These past several years have been special for the environmental movement in general and for the grassroots toxic movement in particular. For the first time in years&emdash;perhaps the first time ever&emdash;there is a public consensus supporting efforts to protect and improve the environment. According to a Louis Harris poll, this is how the American public defines the most important environmental issues: 92 percent of Americans believe hazardous waste is a serious problem (ranking highest among environmental issues), but also show strong concern over polluted lakes and rivers (90 percent), contaminated water (86 percent), radioactive waste (79 percent), acid rain (79 percent), and air pollution (75 percent). Given my own history at Love Canal and the work Citizen's Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes (CCHW) does, I am pleased to see these poll results, because they reflect my ranking of environmental priorities.

These numbers show a new consensus for the environment. They reflect a big change from public attitudes in the mid- to late seventies when environmentalists were mocked as being so-called save-the-whales types, as more interested in protecting the snail darter than caring about human beings, or as hippies or communists, as antinuclear power demonstrators often were characterized. We do not often hear anymore the sentiment stated in the popular '70s bumpersticker: "Hungry? Out of Work? Eat an Environmentalist!"

The main reason for this turnaround, as we see it, is that in the 1980s more attention has been devoted to building a grassroots base of popular support for environmental causes. This is a reverse of the pattern of the 1970s when emironmentalists treated the public with benign neglect at best and, at worst, with arrogance. When environmentalism is recast as environmental justice, it is easier to see the importance of paying attention to public perception. That is because we can then draw on the history of other movements for social justice and see change and progress as the direct result of winning the battle for the hearts and minds of society.

Two events changed the nature of environmentalism in the 1980s and are largely responsible for the surge in public support. The first was Love Canal (1978), which showed people that toxics (and similar environmental hazards) could turn up in anyone's back yard. The grassroots movement (1981) that followed the uncovering of Love Canal was populist and would not allow the issue to be compromised, bureaucratized, or intellectualized out of existence. The other catalyst was Ronald Reagan's election. The Reagan administradon was so extreme and so outrageous in its approach to environmental concerns that it made true believers of even the most disinterested bystanders.

We still face many threats. The United States still produces more than a ton of toxic waste for every man, woman, and child. This does not even include the tons of waste produced by the U.S. military, the single largest toxic generator, with an annual waste output higher than the five largest chemical companies combined. The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that there are between 130,340 and 425,380 suspect toxic sites (GAO report #RCED-88-44, Dec. 1987). The infamous garbage barge that sailed up and down the Atlantic Coast in search of a dumping ground brought international attention to the problem of municipal solid waste. These specific examples reflect the general attitude of industry and government toward other environmental issues, such as acid rain, protection of endangered species, and preservation of vital natural resources.

As the public becomes aware of these threats, it will begin to work on behalf of positive solutions. When CCHW was founded in 1981, its main goal was to end land disposal of hazardous wastes by the end of the decade. It looks as if this goal will be achieved. We also have fought for positive alternatives&emdash;the "Four Rs" of recycling, reduction, reuse, and reclamation. Our colleagues told us that this was a pipe dream, because (a) it's got to go somewhere, and (b) Americans are lazy, stupid, and easily swayed by the power of corporate and government institutions with a vested- interest in the status quo.

Yet, in less than five years, the nature of the debate has changed. The Four Rs are now common wisdom, and all serious authorities from virtually all political spectrums agree that land disposal is the worst way to manage our wastes. This change arose largely because of the emergence of the new grassroots movement against toxics, a movement that has brought a new tone and toughness to dealing with environmental threats. The grassroots movement rejects compromise, taking what Barry Commoner called the "hard path."

"The front line of the battle against chemical pollution is not in Washington but in their own communities. For them, the issues are clearcut. . . In these battles, there is little room for compromise; the corporations are on one side and the people of the community are on the other, challenging the corporations exclusive power to make decisions that threaten the community's health."

One of the biggest threats to this new consensus on the environrnent is the sharp difference in approach between the new grassroots environmental activists and the established environmental groups who preceded them. Commoner criticizes the environmental establishment for having

"taken the soft political road of negotiation, compromising with the corporations on the amount of pollution that is acceptable.... The national organizations deal with the environmental disease by negotiating about the kind of Band-Aid to apply to it; the community groups deal with the disease by trying to prevent it."

Ken Geiser of Tufts University in a March 1987 paper, took a look at the results that come from the "hard" versus "soft path" approaches:

"In many traditional areas of environmental concern, namely acid rain, pesticides, and wilderness protection, there were frustrating failures in 1986. In contrast, the programs that did win slgnificant victories were all focused on the control and cleanup of toxic chernicals and hazardous waste. Rather than a year of environmental victories, 1986 is better seen as a year in whlch environmental campaigns around toxic chemical control have succeeded in the face of the continuation of the disappointing environmental lobbying struggles of the 1980s. . . . On close inspection, these toxic chemical campaigns demonstrate a significant difference from the traditional, mainstream environmental movement in terms of constituents and tactics."

