|
作者：Donella H. Meadows
日期：09.18.00
在我親身接觸過環境法律之後，我才明白，為何人們如此痛恨它。
我們那個在地圖上被佛蒙特州自然資源局列為農地的區域，實際上是致命的一小點。幾十年前，有人注意到這片農地讓瀕臨絕種的西伯利亞蝦夷蔥(植物)得以生存。而當我們採用佛蒙特州的 250 號法案時，這塊農地突然受到重視。這250 號法案是美國最好的一條土地利用法，用來在我們270英畝土地中的4英畝上，建立22個小型的 "綠色" 家園。
這一片農地位於一條流經牧場的小溪旁。它並不包括在計劃建設之內。但是，在複查過後，250 號法案拿走了我們的每一吋土地。因為，為了保存蝦夷蔥，政府要求我們必須在小溪的兩邊，維持50呎、不得割草的緩衝區。
這片緩衝區，讓數英畝的田野荒廢。在過去40年間，這片田野盡責地提供牧草，現在則成為小溪邊矮木叢生的邊坡。"如果刈草會對蝦夷蔥造成影響，"我指出，"那麼，蝦夷蔥早就被剷除了。如果你能夠在這片土地上，找到任何一株蝦夷蔥，我願意用我的生命保護它。但是，為什麼我們要為了不存在這裡的蝦夷蔥，損失一片良好的河邊低地呢？"
最後，我們折衷為25呎。在我看來，這樣還是太多了。但是，我們與Act 250共同度過了爭執最少的一年。
我想再重複一次：250 法案真的很棒。它要求每一位開發者向管理機構和民眾證實:所有會改變土地使用的提案都不會危害到水源供應。土地使用的改變不得造成過度的土地侵蝕、必須妥善的處理廢水、不得製造空氣污染、使用過多能源、破壞景觀、威脅溼地、破壞物種、干擾學校，或是讓市民破產。這些都是合理的要求。我想，他們應該被用在這個國家的每一個州的新建設。
但是，當一個法律開始以手段破壞其真正的目標時，顯然出了錯誤。
舉例來說，關於堆肥馬桶的決議。比起把排泄物堆肥到泥土中,我們寧願認為,使用飲用水沖走排泄物,並讓它不管有沒有處理便流入河川或地下水是更不環保的。因為在河川(或地下水)中，排泄物的營養部分被當成污染,而在泥土中，卻被認為是一種資源。因此，我們要求安裝堆肥馬桶，我很樂意為它宣傳，這種馬桶是經過國家許可的。
但是卻遇到以下意料不到的棘手問題。在經過一兩年後，我們的馬桶儲積了堆肥，我們不被允許將它取出，與砂土配料混合，再將它做成堆肥，灑到我們的玫瑰周圍。相反地，我們得通知擁有執照的腐敗物貯藏運輸業者，才能將堆肥送到市政府的污水處理系統。
這違反堆肥馬桶的整個使用原理。
此外，在我們好幾頁厚、超過一年才得到的許可證中，還有幾個更讓人抓狂的規定;每個家庭的花費也因此增加了約5,000美元。我在這裡敘述這件事情的主要目的，並不是要抱怨這些細節、拖延，甚至支出。儘管，其中大部分的支出，對於任何想得到的環境保護，都是不必要的。我的真正目的，是要反應出好的法律也會變質。
儘管我定期的被它激怒，但是，我並未因此下定論，像我的右派(保守派)朋友到處宣傳:我們應該掃除250 法案。我相信沒有了它，情況會更糟糕。我也不打算責備那些我們曾要面對的政府管理者。他們大多數盡了最大的努力想對我們有所幫助。但是，卻對工作變質的無奈現況感到苦惱。
他們不僅工資不足、過度工作，並且常常訓練不足;其中部分原因，來自於我那些右派朋友們從不間斷的反對官僚政治、反對稅金的激昂言論。對於年輕人、無大志的人，或是異常高潔的人而言，公家薪水可能是足夠的。但是大多數的技術專家可以從非官方機構得到更多薪水。舉例來說，我們必須僱用(非官方)他們來研究堆肥馬桶預期的水流還原，這種官方技術專家應該要懂卻沒有時間懂的知識;因為官方技術專家已經超過負荷了。
此外，他們的工作已經演變到濫用"阻止"的地步，而非幫助人們做正確的事情。當他們看到一個粗略功能不良的腐敗物貯藏設計，他們會知道。他們可以告訴我們哪些是不能做的。但是，他們沒有機會、沒有時間、沒有餘地，來幫助我們之中的那些誠實、且渴望做正確的事情的人。
大多數執行環境法律的人們接下他們的工作是因為關心環境。他們應該可以與我們相互交流，作為同伴，而非試著逮到我們犯錯的時候；或是試著保護我們，免於受到自己的傷害。他們應該擁有更好的薪資，以及訓練。畢竟，他們是我們的空氣、水，以及土壤的長期守護者。與其讓非官方水文學家、土木工程師和律師持續的和官方技術專家鬥爭，還不如在他們身上投資更多的公債不但能大幅的減少成本也能得到較好的環境。
若是我們痛恨這些法律，最後，就不會有任何法律存在了。環境保護論者，以及所有民眾，不只要關心書本上的法律，更要知道它們到底是如何運作的。
Donella H. Meadows為達特茅斯學院永續研究所所長，暨環境研究所副教授
全文及圖示詳見: http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/citizen/citizen091800.stm
版權歸屬 Grist Magazine 環境信託基金會 (黃曉菊 譯，黃媺雯審校)
中英對照全文：http://news.ngo.org.tw/reviewer
/donella/re-donella20001016.htm
|
|
by Donella H. Meadows
09.18.00
Now that I've suffered under one firsthand, I can understand why people hate environmental laws.
