bate, quite frankly, between the private sector and the public sector on how do we really include environmental costs in our products. How do we ultimately ensure that when somebody buys a product or a service they know that the environmental costs are incorporated into the cost of that good or service?

I don't think we are ready for public policy or legislation yet in this area, but it is an emerging topic area that is not without controversy, including in the business sector by itself.

We have got some great examples in this country and in our company of where we are changing policy and changing technology to really benefit the environment from a sustainable development standpoint. I would like to kind of just mention three quick examples.

In a very basic sense, we have seen in some progressive communities a different focus on trash that is building up in the communities. Quite frankly, many communities are finding out that free trash service isn't quite so free when they have to reauthorize a landfill or find space for solid waste, and so we are seeing some communities begin to charge by the bag instead of burying the cost in their taxes. And in those communities we are beginning to see significant reductions of solid waste ending up going to landfill. Not a big surprise. When people pay directly for something, they generally conserve it.

In the area of technology development, we have just developed a new process for producing plastic foams that uses carbon dioxide as a blowing agent instead of HCFCs, and that technology, incidentally, uses carbon dioxide which is naturally occurring so we are recycling carbon dioxide, not generating new carbon dioxide.

These developments are licensed and we have patents issued, and we license this technology now around the world and have Ì think right now at this point six licenses outstanding.

And a third area that I know that this committee is involved in is in the area of life-cycle assessment or life-cycle analysis. Our belief is that life-cycle analysis is a tool that is just beginning to emerge and is very, very useful in really taking a look at the entire environmental impact of a product, a good or a service.

This technology, we are finding, is not without its concerns because it can be used and it can be misused. I think there is just a beginning effort in both the United States and in Europe to begin to start to standardize on a given methodology to employ life-cycle analysis.

Well, I could give you all kinds of different examples, but the real question in my mind is in the end of how do you really balance environmental reform and economic development? How do we really move from a command and control style of regulation and policy to putting on our books incentive-based motivational processes that encourage pollution prevention and that focus on the market forces. We got a lot of examples today, and I won't share them with you, they are in my paper, of where we have found specific examples of where the current processes are really putting in place disincentives to doing the right thing. And I don't expect Congress to go in and fix every part of every regulation, but I think it is important that we all need to be aware that these disincentives do exist.

And really, we need to focus on innovative strategies and technologies, and we need to find ways to continually remove the disincentives and barriers that we have in our current system so that we really can make the kind of true progress toward sustainable development that we are all looking for.

Again, I applaud the efforts of the subcommittee and certainly pledge my support and cooperation. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buzzelli follows:]

Vice President and Corporate Director Environment, Health & Safety and Public Affairs The Dow Chemical Company

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Technology,

Environment and Aviation

of the

Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the invitation to join you here today to share my views with you and the other members of this subcommittee.

Let me begin by commending you for having the foresight to look at new approaches to the environmental policy-making process in our country especially as it relates to balancing environmental goals with economic goals. I think what you are doing is part of a significant shift. And it certainly is a shift in the right direction - a shift from confrontation to partnership -- from gridlock to progress.

In the past, environmental policies were crafted behind closed doors with very limited input. When they surfaced, they were attacked and torn apart by different groups with a wide range of interests. As a result, we ended up with environmental policies, which, although well intended, were quite often counterproductive.

Environmental policy in the U.S. has evolved law by law and regulation by regulation. It has somewhat arbitrarily separated pollution of the air from that of land or water, and it has stressed cleanup more than prevention. As a result, environmental programs sometimes conflict with one another. We have yet to define a clear set of national environmental goals, or a coherent national strategy to achieve them. Instead, our policies have been formed in a piecemeal fashion.

Over the last few years, however, I've noticed a change. There was a point not too long ago, for instance, when industry would have never had a seat at this table. Our early input was simply not asked for. We knocked, but usually were not invited in. If we were invited in to testify, it was usually because we were in some sort of trouble.

Fortunately, as I said, that is changing. This is the third time this year I have been asked to present my views on environmental policy before a congressional committee. Dow's Chairman and CEO Frank Popoff received and accepted two invitations to do the same earlier this year. Each of these opportunities was positive and represents a step in the right direction in terms of developing national environmental policy. The more balanced the input is, the more balanced the policy will be.

In my mind, that's the key to making environmental progress - finding the right balance. To do so, we will need to continue working together to incorporate the best policies of the past with new, innovative approaches to address today's -and tomorrow's - realities.

Today I'd like to give you a three-point overview of what that approach is likely to be. I'll mention them now, then talk more about each in greater detail.

First, our new approach will require that we embrace sustainable development, a fundamental change in the way we think about the relationship between the environment and the economy. Second, it will call for the creation of innovative strategies to convert sustainable development theories into action. And third, it will mean that we eliminate barriers that might hinder this type of progress.

Embracing Sustainable Development

As I'm sure you are aware, there is a growing recognition that there can be no environmental reform without economic development, and no economic development without environmental reform. Instead of opposing each other, as traditional thinking goes, these two objectives actually go hand in hand. This is the basis for sustainable development, a concept encouraging development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the future.

Based on my experiences, sustainable development is right not only for our country, but also for industry in general. Quite frankly, it represents an opportunity for business...

an opportunity to continuously improve our environmental, health and safety performance;

an opportunity to reach out to our various stakeholders and build constructive partnerships; and

an opportunity to develop new products, processes and environmental technologies - and enter new businesses -- that give us a competitive edge.

But more importantly, it represents a significant opportunity for our country. Fortunately, the Administration recognizes this and has taken a major step in moving us down that path by creating the President's Council on Sustainable Development. I'd like to spend a minute or two explaining the President's Council because its work may change the framework for environmental policy.

On June 14th, in a White House Rose Garden ceremony, 24 members were named by President Clinton to serve on the Council for a two-year, renewable term. The members of the Council represent industry, government (including several cabinet members), environmental, conservation, labor and civil rights organizations. Together, these partners will develop new approaches to integrate economic and environmental policies and practices. Vice President Gore has called the Council the "linchpin" between the environment and the economy and said it would be the Administration's key forum for addressing these issues.

I was asked by the President to co-chair the Council, along with Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute. Our key objective is to explore and