Environmentalism's history shows that we succeed when we consciously and systematically focus on building a political base of support within the American public. This holds true for all environmental issues, whether they be national parks, endangered species, toxic waste, or garbage. Efforts to preserve and improve the environrnent are sure to be set back, if not fail outright, when advocates for the environment forget or ignore the fact that environmental causes are just as political as any other public policy issue.

It is not only practical to work deliberately toward building a public base of support environmental issues, it is also the just and proper thing to do. Most ways of looking at environmental ethics are based on the belief that we all live in an environmental system all of whose components are linked in important and subtle ways. As human beings, we are responsible for exercising proper stewardship of the environment, which means that we must care about human beings and natural resources as well as other forms of life. To ignore any part of the environment is to take an incomplete and fundamentally flawed approach. Efforts for the environment fail when they take people "out of the loop." We believe public support for the environment faded in the 1970s because our colleagues and predecessors either ignored people or saw them as the problem rather than a key part of the solution.

In 1988, Americans will elect a new president. This is good news and bad news. The good news is that all of the likely winners in November have better attitudes toward the environment than Ronald Reagan. The bad news is that believing things will get better under the next administration can be a trap. The last two times we had a positive change in administrations (from Nixon to Ford and from Ford to Carter), the environmental movement backed off, assuming the new administration would do a better job automatically. Both times we were disappointed. And both times the consensus supporting environmental protection was allowed to erode. The real key to meaningful change in national policy on the environment is to continue to build a grassroots consensus for positive environmental policy.

As we move into the next decade, the greatest threat we face is forgetting the lessons of the past. We have learned the hard way already that we must have faith and trust in people's common sense and willingness to act when they understand the issues in terms of right and wrong. We have learned the hard way that law does not equal justice. Environmental litigation is useful simply as a way of securing gains won through grassroots political action, which is how good laws get passed. We have learned the hard way that you do not get those good laws without a grassroots political base. Slick lobbying techniques and clever research do not make public policy.

All sorts of approaches at many different levels are useful, but we have learned the hard way that there are only two sources of real power: people and money. Since we will never be able to muster the kind of money-based power the polluters have, we should focus on the most effective ways to build people power. Love Canal touched something in American society that had not been seen in decades. Hundreds of people contacted Love Canal leaders for advice on how to apply Love Canal tactics to their own local toxics problem. By the end of Love Canal (marked in October 1980 by President Jimmy Carter's buy-out order), there were hundreds of active grassroots toxics groups all across the United States and Canada. By the end of 1987, CCHW counted more than 2,500 groups in every state, Puerto Rico, Canada, and around the world. Even Poland's Solidarity Union adopted toxics as a powerful issue to mobilize the community. For us to go from a virtual standing start to a movement of this size and scope says something about the yearning that exists in American society both for change and for a new way of bringing about that change.

Even though there is always the chance that we will make the same mistakes as those that have gone before, we face the future with optimism. The new grassroots movement against toxics is both broad and deep. Enough attention has been given to building the kind of leadership, as well as public support, that will not let anyone&emdash;polluters, government officials, establishment environmentalists, or even CCHW&emdash;dictate policy. This time, the new environmental movement is made up of the most basic building blocks, namely, local grassroots groups. Other elements of the environmental movement would do well to reflect on their own specific histories and draw on the lessons those histories teach in the same way we continually examine the lessons of the toxics movement.

In summary, I believe the most important issues we face are waste disposal issues. Why? Because they are concrete and specific "backyard" issues. Since Love Canal, waste disposal issues have made environmentalists out of millions of people who never would have dreamed of going by that title. This has had a wonderful ripple effect with all sorts of other environmental issues.

Some environmentalists have criticized the grassroots toxics movement for being crude and selfish We are sometimes called NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard), as though it is a moral defect to fight for home, family, and children. But now, many of the solutions the grassroots toxics movement has promoted&emdash;waste reduction, recycling, reclamation, and reuse&emdash; have become the common wisdom.

I also believe the best way by far to address these issues is to deal with them at the grassroots level. I believe it is morally right that people directly affected by the problems decide how they will be fought. I also believe that the way toxics issues have been fought since Love Canal has been of practical benefit to environmentalism as a whole. As both Barry Commoner and Ken Geiser point out, grassroots environmental activism wins, thereby&emdash;as I see it&emdash;strengthening the entire environmental cause. That is why I feel my children and their children will have a chance for a better environment in the twenty-first century.

Back...