Resource Use and Sustainability

Amit Kapur and Thomas E. Graedel

[Editors' Note: In June 1992, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, the nations of the world formally endorsed the concept of sustainable development and agreed to a plan of action for achieving it. One of those nations was the United States. In August 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, these nations gathered in Johannesburg to review progress in the 10-year period since UNCED and to identify steps that need to be taken next. Prof. John C. Dernbach has edited a book, Stumbling Toward Sustainability, that assesses progress made by the United States on sustainable development in the past 10 years and recommends next steps. The book, published by the Environmental Law Institute in July 2002, is comprised of chapters on various subjects by experts from around the country. This Article appears as a chapter in that book. Further information on Stumbling Toward Sustainability will be available at www.eli.org or by calling 1-800-433-5120 or 202-939-3844.]

Amit Kapur is a Doctor of Forestry and Environmental Studies candidate at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University. Thomas E. Graedel is the Clifton R Musser Professor of Industrial Ecology at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University.

[33 ELR 10143]

Overview

Sustainability with respect to the use of resources has two components: (1) how is the rate of resource use related to the overall stock of resources, and (2) what portion of resources in use are lost to the environment. The first component assumes critical importance in the United States. In 1990, the average American was responsible for the extraction and employment of over 50 kilograms (kg) of material daily, more than anywhere else in the world. Ten years later, the quantity has increased by about 10%, and some of the associated environmental impacts have increased as well. The lack of conscious efforts and proactive policies has promoted what appears to be unsustainable behavior. Overall, however, no attempt has been made to define sustainability in quantitative terms, to set goals for improvement, and to measure progress toward these goals. A variety of activities characterized as sustainable have been proposed, and clearly would be beneficial. Until precise measures are taken to address and understand sustainability, however, the United States and the world will have no clear picture of how sustainable or unsustainable they are, whether or not they are moving in the right direction, and when resource sustainability will be achieved.

Sustainable Production and Consumption—Policy Trends Worldwide

The sustainability debate has emerged as a key issue among governments, policymakers, planners, and environmentalists globally ever since the Rio Summit in 1992. The term "sustainable development" has been overused, without any definite knowledge of what constitutes a sustainable world and how we can proceed in that direction. A simple definition of sustainable world would be where human-induced activities do not undermine the long-term productivity of natural systems.¹ The human-induced activities of production and consumption, both being integral parts of a robust economic world, are major factors in the sustainability debate. The focus of research and policy formulation has changed from concentrating on emerging scarcities of resources to more efficient and clean utilization of our natural resources, both renewable and nonrenewable. The environmental pressure groups have also brought into the forefront concerns about the impacts of the inequity created as a result of western production and consumption patterns.

Terminology is important to discussions of resource sustainability. We use the terms "use" and "utilization" to indicate that resources have been employed for some useful purpose. We restrict the word "consumption" to indicate a pattern of action that results in the loss of material from the technological system. The now archaic employment of "consumption" to indicate use is indication of the old "use it once, throw it away" philosophy.

The Earth Summit, in its blueprint for action, Agenda 21, dealt in a holistic perspective with the issue of sustainable production and consumption in a chapter titled "Changing Consumption and Production Patterns."² It states clearly that "the major cause of the continued degradation of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries."³ Agenda 21 failed to provide a precise definition of sustainable production and consumption patterns but did identify the key driving forces behind unsustainability—burgeoning population growth in developing nations and the culture of over consumption in industrialized countries.⁴ As a result, there is substantial disparity and inequity in meeting the basic needs of poorer people and satisfying the superfluous demands of rich societies. Agenda 21 further points out that "measures to be undertaken at the international level for the protection and enhancement of the environment must take fully into account the current imbalances in the global patterns of consumption and production."⁵ The policy objectives and activities of this component of Agenda 21 are given in Box 1. The Agenda calls for a "multi-pronged strategy focusing on demand, meeting the basic needs for the poor and reducing wastage and the use of finite resources in the production process"⁶ and stresses [33 ELR 10144] that developed countries should take the lead in promoting and achieving more sustainable resource utilization patterns. Developing countries that more or less follow the development trajectories of developed nations can also leapfrog to more resource-efficient and cleaner technologies and adopt resource utilization patterns that are more feasible and attractive.

Box 1. Policy Objectives and Activities of Chapter 4 of Agenda 21⁷

In order to develop national policies and strategies encouraging changes in unsustainable resource utilization patterns, Chapter 4 of Agenda 21 proposes the following broad objectives, to be addressed by governments and other appropriate organizations:

. To promote efficiency in production processes and reduce wasteful consumption in the process of economic growth, taking into account the development needs of the developing countries;

. To develop domestic policy frameworks that will encourage a shift to more sustainable patterns of production and utilization; and

. To reinforce both values that encourage sustainable production and utilization patterns and polices that encourage the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries.

Chapter 4 recommends five major activities for reaching these objectives: (1) encouraging greater efficiency in the use of energy and resources; (2) minimizing the generation of wastes; (3) assisting individuals and households to make environmentally sound purchasing decisions; (4) exercising leadership through government purchasing; and (5) moving toward environmentally sound pricing.

In response to the issues in Rio, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Ministers decided in June 1993 to examine the relationship between consumption and production patterns and sustainable development. The first OECD Symposium on sustainable consumption, held in Oslo in January 1994, proposed a working definition of sustainable consumption as:

The use of services and related products which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations.⁸

Paul Stern of the National Research Council has described the different ways physics, economics, ecology, and sociology view consumption.⁹ For physicists, matter and energy cannot be consumed, so consumption is conceived as transformations of matter and energy with increased entropy. For economists, consumption is spending on consumer goods and services and thus distinguished from their production and distribution. For ecologists, consumption is obtaining energy and nutrients by eating something else. For sociologists, consumption is a status symbol—keeping up with the Joneses—when individuals and households use their incomes to increase their social status through certain kinds of purchases.¹⁰ In 1977, the councils of the Royal Society of London and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a joint statement on consumption, having previously done so on population. Their definition, a minor variant of that of the physicists, was "consumption is the human transformation of materials and energy. Consumption is of concern to the extent that it makes the transformed materials or energy less available for future use or negatively impacts biophysical systems in such a way as to threaten human health, welfare, or other things people value." The definition adopted as a reference point five central concepts:

