Tobacco Documents Online

Environmental Risk ~ D IOXIN IS a good example of the issues that the Environmental Protection Agency has in mind when it talks about the need to improve its scientific capabilities. If dioxin is as dangerous a cause of cancer as most scientists thought a decade ago, there's a strong case for spending a lot of money to scrub it out of the environment. But if it is in fact less dangerous, as some scientists now believe, that money could do more elsewhere to protect public health. A much more subtle question, involving much greater costs, is raised by the prospect of global warming. It's correct to say that present data do not prove that carbon dioxide, produced by burn- ing fuel, is changing the world's climate. But it's also correct to add that by the time absolute proof might appear} the process would have picked up such momentum that it could not be reversed, or even substantially slowed, for. de- cades. Decisions regarding what to do, if any- thing, need to be, made now by the world's governments. The United States' leadership, or lack of it, will be crucial. As William K. Reilly, the EPA's acfministrator, observed to Congress a few days ago, "Our society is being forced to make enormously costly decisions on a very small science base." Last week he announced an effort to lift the quality of science at EPA not only by improving its links with " research outside the government but by reorganizing its own labs and bringing in more people of outstanding reputation: The United States is now spendirig about $115 billion a year on environmental protection. Sim- ply for purposes of comparison, that's more than one-third of the defense budget. There are two differences between them. Defense spending is coming down, while pollution abatement costs are going up quite fast. And defense spending comes out of the government's pocket, while four-fifths of the cost of the environmental regu- lations falls on the private sector. It includes, for. example, the cost to you of running your car on unleaded gas. ' ' With those gigantic sums of money involved, reckless or misinformed regulations can do real damage to the economy. The case is compelling for improving the EPA's-and the country's- base of scientific knowledge in the environmental fields. But it's important not to oversell Mr. Reilly's point. The nature of the subject ensures that the big decisions will always have to deal with large scientific uncertainties. Better science will mean better policy, but the most valuable science will be the kind that recognizes the unknown factors in environmental risk.