Basic HTML Version
er and resources to divert to environ–
mental controls in the face of the cry
for economic and industrial expan–
sion to create new jobs. And to meet
social welfare demands and energy
and defense needs.
What a dilemma mankind is in!
Recovery from recession, and
security needs are given priority
over strong antipollution efforts.
Heads of major industrial corpora–
tions around the world say stricter
regulations will contribute to
unemployment, curtail productivity
and competitiveness, divert expen–
sive energy and threaten to regulate
them into bankruptcy.
Nations everywhere feel im–
pelled to improve their industrial
and technological capacity even if it
means more rapid pollution of the
environment. Yet failure to control
pollution and destruction of the
earth's life-sustaining environment
in this decade could seal the fate of
all humanity.
What many leaders, business–
meo and citizens fail to grasp--or
are blinding their minds to-is that
new economic priorities are gam–
bling with the lives of all humanity.
Action against the onslaught of pol–
lution must be taken now, or it will
be too late!
Crltlcal Decades
lt's hard to believe. But it was
hardly more than 1O years ago that
leading scientists, en–
vironmentalists and
government repre–
sentatives gath–
ered
for the first
time
in a historie
conference to confront the unprece–
dented threat of global pollution to
humanity.
In June, 1972, delegates from
more than 100 nations met at the
United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment in Stock–
holm, Sweden. There delegates
faced grim facts about the earth's
rapidly degrading air, water and
land. The facts compounded into
the inescapable conclusion: Even if
nuclear war doesn't destroy man–
kind, rapidly escalating pollution
and destruction of environment will
achieve the same result in a few
decades unless it is quickly
reversed.
The delegates established the
United Nations Environment Pro–
gram (UNEP). Its purpose was to
monitor humanity's progress in
fighting environmental pollution
and destruction.
rn retrospect, that conference–
man's boldest attempt to save him–
self from extermination in his own
industrial and technological filth–
achieved its planners' primary
objective. For the first time in his–
tory, leaders of the world together
faced the reality that we are pollut–
ing ourselves to death.
And yet, while this important
conference objective was largely
achieved, none of the laudatory
resolutions for international coop–
eration, or for coping with inter-
national pollution problems, were
binding, even on the govern–
ments that supported them.
Again and again at
the historie conference, delegates
bristled with hostility at any pro–
posals that appeared to conflict
with their short-term economic
interests. Leaders of developing
nations, short of cash reserves,
said costly pollution controls were
an obstacle to industrial develop–
ment needed to pull them out of
poverty.
How Far Have We Come?
How far has mankind progressed in
the fight against pollution since
1972?
In all fairness, the Environmen–
tal Decade of the 1970s was a
unique decade of widespread
awareness of environmental de–
struction and of strong efforts to do
something about it. Even many
nations who said they couldn't
afford strong antipollution controls
felt impelled to do what they could
within their means.
One could · r epo rt numerous
localized examples and amazing
success stories in cleaning up pol–
luted air and water and ruined
land.
Environmental impact laws now
temper runaway degradation in
many areas where such laws did not
exist before. Various industries
bave spent millions cleaning up
their pollution.
In sorne areas, certain air pollut–
ants have been markedly reduced.
There have also been remarkable
reverses of severely polluted rivers,
lakes and streams on various conti–
nents. These experiences demon–
strate to all
what can hap–
pen when in-