On a map of our farm filed away at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is a fateful dot. It stands for an endangered Siberian Chive, observed by someone decades ago. This dot popped up when we applied under Vermont's Act 250, one of the best land use laws of the nation, to build 22 small "green" homes clustered on four of our 270 acres.
The dot lies near a brook that trickles through a hayfield. It is not within sight of the proposed construction. But Act 250 brings every inch of our land under scrutiny.
So, to preserve the chive, the state says we must maintain a 50-foot no-mow buffer on either side of the brook.
That buffer would render unusable several acres of a small field that has been dutifully hayed for the past 40 years right up to the brushy bank of the brook. "If haying is going to do in that chive," I pointed out, "the chive is done in. If you can show me even one plant, I'll protect it with my life. But why should we lose the use of good bottomland for a chive that isn't there?"
We compromised on 25 feet, still too much, in my opinion, but one of the less infuriating outcomes of the year we have spent with Act 250.
I want to reiterate: It is a great law. It requires every developer of more than 10 living units to prove to regulatory agencies and the public that the proposed land use change will not endanger anyone's water supply. The change must not cause undue erosion. It must dispose of wastewater safely. It must not cause air pollution or use too much energy or ruin scenic views or threaten wetlands or extinguish species or burden the schools or bankrupt the town. These are reasonable requirements. I think they should be imposed on every new construction in every state in the Union.
But something has gone wrong when the workings of a law start undermining its very purpose.
As, for example, the decision about composting toilets. We think it is environmentally wrong to use drinking water to wash away human waste, and then to dump that waste, processed or not, into streams or groundwater, where its nutrients are pollutants, rather than back to the soil, where the nutrients are a resource. Hence we asked to install composting toilets, which, I'm happy to report, the state permitted.
But it threw in this kicker. When, after a year or two, our toilets have accumulated compost, we are not allowed to take it out, mix it with yard trimmings, compost it further, and spread it around our roses. Rather, we are required to call a licensed septic tank hauler to take the compost to a municipal sewage treatment system.
That defeats the whole logic of composting toilets.
There are several more such crazy dictates scattered through our pages-thick permit, which took more than a year to obtain and added roughly $5,000 to the cost of each home. My purpose here is not to complain about the specifics, the delays, or even the expense, though much of that expense was unnecessary to any conceivable environmental protection. My purpose is to reflect upon good laws that go bad.
Though I have periodically been incensed at it, I do not conclude, as my friends to the right do, that we should sweep Act 250 away. I have no doubt we'd be worse off without it. I'm also not ready to condemn the dozens of state regulators we've dealt with. Most of them did their best to be helpful and even cheerful. But they labor under conditions that turn their work sour.
Partly because of the incessant anti-bureaucrat, anti-tax rantings of my friends to the right, they are underpaid, overworked, and often undertrained. State salaries may suffice for the young, the unambitious, or the unusually virtuous, but most professionals can earn much more in the private sector, from which we had to hire them, for example, to research the expected water-flow reductions of composting toilets, something public-sector professionals ought to know. They have no time to know. They're overloaded.
Furthermore, their jobs have evolved into stopping abuse, rather than helping people do the right thing. They know a grossly dysfunctional septic tank design when they see one. They can tell us what not to do. But there's no opportunity, no time, no leeway for them to help those of us who are honestly eager to do the right thing.
Most of the folks administering environmental laws took their jobs because they care about the environment. They should be able to interact with us as partners, instead of trying to catch us doing things wrong, or trying to protect us from ourselves. They should be well paid and well trained -- after all, they are the daily guardians of our air and water and soil. Investing more public funds in them could cost far less and produce a better environment than setting up a system in which private-sector hydrogeologists and civil engineers and lawyers must do constant battle with them.
If we come to hate the laws, eventually there won't be any. Environmentalists, of all people, need to care not only what laws are on the books, but how they actually work.
Donella H. Meadows is director of the Sustainability Institute and an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.
|