. Satisfying basic human needs (not the desire for "wants" and luxuries);

. Privileging quality of life concerns over material standard of living;

. Minimizing resource use, waste, and pollution;

. Taking a life-cycle approach; and

. Acting with concern for future generations.¹¹

The definition, as in Agenda 21, highlighted the issue of intergenerational equity and also brought into the focus the issue of quality of life to highlight the fact that developed countries need not reduce the standard of living to attain sustainable patterns.¹² The Oslo meeting also stated that

sustainable consumption is an umbrella term that brings together a number of key issues, such as meeting needs, enhancing the quality of life, improving resource efficiency, minimizing waste, taking a life cycle perspective and taking into account the equity dimension. Integrating these component parts is the central question of how to provide the same or better services to meet the basic requirements of life and aspirations for improvement for both current and future generations.¹³

Partly in response to the challenges described in Agenda 21, it has been proposed that we as a society adopt "Factor 4" or "Factor 10" approaches.¹⁴ The concept is that overall consumption should be decreased by a factor of 4 or 10, i.e., 75% or 90%. These suggestions will clearly do some good if implemented, but are rather arbitrary choices and say little about how they would be achieved.

The production processes in most parts of the world have begun to relieve the stress on the environment and natural resources by implementing the concept of "green" and "clean" technology, but efforts to change consumer behavior and demand toward more eco-friendly style of use have not thus far yielded much in the way of results. Use and production are interlinked very closely, but in order to achieve a sustainable pattern of use, a different and specific set of measures and actions are required.

[33 ELR 10145]

Recent U.S. Production and Use Patterns

Agenda 21 was a roadmap of future actions to achieve sustainable development for both developed and developing nations. The United States did not have a vision for sustainable development at the time of the Rio Summit¹⁵ but did have stringent regulatory requirements in place for environmental protection. However, Agenda 21 offered considerable scope to the United States to promote sustainable development by example. Resource use is the most obvious topic in this regard, and one by which U.S. leadership, or lack thereof, will be measured.

Sustainability with respect to the use of resources has two components: (1) how is the rate of resource use related to the overall stock of resources, and (2) what portion of resources in use are lost to the environment. The first of these topics reflects the sustainability of supply, the second the sustainability of the receiving ecosystems (a combination of loss rate and ecosystem sensitivity).

With respect to the first component, the United States leads the world in use of natural resources, including fossil fuels and materials.¹⁶ Twentieth century use profiles of renewable (agriculture, wood products, and primary paper) and nonrenewable (nonrenewable organic, primary metals, industrial minerals, and construction) materials are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Measurement of the Amount of Raw Materials Used in the United States¹⁷

[SEE FIGURE 1 IN ORIGINAL]

World War I (WW I); World War II (WW II)

As the figure depicts, raw material use has risen sharply in the last century, during which time the corresponding increase in population was less than one-half as great. In the 1992-2001 period, the overall increase in raw material use is approximately 10%.¹⁸ The largest component by far is the employment of construction materials, sand, gravel, and stone, which require large inputs of energy. Mass is not, of course, unilaterally equivalent to overall environmental impact. There was a rapid increase in the use of construction materials after World War II and their use still continues to grow because of their demand for construction of bridges, ramps, and buildings and the repair and widening of roads.¹⁹ The share of industrial minerals and agriculture products toward total material utilization has remained more or less constant in recent years. The biggest increase is observed for nonrenewable organic materials, as a result of new technological developments and material substitution. In 1990, the average American consumed over 50 kg of material every day, excluding water, and generated about 4,000 kg of wastes annually.²⁰ At the same time that this increase was occurring, the spectrum of materials being used was changing. The variation of material intensity of use over the last century for some commonly and extensively used materials in the U.S. economy is shown in Figure 2. There is an appreciable decline in the use of metals except for aluminum and the use of paper and plastics continues to grow. These trends indicate that the composition of materials in the U.S. economy has begun to change from dense to less dense, i.e., from iron and steel to light metals, plastics, and composites. This transition is favorable from a resource sustainability standpoint, since the depletion time, i.e., the quotient of the reserve base supply and the amount of use, is much shorter for lead, copper, silver, and zinc than for aluminum.²¹

The increased use of virgin materials obviously implies increased use of energy as well. The precise relationship depends upon the mix of materials, but unsustainable rates of material use clearly go hand in hand with unsustainable rates of energy consumption. The evolution in the spectrum of materials use implies the need for development of new and innovative strategies for end of life management and disposal. In addition, the United States is largely self sufficient in natural resources, except for oil, bauxite, and a few other industrial minerals, its material flows are almost entirely internal.²² The foreign trade in raw materials account for about 10% of U.S. material flows, predominant exports includes agricultural products, coal and chemicals where imports are primarily oil, oil products, metals, and ores.²³

[33 ELR 10146]

Figure 2. Material Intensity of Use: United States 1900-1990

[SEE FIGURE 2 IN ORIGINAL]

Annual consumption data are divided by gross domestic product (GDP) in constant 1987 dollars and normalized to unity in the year 1940.

With respect to the second component of the portion of resources lost to the environment, both the United States and OECD Member countries have made substantial progress in controlling and reducing the environmental impacts of production processes across the major economic sectors. In terms of production patterns, three trends are discernible in OECD countries: (1) a movement away from resource-in-tensive manufacturing and/or factors of production—services now account for an increasing share of gross domestic product (GDP); (2) a certain dematerialization of economic activity through reduced use of some environmental resources per unit of GDP; and (3) falling levels of pollution per unit of GDP.²⁴ The OECD work program focuses on consumption issues and demand side management, seeking to identify measures to address the problems caused by millions of individual consumer decisions.²⁵

The environmental impact of materials use has often been conceptually formed by the "IPAT" equation:

Equation 1

I = (P) (A) (T)

in which the overall environmental impact I is expressed as the product of population P, the affluence A (expressed, for example, as GDP per person), and technology T (expressed, for example, as environmental impact per unit of per capita GDP).²⁶ If the technology factor is expanded somewhat, we can rewrite the equation as:

Equation 2

I = (P) (A) (M) (D) (H)

where M is the materials intensity, D the dissipation factor, and H the hazard factor, which depends on the chemical form of the material lost and the susceptibility of the receiving ecosystem. In words, Equation 2 becomes:

Equation 3

Environmental impact = (Population) x (GDP/person) x (units of material/GDP) x (units of pollution/unit of material) x (impact/unit of pollution)

Many of the data in Equation 2 are difficult to acquire, especially on a timely basis, but for the period 1990-1996 there is sufficient information to provide some useful insights. We summarize it in Table 1 and describe the individual parameter assessments below.

