by Russell E. Train

he coming together of more than 170 nations under the auspices of the Earth Summit was, if nothing else, the first global acknowledgement that environmental quality and economic health are inextricably linked that the economic well-being of the Earth's peoples depends directly on the continued health of its natural resources.

This synthesis of environment and economics—and put forward in Agenda 21, the lengthy charter for the future adopted by the conference plenery-known as sustainable development, was only advanced, not discovered, by the diplomats in Rio. I suspect that if one were to search the literature, one would find references to the basic relationship hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. I do know that 85 years ago, in the annual message to Congress which has since become known as the State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt said, "To waste our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed."

The choice between crisis and sustainable development is one our

(Train, a former EPA Administrator, is Chairman of World Wildlife Fund.)

nation shares with the rest of the world, and the only way to address it is through international cooperation and through U.S. commitment to leadership at home and abroad.

As the world's single largest economy, the largest user of natural resources, the largest producer and consumer of energy, and the largest producer of carbon dioxide pollution, the United States has not just a special responsibility to exercise world leadership but a particularly high stake in meeting the environmental challenges of the future.

I am convinced that the natural processes that support life on Earth are in serious jeopardy and that by acting now or not acting—our country is choosing between two radically different futures. If the United States continues down its current path, merely reacting to and trying to repair environmental injuries, then the nation's natural resources, economy, and way of life will deteriorate. However, if our country pioneers new technologies, realigns government policies, makes bold economic changes, and embraces a new ethic of environmentally responsible behavior, we can expect the coming years to bring a higher quality of life, a healthier environment, and a vibrant economy.

The time is now for new strategies to address the environmental challenges

of the future. The National Commission on the Environment (see box on page 9) spent more than 18 months deliberating and debating ways to address the overwhelming environmental problems we face. Let me share some thoughts of mine that arose from the commission's work.

The Picture Today

Over the past 20 years, an impressive array of federal, state, and local pollution control and resource management programs, both public and private, have been instituted in the United States. Total U.S. expenditures on environmental protection now average more than 2 percent of gross national product per year.

The United States had the foresight to begin adopting stringent environmental laws and regulations more than two decades ago and to make sizable economic investments in pollution control and energy efficiency. As a result, this country does not have to contend with landscapes as blighted, air and water as polluted, soils as poisoned, or public health as ravaged as those of Central and Eastern Europe. The measurable environmental progress made by the United States should be a source of national pride. Still, our country's environmental achievements allow no room for complacency. Despite numerous

THE CHALLENGE AT HOME

victories, the United States is losing the battle:

• Global environmental problems to which we make no small contribution-climate change, loss of biodiversity, stratospheric ozone depletion, for instance-are placing both human and natural systems at grave risk.

The air in U.S. cities threatens to deteriorate further as improvements in auto emissions controls are overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of cars and miles driven and by congestion. Meanwhile, indoor air pollution is largely ignored.

• Disposal and cleanup of the vast amounts of waste generated each year pose ever greater difficulties and consume an increasing proportion of the limited funds available for environmental protection. Indirect sources of pollution, such as urban and agricultural runoff, continue nearly unabated.

• Encroaching land development is displacing and undermining critical ecosystems, such as wetlands, and threatens rural landscapes, natural areas, and biological diversity (see article on page 42).

Large areas of national forest and other public lands and resources are not managed sustainably (see article on page 36).

• Farmlands are suffering from the loss of soil and excessive use of chemicals (see article on page 33).

• Aquifers, a major source of water supply, are being consumed and contaminated at an alarming rate in many areas of the nation.

• Overfishing is seriously depleting our most important commercial fisheries.

• In many U.S. inner cities, the physical environment has the look of a wasteland.

While this litany of environmental ills, familiar-sounding and by no means complete, is a product of today's level of economic activity and human population, consider tomorrow. Over the next 50 years-within the lifetimes of many of us and of all of our children-economic activity in the United States is projected to quadruple and global population to at least double. If growth of this magnitude occurs with today's industrial processes,

agricultural methods, and consumer

practices, the result could be both environmentally and economically disastrous.

Forecasts based on linear projections are often wrong. In the case of environmental conditions, such projections may be too optimistic. Ample evidence suggests that, unless we act decisively, the price will be serious-in some cases, irreversible environmental damage. Clearly, it would be the height of folly for the nation to sit back and simply hope that the future will be greened by an invisible hand. Excuses for inaction, such as budget deficits and opposition to taxes, abound. Yet the continuing pursuit of politics as usual will almost certainly guarantee failure.

There must be an end to ambivalence about both the importance of environmental policy and our environmental policy priorities. The United States must have a long-term strategy for pursuing the goal of sustainable development. Such a balanced strategy may anticipate or avoid severe local and regional economic dislocations or stimulate adjustment assistance and job retraining.

Economic Growth

Economic and environmental well-being are mutually reinforcing goals that must be pursued simultaneously if either one is to be reached. Economic growth will create its own ruin if it continues to undermine the healthy functioning of Earth's natural systems or to exhaust natural resources. By the same token, healthy economies are most likely to provide the necessary wherewithal for investments in environmental protection. For this reason, one of the principal objectives of environmental policy must be to ensure a decent standard of living for all.

Sustainable development innovations will themselves bring major economic benefits. The economic advantage of efficiently using materials and energy is obvious, and the domestic production and use of environmentally sound technologies will reap profits both for the U.S. firms that sell them and for those who use them.