Conpress and public as well."
Professor, law: "There is no zero risk, and risk/
benefit decisions should not be made by scientists, but
by the responsible member(s) of Congress. "