Table 1. Equation 2 Parameter Values for the United States in 1990 and 1996²⁷

Parameter(NEW COLUMN)1990(NEW COLUMN)1996(NEW COLUMN)1996/90

P<+>(NEW COLUMN)257(NEW COLUMN)270(NEW COLUMN)1.05

A<+>(NEW COLUMN)25.3(NEW COLUMN)27.4(NEW COLUMN)1.08

M<@>(NEW COLUMN)1.0(NEW COLUMN)1.0(NEW COLUMN)1.00

D<*>(NEW COLUMN)0.740(NEW COLUMN)0.738(NEW COLUMN)1.00

H<@>(NEW COLUMN)1.0(NEW COLUMN)1.0(NEW COLUMN)1.00

I<#>(NEW COLUMN)5.89(NEW COLUMN)6.77(NEW COLUMN)1.15

During the period 1990-1996, the U.S. population increased by about 5%. The per capita GDP increased about 8%. We lack a direct evaluation of changes in material intensity over that period, either through dematerialization (using less of the same material to perform a desired function) or transmaterialization (using a modest amount of a new material with improved properties to perform a desired function). Figure 3 shows the anticipated sequential processes, for both dematerialization and transmaterialization. Both processes occur quite slowly, however, and for the 1990 and 1996 values can be considered essentially equivalent.²⁸ We assume constancy as well for the hazard factors, which largely relate to the characteristics of the receiving ecosystems.

Values for D and I are computed by Emily Matthews in The Weight of Nations: Material Outflows From Industrial Economies²⁹ on the basis of domestic processed output to the environment as indicated in Figure 4. The result is that over the six-year period, I increased by 15% (both nonrenewables and renewables are included, but the latter are only a small fraction of the increase). Although the computation of I is completely independent of P and A, the product of those two terms equals 1.13 and explains the increase in I almost exactly. Therefore, we infer that the effect of technology over this period, while probably not negligible, has not had a significant impact.

[33 ELR 10147]

Figure 3. Transmaterialization and Dematerialization³⁰

[SEE FIGURE 3 IN ORIGINAL]

Left panel: The process of transmaterialization described in terms of physical properties and raw materials use. New materials (A, B, C) substitute for old in subsequent periods of time. Each new material shows improved physical properties per unit quantity, leading to a lower intensity of use.

Right panel: Figurative description of dematerialization. Countries 1-5 complete development in subsequent periods of time at roughly the same level of per capita GDP. The intensity of use of a given material declines the later in time each country completes development.

Although it is difficult to assess the environmental impacts of inefficient and wasteful consumption, some of the macro impacts are quite obvious and visible. Americans produce the most municipal waste per capita of any country, are the leading producer of greenhouse gas emissions (19% of total world emissions in 1991), and are probably the world's largest producer of toxic wastes.³¹

Figure 4a. Domestic Processed Output per Unit of GDP for Five Countries: 1975-1996, Indexed to 1975 Level

[SEE FIGURE 4a IN ORIGINAL]

Figure 4b. Domestic Processed Output for Five Countries, 1975-1996, Indexed to 1975 Level

[SEE FIGURE 4b IN ORIGINAL]

[33 ELR 10148]

U.S. Resource Policies and Recent Progress

It is quite evident from the preceding section that utilization of raw materials in the United States has witnessed a sharp increase in the last century, especially in the last couple of decades. Besides emerging as the economic superpower of the world, the U.S. government's policies toward resource extraction and use also have influenced a great deal the material utilization patterns. In general, most U.S. government programs and policies have promoted inefficient utilization and use and paid very little attention to direct or indirect negative environmental impacts, and as a result, progress toward sustainability has been very minimal in this regard and a lot of work lies ahead.

Resource Subsidies

A number of federal and state subsidies or disincentives promote virgin resource industries that compete against those dealing with recovered materials. In 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a national strategy on solid waste management³² that called for a review of federal disincentives or subsidies and programs that might be affecting virgin industries and recycling. The report, published in 1994, concluded that energy subsidies for virgin material use constitute the most significant federal barrier to efficient recovered materials markets.³³ Environmental advocates have long argued that archaic federal subsidies favoring virgin material use over secondary materials create a tilted playing field.³⁴

Most of the subsidies introduced either in the last century or late 19th century were primarily intended to spearhead the U.S. economy toward the path of rapid industrialization. Most of them still exist in essentially their original form, with few changes intended to promote material efficiency and reuse and recycling. The below-cost mining leases were introduced as part of the Mining Law of 1872,³⁵ percentage depletion allowances were enacted in 1913, and timber sales from the federal government date back to 1891.³⁶ Percentage depletion allowances, capital gains treatment of income, deduction for expenses, foreign tax credits, discriminatory transportation pricing, below-cost timber sales, energy subsidies (through oil price entitlement and depletion allowances), and failure to internalize the full cost of pollution are examples of primary factors that encourage virgin material use.³⁷

Most of the federal taxes in the United States are taxes on labor and capital earnings and as a result, net of subsidies on natural resources are more or less untaxed.³⁸ The subsidies listed in Table 3 result in a total cash flow of more than $ 2.6 billion every year for the resource extraction and waste disposal industries. Although the monetary value of these subsidies is small relative to the total size of these industries, it may be more important for the smaller and more disaggregated recycling industries, as their profit margin is heavily dependent upon the price differential between the virgin raw materials and secondary materials.³⁹ The impact of eliminating tax subsidies on virgin materials is estimated to raise their prices in the range of 1% to 5%, as shown in Table 3.⁴⁰ However, the impact on the recycling industry would be negligible. It would result in the increase in recycling of quantity of secondary materials by 1% or less, as shown in Table 4.

