Lesson of the Exxon Valdez oil spill: Restore confidence in environmental stewards

AS we prepare to mark the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska this month, we are reminded of the daunting challenges that face the new administration, particularly in the management of the hugely complex ecosystems that still defy our complete understanding. Lessons from the Exxon Valdez may be useful in developing an informed environmental policy. Particularly instructive is the realization that sometimes our efforts to solve a problem can contribute to making matters even worse.

When the Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef in 1989, discharging the nation's worst oil spill into the waters of Prince William Sound, Americans responded in a characteristic fashion. From all parts of our country, people not only expressed indignation and concern, but volunteered for the grimy and difficult task of cleanup. In those weeks and months following the spill, the very best in the American character was on display. And in the well-meaning rush to "do something," some of the things we did added to the damage of a terrible ecological calamity.

One major effort focused on removing oil stranded on rocky beaches. First, individual stones were wiped by hand and free oil was pumped from low spots. This approach proved inadequate quite early in the response. Efforts then switched to "beach washing" in which large quantities of seawater were used to flush oil from a beach, which was then recovered by skimmers. As time wore on, stranded oil became more difficult to remove because evaporation left a progressively more viscous residue. To counteract this problem, cleanup crews began heating the seawater for use in beach washing.

Unfortunately, beach washing evolved into actions using very hot water that killed critical beach life, forced oil deep into rock substrate, and created a reservoir of pollutants for future release. Fear of being perceived as slow to act rushed otherwise careful environmental managers into imprudent measures.

This cautionary tale of good intentions leading to environmental harm is especially important as America turns greater attention to pressing issues with environmental dimensions — especially climate change and energy policy. The role and limitations of scientific advice in forming public policy need to be understood, if we are to have the best chance of developing policies that serve America and the world without causing harm to future generations.

The public needs to understand that within the logical framework of science, scientists are rarely completely certain about anything as complex as environmental consequences. When considering scientific information, it is important to resist the temptation to deny unpleasant probabilities because there is less than complete certainty.

Today, unfortunately, the public has had ample reason not to trust the scientific information that is being presented by government. Too many times during the past eight years, federal agencies charged with assembling scientific information and developing policy have had scientific objectivity and the integrity of professional stewardship compromised by executive interference.

There is hope for reform. What is most needed is transparency. To this end, the technical documents upon which policymakers rely must be available for public inspection and especially for review by qualified independent scientists, unaltered from the original findings of the scientific teams that wrote them. While policymakers must be free to make the choices they deem best for our society, they must be honest with the public and disclose the facts they considered, and how they ultimately chose to address those facts in policy formulation.

There are many good reasons to choose among competing facts, but public officials must be accountable for disclosing what information trumped other findings and why. This cannot happen if political influence interferes in the initial fact-finding process.

The idea of professional environmental stewardship, first championed in American public life by Theodore Roosevelt a century ago, must be re-established. It will require the public to be intimately involved, it will require bipartisanship, and it will require a concerted effort to tone down the volume of acrimony in order to mitigate polarization. But it is necessary.

Without a restoration of public confidence in the professionalism of our environmental stewards, debilitating skepticism will threaten our great nation's ability to meet the ecological challenges that confront our prosperity and security.