New concerns about the Environment (1980s & 1990s)
The last two decades of the 20th century brought new concerns about the environment. The two
decades of the 20th century began with President Reagan, who moved solar panels from the roof of the
White House, and ended with the close defeat in the presidential election of 2000 sitting vice president
Al Gore, author of the 1992 best seller The Earth In Balance.
But, to view environmental concerns through the lens of the White House is to minimize the sheer
quantity of issues. In a country as geographically diverse as the United States of the environmental
issues were numerous:
Example 1: On the East Coast, watermen, recreational boaters, and environmentalists watched
and worked for solutions as the Chesapeake Bay was contaminated by nutrients from agricultural
runoff and sewage.
Example 2: Air pollution, often a local concern of smoggy automobile-dominated cities such as Los
Angeles in California and industrial municipalities such as Gary, Indiana, garnered national
attention.
Example 3: Acid rain that was the result of the burning of Sulfur-rich fossil fuels damaged not
only watersheds in Canada and the Northeastern United States, but also caused building damage,
including in monuments on the National Mall in Washington D.C.
Example 4: Studies showed that some pesticides used in agriculture caused illness in consumers and
agricultural workers.
Example 5: Ocean fisheries suffered from over-fishing.
Example 6: Safe drinking water was a concern in cities across the country, leading to national
legislation.
Example 7: Water shortages in the arid Southwest led to debates about water allocation between
farmers and the residents of fast-growing cities, industry, and environmentalists.
Example 8: Even the beaches of Long Island brought fears of a spoiled ecosystem when medical waste
washed on the sands.
Four major concerns about the environment in the U.S.
As seen in the above listed examples, concerns about the environment in the U.S were numerous.
Air pollution, water pollution, radiation leaks, and chemical waste were among the environmental hazards.
However, two places, the Love Canal and Three Mile Island, and two global environmental topics, ozone
depletion and global climate change became major topics for concern. While there are numerous
problems, including declining fisheries, home pollutants (like asbestos s) these places and topics
demanded a great deal of attention and action in the United States.
The Love Canal
The Love Canal was constructed in the 1890s near the Niagara River in New York to provide
hydroelectric power; it was never used. Instead, beginning in the 1920s, was used to dump chemical
waste until its closure in 1952.
In 1953 the disposal site was covered and sold for 1 $ to the Niagara Falls Board of Education.
The school board was informed the chemical waste was buried under the ground by the Hooker
Chemical Company. Despite the warnings, or because of a misunderstanding of the dangers, an
elementary school was built on the site and in 1955 the 99th Street School opened.
Homes were built, but homebuyers were not provided with information about the site’s
potential hazards. From the 1950s to the 1970s, residents complained about odors and strange
substances oozing out of the ground. The response of the school board was to cover the areas with soil
or clay.
In 1976, the city investigated and found that the soil and water was contaminated with
chemical toxins. In 1978, the State of New York investigated and found health problems in women,
and high levels of air-borne and soil-borne toxins.
In 1980, the federal government and New York State announced the temporary relocation
of approximately 700 families. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to clean up the
site with Superfund Dollars. The EPA covered a 40-acre area with a cap and a series of devices
monitored the air and ground water.
By the end of the cleanup and purchase of homes, more than 1,000 families were relocated
and $100 million was spent. A debate on the effectiveness of the EPA’s response, and the safety
of homes outside the cleanup area, continued into the 1990s.
The Love Canal served to make Americans aware of the dangers of chemical toxic waste and
created continuing questions about the best ways to prevent and respond to chemical waste.
Three Mile Island
Three Mile Island (TMI) is a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. On March 28, 1979, due to
design deficiencies, equipment failure, and human error, there was a severe meltdown of the core of
Reactor 2. Within hours, all nonessential personnel were evacuated. The containment dome was not
breached. By the evening the core had cooled and was considered stable.
But on March 30, a significant amount of radiation from an adjoining building was released
into the atmosphere. Pennsylvania governor, Richard Thornburgh, and the chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Joseph Hendrie, decided to advise pregnant women and young children within a
five mile radius to leave the area. The order caused some panic and confusion. Reactor 2 was
decommissioned permanently, but the other reactors at TMI continued to operate.
TMI had mixed effects. Studies showed numerous federal agencies as well as private studies
revealed few residual health problems caused by the release of radiation.
But the effect on the Nuclear Power Industry appears straightforward. While plans under
construction at the time of Three Mile Island were completed, no new nuclear plants have been
approved and built since the accident in the U.S.
Many industry observers blame overreaction to the dangers of nuclear plants for the halt in
construction, but others point to high initial construction costs requiring huge amounts of up-front
investment capital compared to coal and natural gas power generators.
Three Mile Island did make the public suspicious of nuclear power and ask questions, not only
about operational safety, but also about nuclear waste disposal.
Ozone Depletion