[33 ELR 10149]

Table 2. Federal Taxpayer Subsidies That Undermine Recycling and Reuse⁴¹

(NEW COLUMN)(NEW COLUMN)Average Over(NEW COLUMN)Total Over(NEW COLUMN)Tax or

(NEW COLUMN)(NEW COLUMN)1 Year(NEW COLUMN)5 Years(NEW COLUMN)Spending

(NEW COLUMN)(NEW COLUMN)($ Millions)(NEW COLUMN)($ Millions)(NEW COLUMN)Subsidy

*2*DIRECT SUBSIDIES

*2* Timber

1.(NEW COLUMN)Capital Gains Status for Timber(NEW COLUMN)635(NEW COLUMN)3175(NEW COLUMN)tax

(NEW COLUMN)Sales

2.(NEW COLUMN)Below-Cost Forest Service Sales(NEW COLUMN)111(NEW COLUMN)555(NEW COLUMN)spending

3.(NEW COLUMN)Forest Road Construction(NEW COLUMN)31(NEW COLUMN)157(NEW COLUMN)spending

4.(NEW COLUMN)Forest Service Salvage Fund(NEW COLUMN)34(NEW COLUMN)171(NEW COLUMN)spending

(NEW COLUMN)Timber Subsidies Subtotal(NEW COLUMN)811(NEW COLUMN)4058

*2* Hard Rock Mining

5.(NEW COLUMN)1872 Mining Law(NEW COLUMN)200(NEW COLUMN)1000(NEW COLUMN)resource

6.(NEW COLUMN)Mining Percentage Depletion(NEW COLUMN)269(NEW COLUMN)1345(NEW COLUMN)tax

(NEW COLUMN)Allowance

7.(NEW COLUMN)Expensive Exploration and(NEW COLUMN)27(NEW COLUMN)135(NEW COLUMN)tax

(NEW COLUMN)Development Costs

8.(NEW COLUMN)Inadequate Bond Requirements(NEW COLUMN)NA(NEW COLUMN)NA(NEW COLUMN)tax

(NEW COLUMN)Mining Subsidies Subtotal(NEW COLUMN)496(NEW COLUMN)2480

*2* Energy

9.(NEW COLUMN)Percentage Depletion Allowance(NEW COLUMN)276(NEW COLUMN)1380(NEW COLUMN)tax

10.(NEW COLUMN)Intangible Drilling Costs(NEW COLUMN)9(NEW COLUMN)45(NEW COLUMN)tax

11.(NEW COLUMN)Passive Loss Tax Shelter(NEW COLUMN)38(NEW COLUMN)190(NEW COLUMN)tax

12.(NEW COLUMN)Alternative Fuel Production Credit(NEW COLUMN)543(NEW COLUMN)2715(NEW COLUMN)tax

13.(NEW COLUMN)Enhanced Oil Recovery(NEW COLUMN)245(NEW COLUMN)1225(NEW COLUMN)tax

14.(NEW COLUMN)Electric Power Subsidies for(NEW COLUMN)200(NEW COLUMN)1000(NEW COLUMN)spending

(NEW COLUMN)Aluminum

(NEW COLUMN)Energy Subsidies Subtotal(NEW COLUMN)1311(NEW COLUMN)6555

*2* Waste Facilities

15.(NEW COLUMN)Private Activity Bonds(NEW COLUMN)NA(NEW COLUMN)NA(NEW COLUMN)tax

*2*TOTAL DIRECT SUBSIDIES(NEW COLUMN)2618(NEW COLUMN)13093

*2*INDIRECT SUBSIDIES

*2*Energy (e.g., unnaturally low prices,(NEW COLUMN)Substantial (NEW COLUMN)Substantial

*2*cheap feedstocks)

*2*Water (e.g., replacement for(NEW COLUMN)Substantial (NEW COLUMN)Substantial

*2*higher-priced energy)

*2*Transportation (e.g., remote highways,(NEW COLUMN)Substantial (NEW COLUMN)Substantial

*2*inland waterways)

*2*Tax (e.g., bias towards capital(NEW COLUMN)Substantial (NEW COLUMN)Substantial

*2*investments)

*2*International (e.g., multilateral(NEW COLUMN)Substantial (NEW COLUMN)Substantial

*2*promotion of extractive industries, trade

*2*and aid favoritism, transfer pricing)

*2*Unfunded External Costs (e.g., avoidance(NEW COLUMN)Substantial (NEW COLUMN)Substantial

*2*of pollution cleanups, environmental

*2*damage, failure to incorporate cost of

*2*disposal)

[33 ELR 10150]

Table 3. Impacts of Tax Subsidies (%) on Virgin Material Supply Curves⁴²

Industry(NEW COLUMN)*2*Predicted Cost Impacts (percent change)

(NEW COLUMN)Maximum Possible(NEW COLUMN)Most Likely

Paper(NEW COLUMN)+ 4.2(NEW COLUMN)+ 1.0

Steel(NEW COLUMN)+ 3.0(NEW COLUMN)+ 2.0

Copper(NEW COLUMN)+ 6.0(NEW COLUMN)+ 5.0

Aluminum(NEW COLUMN)-(NEW COLUMN)2.2

Lead(NEW COLUMN)-(NEW COLUMN)3.0

Table 4. Expected Increase in Recycling of Secondary Materials With Subsidy Elimination⁴³

Material(NEW COLUMN)Quantity Increase (percent)

Waste Paper(NEW COLUMN)0.04-0.63

Scrap Steel(NEW COLUMN)0.42-2.00

Scrap Copper(NEW COLUMN)0.35

Scrap Aluminum(NEW COLUMN)1.00

Scrap Lead(NEW COLUMN)0.75

A Few Examples of Environmental Progress

In the first major step to move the United States toward the path of sustainable development, President William J. Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) in June 1993. The objective of the PCSD was to develop policies and strategies that would ensure that Americans are able to attain a high quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. Different task forces were created and some of the task forces—Population and Consumption, Eco-Efficiency, Energy and Transportation—became involved in addressing sustainable production and consumption issues. In its first major report, Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the Future,⁴⁴ the PCSD presented a wide range of recommendations and policy reforms. It called for reforming the current system of environmental management and building a new and efficient framework based on performance, flexibility linked to accountability, extended product responsibility, tax and subsidy reform, and targeted incentives.⁴⁵ It has been argued that Sustainable America was limited in scope and did not address all the issues mentioned in Agenda 21.⁴⁶ For example, the information provided by the United States to the 5th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), held in April 1997 to review the progress made since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, was far from satisfactory and did not exhibit any tangible progress on the issue of changing consumption patterns. It stated that:

Among the steps that [the] United States has taken or will be taking related to sustainable consumption are: Increased energy efficiency, encouraging recycling programs, fostering pollution prevention programs, using federal government procurements and practices to better promote sustainable development goals related to consumption and production, and promoting environmental education, sustainable agriculture practices, and achieving sustainable forest management practices by the year 2000…. Another key component in promoting more sustainable patterns of production includes subsidy reform, which is an ongoing process in the United States.⁴⁷

It is evident that in five years, progress was limited to invoking policy debate among various stakeholders rather than having substantial achievements to demonstrate. In its most recent progress report to the CSD,⁴⁸ the list of key post-Rio actions⁴⁹ remain the same as in previous progress reports.

