Public Policy Discussion
There have been rnany more bumps and bruises over thc past 40 years, and once in a while I have even earned a gold star. I have worked on loca.lly unwanted land uses such as nuclear power plants, incinerators, and dams; on cleaning up chemical or nuclear lveapons facilities and Superfund and brownfield sites; on sprawl; on environmental asthma and cancer; and on a variety oI other environ- mental policy subjects, These projects have replaced my fantasies about ho\ypol- icy is forrned with the reality of how and why decisions are made. Nowl ca[ laugh at my naivet6, but then I vras horrilied at the idea that good science was nol the dom{nant consideration. I }earned that good science was necessary for good pol-
icy but did not guarant€e it; lhat as much as I would like to, I could not start every policy analysis \rith ecological and humsn health as the first consideration; and that I must consider six criteria for each policy option:
I The )ikely reaction of elected gover[ment officials alld their slafJs
2. The likely reactions from the public and special interests, including not-for- profit organizatioos, business, and the media
3. Human and ecological health 4, Short- and long-term economic cost€ and benefits 5. The moral imperalive 6 Flexibility and time pressure
I have used these slt Iactors as a policy frame\vork to assist governors, sena.
tors, and other elected officials; to talk \vith reporters; to lecture in various countries; and to teach at Columbia and Rutgers Universiiies. Whatever Lhe pol- icy is$ue, I write down and assess every argument, pro and con, for every option, For example, suppose the issue involycs rcducing the risk from lcft-over chemicai weapohs: Options include destroying by incineration, destroying by hydrolysis or another similar melhod, packing and shipping to Bnother location, and a Iew others, Each of these options has advalltages Bnd disadvantsges.