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan sent the Montreal Protocol Treaty to the Senate for
ratification. The Treaty committed nations to reduce emissions of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
CFCs are chemicals that are known to deplete the ozone layer. The ozone layer protects the
earth’s surface from radiation. A common source of CFC was Freon, used as a coolant in
refrigerators and air conditioners.

The treaty took effect on January 1, 1989, and began the phase out of ozone-depleting chemicals.

In the 1990s, new coolants for refrigeration were used, requiring some redesign of equipment.
Seven international meetings took place in the 1990s to revise the pact, and by 2000 enough
progress was made to allow scientists to predict that the ozone layer would recover by the middle
of the next century (around 2050.)

By 2000, the United States had reduced CFC emission to close to zero. The Secretary General
of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, called the Montreal Protocol “Perhaps the single most
successful international agreement to date”.
Global Climate Change

A second global concern that gained significant public attention, especially in the 1990s, was
global climate change. In the 1980s, some scientists predicted the possibility that pollution
could cause climate change. In the 1980s, reports of global climate change began to receive
public attention.

With concerns mounting, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) in 1988.

At the same time as awareness of climate change was increasing, the United States was
experiencing an expanding economy and rising expectations. US voters had rejected President
Jimmy Carter’s call to lower expectations and conserve resources in favor of Reagan’s optimism
and a culture that celebrated consumption and enjoying the many material benefits of a high
standard of living.

The U.S., the world’s largest economy, emitted the largest share of greenhouse gasses.
With 5% of the world’s population the United States emitted 25% of its Carbon dioxide (CO2).
As the economy grew, people purchased larger homes, more appliances, and bigger automobiles,
including SUVs. As a result, energy consumption increased as did emissions of gasses that
contributed to global warming.

However, the economic gains did not take climate change off the agenda. By 1997, there was
still mixed opinion on the amount and effects of greenhouse gasses, but consensus was moving
scientist and governments to explore ways to slow down or halt climate change.

Representatives of more than 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to negotiate an
agreement to limit the emissions of greenhouse gasses for more developed nations (MDCs). The
Kyoto Protocol was the result and in it the Clinton Administration agreed that the United
States would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. The reductions
were to be achieved between 2008 and 2012.

By the time Clinton had left office, the Senate had not ratified the treaty, and in 2001
President George W. Bush took ratification off the agenda.

Objections to the Kyoto Treaty were many. The first concern was that measures to meet the
commitment would hurt the U.S. economy. The second concern was that the rapidly growing
economies of India and China made any United States actions futile.

Doubts about the accuracy of the models used to predict the amount of climate change became
louder. Climate change skeptics explained that models, not matter how advanced, could not
include most of the variables. Climate was an interaction of oceans, land, the atmosphere, and
sun cycles, each having many sub-factors. Even among those who accepted that global warming
was occurring, some argued that human activity was not a major cause.

Despite public opinion against skeptics’ arguments, action to reduce greenhouse gas emission was a
voluntary practice among environmental organizations, individuals, and businesses.
Over the 2 decades the environmental issues in the United States provoked a variety of responses.
Problems that had local impact received action. Concerns that involved the entire planet received
mixed responses. Reasons for differences may be due to political climate, economic well-being, political
leadership, the immediacy of a local, visible problem vs. a global one in the indefinite future.