[33 ELR 10151]

Box 2. U.S. Environmental Success Stories⁵⁰

Extended Product Responsibility

. The Evergreen Program

. Recycled Urban Wood

. America Recycles Aerosols

. Vehicle Recycling Management

. Asset Recycle Management

. Charge up to Recycle

Eco-Industrial Parks

. Northampton County, Virginia

. Brownsville, Texas

. Burlington, Vermont

Automotive Technologies

. Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles

. Electric Vehicles

Eco-Efficiency Initiatives

. The Greening of the White House

. Recycling Undeliverable Junk Mail

Federal Technology Programs

. Industries of the Future

. Manufacturing Extension Partnership

. Rapid Commercialization Initiative

. National Environmental Technology Strategy

New Approaches to Environmental Management

. Project XL

. Common Sense Initiative

. Improving Environmental Performance at Military Installations

However, there have been a few success stories from programs and initiatives launched on the basis of the Sustainable America recommendations, as given in Box 2. In addition, trading of emission quotas of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions have proven to be quite successful in the United States.⁵¹ Phase I of the program resulted in 263 power generating units in the United States reducing total SO₂ emissions to about 5.7 million tons per year over the period 1995-1999, a reduction of 5 million tons below 1980 emission levels.⁵² Tradeable water rights have been used in the United States as well to promote efficient use of water resources.⁵³

In its second report on Sustainable America,⁵⁴ the PCSD reemphasized most of the recommendations and action plans for promoting sustainable development but did not report tangible progress at a national level. As with its earlier reports⁵⁵ coinciding with the five-year review after Rio, the very few success stories and programs were highlighted and there was not much effort to integrate the progress so far.

A Framework for the Future

The path toward sustainability is yet to be deciphered by scientists and policymakers. However, in the meantime, we can reorient ourselves to be more conscious, proactive, and accountable and accordingly, chart out an approach that can lead us in the right direction. The effort here is to enlist such possible measures for the United States to achieve sustainability with respect to resource use.

Quantifying Sustainability

The United States is not engaging in sustainable development, as almost all levels of resource use and many levels of emissions are increasing from levels already generally agreed to be unsustainable. Even were we to be much more environmentally responsible as a nation than we are, however, we might still be in a situation of continuing unsustainability (though perhaps at a slightly lower rate). A problem that has not yet been seriously grappled with is the determination of what resource sustainability really means—what rate of resource utilization, what rate of resource substitution, what rate of reuse and recycling, and so forth. These are difficult questions to address given a complex and incompletely understood planet, but it is probably possible to at least put lower and upper bounds on many of these factors.⁵⁶ At this point, the situation merely recalls the old aphorism: "If you don't know where you are going, how will you know when you get there?"

One reason this challenge has not been faced is the general recognition that change generally produces some short-term chaos. Another is the suspicion that a sustainable world will not look like the "cowboy economy" of today, more characterized by excess than by the conservative approach to resources that marked so much of U.S. life in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. The political conflicts related to water allocation in the rapidly growing urban areas of Arizona or the agricultural regions of northern California are sufficient to demonstrate both unsustainable behavior and resistance to change.

A framework for government policies that would move the United States along a path toward sustainability might look something like the following:

. On the basis of expert scientific opinion, determine reasonable target ranges for factors related to the sustainability of materials. The ranges would in general be global and would need to be determined in collaboration with other countries;

. Decide as a government policy the time scale over which the targets would be achieved; and

. Develop policy initiatives to enable the targets to be met.

[33 ELR 10152]

The actions contained in the Kyoto Protocol⁵⁷ for carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are partial approaches toward these goals. They are without question targets that move in the right direction. All participants agree that these initial commitments do not finish the work, however, the next step after beginning the Kyoto Protocol implementation process is to convene other groups to address not the right direction (which is usually clear), but the more telling question about how far it is that we have to go. Until we do so, we will not have begun to seriously follow a path of sustainable development.

Capacity and Knowledge Building

The education of all stakeholders on the meaning of sustainable consumption and how it can be achieved on both a short- and long-term basis is an important and ongoing task. The U.S. government should strongly promote and facilitate this educational effort. Information sharing on sustainability policies and programmes across the globe is obviously useful. The U.S. government should take a proactive approach in establishing linkages with governments and institutions in fostering an alliance, sharing the responsibility, and taking the lead in discussing and achieving sustainable production and consumption patterns by affluent nations of the North. Nongovernmental organizations are also critical actors in the capacity-building process, as they possess the skills and tools to disseminate knowledge to a wide audience effectively and economically. The media, both print and electronic, obviously influence customer opinion and choice. Americans spend more than 1,000 hours during their lifetime watching some 150,000 advertisements, and American companies spent more than $ 100 billion on advertising in 1997.⁵⁸ It will be necessary for the advertising focus to shift from "more is better" to an emphasis on product quality and longevity if a sustainable society is to be approached.

Government as Agent of Change

The government with its enormous physical and capital stock plays a significant role as a consumer. In most countries the government is the single largest consumer of goods and services, accounting for perhaps 20% to 25% of gross national product.⁵⁹ In recognition, the U.S. government has drafted a guidance document on the procurement of environmentally preferable products, based on seven general principles (Box 3).

