Environment & Polution

Toxics, trash and truth

When polled the vast majority of Americans consider themselves Environmentalists, although they cannot easily define the term. Over the past few years polling has also found the number of Americans who felt environmental issues should take precedence over economic concerns has declined. Nonetheless, the majority still feel the environment should be protected even at the expense of economic progress.


Yet, when Americans are asked to list reasons for electing a presidential candidate, the environment rarely even makes bottom of the list. Clearly, there is a double standard arising from a dilemma between personal demands and popular desires. Although Americans often list air quality concerns as a primary environmental issue, the average number riding in an automobile each day to work is about one. Despite the realities, Americans have decided to believe the rhetoric of perception and ignore the language of reality. There is an issue related to reliability of the informational sources of this rhetoric and how it is presented. It seems regardless of the approaches employed, the importance of the resource industries cannot get its message to the public in a balanced fashion.

Views similar to those of Americans are echoed in countries throughout the world regardless of their level of prosperity. Industry is seen as a nebulous entity devoid of moral principles with profit taking precedence over people. Industry is often considered the source of most pollution and devastation to the environment. These perceptions build over time allowing individuals to set aside their personal responsibility in favor of shifting blame for environmental problems somewhere else. The reality is industrial development if conducted within the rule of law and respect for human rights is at the core of economic development, poverty alleviation, and the hope for a better life.

Politicians adore agendas and the environment provides the perfect venue to express them from cancer to climate change. In an attempt to show progress in protection of the environment and to demonstrate industry is a primary culprit, the USEPA established the Toxics Release Inventory known as the TRI. Federal sites and municipal landfills were exempted from reporting the release of toxic substances within TRI. Certainly, there were no political motives in this decision. Maybe it was thought chemicals released from sources other than industry are somehow less toxic.

In July 1999, the mining industry came under the TRI program and had to begin reporting so-called releases of metals and other constituents to the environment. The reporting, which included naturally occurring substances in waste rock being moved and processed ores being disposed of, resulted in the mining industry becoming the number one industrial polluter in America. Under the USEPA definition, naturally occurring substances were defined as being "released" into the environment simply because they had been moved from the mine to an approved waste rock disposal site or tailings storage facility. There is a need to reexamine the TRI process as well as other government mandated environmental policies and programs. Over protection and excessive regulation is prevalent in many water quality standards. Empirical evidence from long term monitoring suggests alternative or site specific water standards are not only protective but less costly to comply with through monitoring and treatment. A proper "ecolibrium" results from this approach.

A long awaited reality check came in April 2003 as the result of a challenge to the TRI reporting rules through litigation initiated by a Barrick mining operation. There is now a de minimus exemption associated with reporting of these naturally occurring substances in mined materials depending upon their respective content. This decision was justified and brought some much needed common sense to the TRI process. Imagine the impacts if the original principle applied to the mining industry had been adopted by the USEPA for other industries including construction or sand and gravel operations. Even if the reporting requirements of TRI are appropriate, the accuracy of the data can also come into question. Discrepancies have been reported between the USEPA TRI data and that submitted by industry and other reporting entities. These discrepancies do not take into account the additional potential errors associated with non-representative sampling and analytical measurements. Taken collectively, the existence of discrepancies and the potential for other more subtle reporting errors brings into question the validity and value of TRI.
In contrast there are several thousand municipal landfills in the United States many of which are not routinely monitored, lined, or have leachate collection and treatment systems. A simple breakdown of municipal waste contents reported by the USEPA include such categories as food scraps, glass, metals, paper products, plastics, and wood. Compare this level of reporting with the measurement of scores of individual constituents in industrial wastes down to the part per billion. The estimates of quantities of municipal solid wastes disposed of in the United States exceed hundreds of million of tons per year. In a recent research study conducted at the Texas A&M University, the composition of leachates from 58 municipal and hazardous waste landfills were examined. The researchers found 50% more individual toxic chemicals in leachates from municipal rather than hazardous waste landfills. Furthermore, unlike most mining operations, most landfills are located around communities.

There is a justified need to challenge conventional wisdom and institute reality checks. Another is emerging related to the United States National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. In June 2005, Ms. Debra Struhsacker on behalf of the Women's Mining Coalition presented testimony to the House of Representatives Resources Committee regarding the effectiveness of NEPA as it is being applied today. She noted this legislation has gone from one of collaboration and communication to one of confrontation and conflict. Many argue under the Bush Administration the environment has suffered. In reality, environmental regulations and protections have not been reduced. One of President Bush's first acts was to sign an environmental bill put forth by former President Clinton further lowering the allowable arsenic level in drinking water. The cost to taxpayers and society of this overregulation based upon statistical prophecy was unnecessary and unwarranted, and has contributed to the economic malaise in America.

The point made is that in the rush to protect the environment in developing countries or emerging nations, simple and blind adoption of existing regulations implemented in Western society without proper scrutiny or a means of modifying them is harmful on many levels in countries that desperately need hope for a better life. Education and reality checks are needed now more than ever with sound information supporting them. The examples using TRI and NEPA are an excellent beginning. To merely continue assuming increasing the stringency of regulations is beneficial to all is naïve and counter productive. The impacts of taking this approach are obvious in Westernized countries. This is an issue affecting not only the mining industry throughout the world but also anyone or organization seeking long term solutions to pervasive poverty. The implementation of the most stringent environmental regulations possible in Eastern Europe does not seem reasonable or fair in light of the limited environmental controls in rapidly expanding economies such as China.

Environmental regulations must be developed and applied in a consistent but realistic manner providing the proper balance between protection and prosperity. Relying solely upon international organizations to provide the necessary assistance is not the entire solution. In light of reported record profits, a cohesive and collaborative global program sponsored by the international mining and resource industries to educate the public and aid countries in establishing proper levels of environment protection would be of the greatest benefit to all.
 Tags: Environment