Box 3. U.S. Guidance on the Purchase of Environmentally Preferable Products⁶⁰

The seven principles on which the U.S. government has prepared guidance on purchasing decisions regarding environmentally preferable products include:

1. Pollution prevention;

2. Life-cycle costing;

3. Multiple environmental attributes, i.e., shifting from single medium evaluation of a product, such as impacts on air quality, only, to a multimedia approach;

4. The magnitude of environmental impact;

5. Local conditions, such as natural resource availability;

6. Competition among vendors; and

7. Product attribute claims.

In addition, many Executive Orders in the United States have promoted the use of environmentally friendly actions by various government agencies and departments. Some of them include: phasing out ozone-depleting substances, purchasing computer equipment complying with "Energy Star" requirements, and the use of recycled paper with a minimum of 30% post-consumer waste content. One of the basic lacunae in achieving complete success has been a lack of coordination and integration in the decisionmaking structure within the federal government and with the state governments. Major consumers and business and industry groups have not been integrated into the planning and policymaking process either. A joint effort would have produced and still could produce a much more influential program.

Subsidy and Tax Reform

Subsidy reform and restructuring existing taxes is one of the biggest challenges to sustainable consumption and production. Most of the subsidies that promote unsustainable use of energy and natural resources are politically motivated and do not benefit underprivileged sections of the society. The Russian Federation, eastern European countries, China, and India have reduced fossil fuel subsidies by an average of about 60%. The United States has plans to do the same, but these are not yet implemented.⁶¹ EPA has initiated the process of identifying energy subsidies and highlighting key intervention points where government action would have the greatest effect. In any case, environmentally harmful subsidies need to be phased out gradually and perhaps redesigned as "eco-taxes" in order to promote more environmentally friendly behavior.

EPA's Environmental Futures unit has extended industrial ecology techniques of tracking energy and material flows to financial flows associated with key resources such as energy and water. The unit has prepared "maps" illustrating the size of energy flows (fuel type, end user, and wastage) through the U.S. economy, the size of federal research and development funding (in different energy subsectors), and the size of federal subsidies (to primary energy sources and end use subsectors, including hidden subsidies in the form of externalities not borne by end users). The maps [33 ELR 10153] present a striking visual representation of expenditures on new technologies and areas of energy waste. They are intended to highlight key intervention points; areas where government action would have the greatest effect.⁶²

Eco-taxes are mostly formulated as product taxes with a view to changing the structure of demand by increasing the relative price of polluting products.⁶³ There are a number of examples that demonstrate how effective eco-taxes have been in certain countries. In Norway, CO₂ taxes introduced in 1991 have contributed to reductions in CO₂ emissions from stationary combustion of up to 21% per year. Similarly, in Sweden the tax differentiation introduced between different types of diesel fuels in 1991 has led to the use of the cleanest type of diesel fuel by most automobiles and a reduction in sulfur emissions from diesel vehicles of 75%.⁶⁴ Although the PCSD's Task Force on Population and Consumption did recommend policy actions to shift taxes and reduce inefficient and environmentally harmful subsidies,⁶⁵ little progress has been made. The U.S. government should begin the task of identifying subsidies in the sectors of agriculture, energy, forestry, mining, water, and transportation, prioritize them on the basis of the direct and indirect damage caused to the environment, and initiate the reform process.

Reorienting Business Strategies

Corporate initiatives and innovation will play an important role in achieving the ambitious goal of sustainable production and consumption patterns. The science of sustain-ability, industrial ecology, provides a conceptual framework for businesses to reap financial benefits by better management of energy and materials. The functional capability of industrial systems to behave as natural ecosystems by adopting concepts of eco-efficiency, extended product responsibility, design for the environment, waste minimization, and zero emissions can lead to production of goods and services with less resource consumption and pollution per unit of output. Business leaders cannot only influence consumer behavior by offering sustainable goods at competitive prices but also by leading the way in greening the supply chain of products and services. The business and industry leaders in the United States have already begun linking sustainable production and consumption concepts into their systems. Extended product responsibility is actively being implemented in the United States and is bringing about significant changes in some products and their associated environmental impacts. This philosophy is not yet a standard way of doing business in the United States, however,⁶⁶ and it is a legitimate role for governments to promote policies for the business community to be more environmentally and socially responsible and accountable.

The World Business Council on Sustainable Development has proposed the following criteria that governments should consider while formulating legislative or regulatory policy initiatives for business and industry groups to tackle challenges associated with sustainable production and consumption:

. Stimulate market forces;

. Promote more efficient use of materials and energy;

. Establish pricing systems that internalize environmental costs;

. Support recycling and reuse considering overall life-cycle effects;

. Provide flexibility to choose effective solutions including cost, life-cycle, and geographic considerations;

. Support a process of continuous improvement;

. Stimulate economic growth;

. Promote innovation;

. Minimize trade barriers; and

. Encourage technology and systems sharing.⁶⁷

To date, policy considerations of the U.S. government have not attempted to link consumption patterns with environmental impacts. As a consequence, the U.S. business community has been slow to develop innovative approaches to achieving sustainability. To help fill this leadership gap, it is imperative that the multi/transnational corporations continue to take the lead with voluntary initiatives in the form of development of environmental management standards, third-party performance reviews, public reporting, supply chain management, and adoption of eco-efficiency and eco-design concepts.

Influencing Markets and Communities

Individual markets and community initiatives have the ability to demonstrate that sustainable lifestyles are possible and that environmental problems can be tackled effectively from a local perspective. For example, Home Depot's chain of stores in the United States and Canada has stimulated the demand for sustainably managed forest products through green procurement and supply chain management initiatives. Market forces are powerful tools to deliver change, as consumption is an economywide activity and consumption patterns are created, changed, and passed on in a social context.⁶⁸ The PCSD in its reports on Sustainable America did set goals of stewardship, sustainable communities, and civic engagement as foci around which citizens, institutions, and businesses could jointly influence and participate in social, economic, and environmental processes targeted at sustainable development. However, the U.S. government still needs to realize the potential of market forces and innovative community initiatives to achieve sustainable consumption patterns and lifestyles. Both U.S. and state governments have a major role to play in this regard, however, as many of the strategies and actions need to be formulated and implemented by governmental actions at various spatial scales.

[33 ELR 10154]

Summary

Our review of resource utilization demonstrates that resource consumption in the United States has substantially increased since the 1992 Rio conference and continues to do so. The overall driving force behind these increases has been a large population in combination with increased per capita use of resources of all kinds. A few commendable success stories do not alter the general picture of a country whose approach to resources is less sustainable than it was in 1992, not more.

The principal cause of unsustainable resource use is largely a social system that promotes "conspicuous consumption" rather than intelligent, conservative resource use. Technological innovation can modify this trend somewhat, as can policy initiative in resource subsidies and purchasing policies, but isolated sector activities do not really address the challenge. Rather, changing this lifestyle approach will require team effort, and there are many potential players—scientists, engineers, policymakers, corporate managers—but the most important are the educators and sociologists. The national citizenry must realize that the last quarter of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st century are likely to be seen historically as wholly abnormal and unsustainable in the approach taken toward the planet's resources. True sustainability will demand that we satisfy our needs not by increased utilization of resources but by more intelligent use. Energy is clearly finite, so is water, so are many materials. As we begin to perceive the limits of these precious and largely nonrenewable resources, we must transform our technology and our society so that the resources we need will be available for the generations to follow.

Annex A

Some of the examples of good practice to promote sustainable consumption behavior internationally are given below.⁶⁹ The examples provide the opportunity to share experiences and identify linkages for international cooperation.

IMPROVING PRODUCTS(NEW COLUMN)CHANGING PATTERNS

Product Innovation(NEW COLUMN)Developing a Strategic Vision

. Water Conserving Toilets,(NEW COLUMN). Transport Consultation, Scotland

Colceramica

. Floor Covering Services, Interface(NEW COLUMN). The Capital Territory Future Water

(NEW COLUMN) Supply Strategy, Australia

. Remanufactured Copiers, Xerox(NEW COLUMN). Strategic Environmental Assessment,

(NEW COLUMN) Russia

. The Green TV, Philips(NEW COLUMN). Sustainable Europe Campaign,

(NEW COLUMN) European Union (EU)

Regulation(NEW COLUMN)Planning and Demand Side Management

. Extended Producer Responsibility,(NEW COLUMN). Restrictions on Car Use, Sao Paulo

Germany

. Restrictions on Disposable Products,(NEW COLUMN). Transport Management,

Korea(NEW COLUMN) Singapore/Curitiba

. Legal Requirements for Water(NEW COLUMN). Promoting Alternative Transport, EU

Efficient Toilets, Australia

(NEW COLUMN). Car Sharing, Switzerland

(NEW COLUMN). Demand Side Electricity Management,

(NEW COLUMN) Canada

(NEW COLUMN). Developing Local Workplaces, France

(NEW COLUMN). Extending Services, Argentina

Economic Instruments(NEW COLUMN)Redirecting Public Spending

. Sulfur Tax, Sweden(NEW COLUMN). Upgrading Traditional Housing, China

. CO₂ Tax, Norway(NEW COLUMN). Kampung Improvement Programme,

(NEW COLUMN) Indonesia

. Charges for Motorized Entry to(NEW COLUMN). Investment Programme for a

Cities, Norway/Singapore(NEW COLUMN) Sustainable Society, Sweden

. Differential Car Taxation,

Korea/Austria/Finland

. Tax on Waste, Denmark

. Volume-Based Waste Charges, Korea

. Pricing Packaging, Harare

. Domestic Water Taxation, Denmark

Information and Labeling(NEW COLUMN)Education and Awareness Raising

. The Energy Star Programme, United(NEW COLUMN). Trans-Century Environmental Tour,

States(NEW COLUMN) China

. Energy Efficiency Schemes, EU/Korea(NEW COLUMN). ANABADA Campaign, Korea

. The Blue Angel Eco-Label, Germany(NEW COLUMN). Retail Action to Use Degradable

(NEW COLUMN) Packaging, China

. The Nordic Swan Eco-Label,(NEW COLUMN). Reducing Disposables in

Scandinavia(NEW COLUMN) Hotels/Restaurants, Korea

. Environmental Labeling, China(NEW COLUMN). European Young Consumer Competition,

(NEW COLUMN) Greece

. Organic Agriculture, Uganda(NEW COLUMN). Getting Sustainable Consumption Into

(NEW COLUMN) the Curriculum, India

. Forest and Marine Stewardship

Councils, International

Procurement Policies(NEW COLUMN)Supporting Community Action

. Green Purchasing Network, Japan(NEW COLUMN). The Tyrol Energy Network, Austria

. EU Green Purchasing Network, EU(NEW COLUMN). Pro-Local Supply, Austria

. Ethical Trading Initiative, United(NEW COLUMN). Global Action Plan, International

Kingdom (UK)

. School Promotion of Natural Food,(NEW COLUMN). Environmental Homeguard, Norway

Philippines

. Sustainable Timber Buyer's Group, UK(NEW COLUMN). Affordable Water Consumption,

(NEW COLUMN) Senegal

(NEW COLUMN). Alternative Consumption Campaign,

(NEW COLUMN) Senegal

(NEW COLUMN). Locally Appropriate Bread, West

(NEW COLUMN) Africa

(NEW COLUMN)Capacity Building

(NEW COLUMN). Organic Trade Promotion,

(NEW COLUMN) International

(NEW COLUMN). CIDA Energy Efficiency, India

(NEW COLUMN). Environmental Management Systems,

(NEW COLUMN) China

1. ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD), SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION: CLARIFYING THE CONCEPTS (1997).

2. U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Agenda 21, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151.26 (1992) [hereinafter Agenda 21].

3. Id. P4.3.

4. United Nations, Changing Consumption Patterns, U.N. Doc. E/CN.17/2001/PC/8 (2001).

5. Agenda 21, supra note 2, P4.4.

6. Id. P4.5.

7. Id. P4.

8. NORWEGIAN MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, REPORT OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION (1994).

9. ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT CONSUMPTION: RESEARCH DIRECTION (Paul Stern et al. eds., 1997).

10. Robert W. Kates, Population and Consumption: What We Know, What We Need to Know, 42 ENV'T 10-19 (2000).

11. OECD, EDUCATION AND LEARNING FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION 11 (1999).

12. OECD, supra note 1.

13. NORWEGIAN MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, supra note 8.

14. UNITED NATIONS, PROGRAMME FOR THE FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF AGENDA 21 (1997), available at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/spec/aress19-2.htm (last visited Mar. 26, 2002).

15. John Dernbach & the Widener University Law School Seminar on Law and Sustainability, U.S. Adherence to Its Agenda 21 Commitments: A Five-Year Review, 27 ELR 10504 (Oct. 1997).

16. THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (PCSD), POPULATION AND CONSUMPTION TASK FORCE REPORT (1996).

17. Grecia Matos & Lorie Wagner, Consumption of Materials in the United States: 1900-1995, 23 ANN. REV. OF ENERGY & ENV'T 107-22 (1998).

18. EMILY MATTHEWS ET AL., THE WEIGHT OF NATIONS: MATERIAL OUTFLOWS FROM INDUSTRIAL ECONOMIES (2000).

19. Matos & Wagner, supra note 17.

20. Iddo K. Wernick & J.H. Ausubel, National Material Flows and the Environment, 20 ANN. REV. OF ENERGY & ENV'T 462-92 (1995).

21. STEPHEN E. KESLER, MINERAL RESOURCES, ECONOMICS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT (1994).

22. WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE, RESOURCE FLOWS: THE MATERIAL BASIS OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMIES (1997).

23. Iddo K. Wernick, Consuming Materials: The Americans Way, 53 TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING & SOC. CHANGE 111-22 (1996).

24. E. Ally-Geyer & J. Eppel, Consumption and Production Patterns: Making the Change, in SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: OECD POLICY APPROACHES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 55-67 (1997).

25. OECD, supra note 1, at 57.

26. Marian R. Chertow, The IPAT Equation and Its Variants, 4 J. OF INDUS. ECOLOGY 13-29 (2001).

27. + indicates that millions of persons and a million U.S. dollars per person. See MATTHEWS ET AL., supra note 18. @ indicates that the factor is assumed. See discussion accompanying table. * indicates domestic processed output to the environment per unit of GDP. # indicates domestic processed output to the environment, Petagrams (10<15"> g). See id.

28. ARNULF GRUBLER, TECHNOLOGY AND GLOBAL CHANGE (1998).

29. See MATTHEWS ET AL., supra note 18.

30. Oliviero Bernardini & Ricardo Galli, Dematerialization: Long-Term Trends in the Intensity of Use of Materials and Energy, 25 FUTURES 431 (1993), reproduced in Wernick, Consuming Materials, supra note 23, at 111-22.

31. PCSD, POPULATION AND CONSUMPTION TASK FORCE, POPULATION AND CONSUMPTION (1995).

32. U.S. EPA, THE SOLID WASTE DILEMMA: AN AGENDA FOR ACTION: BACKGROUND DOCUMENT (1988).

33. U.S. EPA, FEDERAL DISINCENTIVES: A STUDY OF FEDERAL TAX SUBSIDIES AND OTHER PROGRAMS AFFECTING VIRGIN INDUSTRIES AND RECYCLING (1994).

34. E.g., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, GREEN SCISSORS (1999).

35. 30 U.S.C. §§ 22-54.

36. See U.S. EPA, FEDERAL DISINCENTIVES, supra note 33. See also FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, supra note 34.

37. Jerry Powell, Federal Disincentives to Recycling, 6 RESOURCE RECYCLING 44-45 (1992); P. Hood, Virgin Material Subsidies: A Major Roadblock to Recycling?, RECYCLING TIMES, 1993, at 3.

38. Annegrete Bruvoll, Taxing Virgin Materials: An Approach to Waste Problems, 22 RESOURCES, CONSERVATION & RECYCLING 15-29 (1998); Robert Repetto, World Resources Institute, Shifting Taxes From Value Added to Material Inputs (1994) (paper presented at the International Workshop on Environmental Taxation, Revenue Recycling, and Unemployment, Milan, Italy, Dec. 16-17, 1994).

39. GRASSROOTS RECYCLING NETWORK ET AL., WELFARE FOR WASTE: HOW FEDERAL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES WASTE RESOURCES AND DISCOURAGE RECYCLING (1999), available at http://www.grrn.org/reports/w4w/w4w.pdf (last visited Apr. 1, 2002); FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, supra note 34.

40. U.S. EPA, FEDERAL DISINCENTIVES, supra note 33; FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES LTD., ECONOMIC INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES FOR RECYCLING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (1988).

41. GRASSROOTS RECYCLING NETWORK ET AL., supra note 39; OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, FISCAL YEAR 2000, ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES 107, at tbl. 5-1 (1999); FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, supra note 34.

42. U.S. EPA, FEDERAL DISINCENTIVES, supra note 33; FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES LTD., supra note 40.

43. Id.

44. PCSD, SUSTAINABLE AMERICA: A NEW CONSENSUS FOR PROSPERITY, OPPORTUNITY, AND A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE FUTURE (1996).

45. Id.

46. Dernbach, supra note 15.

47. PCSD, BUILDING ON CONSENSUS: A PROGRESS REPORT ON SUSTAINABLE AMERICA (1997).

48. UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (UNCSD), DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGENDA 21 AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, BACKGROUND PAPER NO. 17 (2001).

49. Some of the key post-Rio actions as reported by the U.S. government to the PCSD are:

. Since 1993, a policy debate on consumption and production has been held at the national level;

. In 1993-1994, the United States initiated international efforts to call for a ban on radioactive waste dumping at sea;

. In 1994-1995, the United States spearheaded the international initiative proposed by Vice President Al Gore known as Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE);

. Since UNCED, the United States has undertaken a multi-million dollar Climate Change Studies Program with 30 countries, and is working with these countries to define appropriate U.S. financial and technical assistance to help the countries analyze their situation and opportunities in relation to global climate change issues;

. U.S. EPA has in place a number of programs that promote more sustainable production and consumption patterns, including the Energy Star Program, the Green Lights Program, and the Design for the Environment Program; and

. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370d, ELR STAT. NEPA §§ 2-209, for all major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Approximately 500 EIAs are carried out each year.

See UNCSD, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, supra note 48.

50. PCSD, ECO-EFFICIENCY TASK FORCE REPORT (1996); PCSD, PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP ON EXTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY (1996); PCSD, THE ROAD TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A SNAPSHOT OF ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES (1997); PCSD, BUILDING ON CONSENSUS, supra note 47.

51. United Nations, Comprehensive Review of Changing Consumption and Production Patterns, U.N. Doc. E/CN. 17/1999/2 (1999).

52. UNCSD, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION: FIVE POLICY STUDIES, DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 7 (1999).

53. United Nations, supra note 51.

54. PCSD, TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE AMERICA: ADVANCING PROSPERITY, OPPORTUNITY, AND A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (1999).

55. PCSD, THE ROAD TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, supra note 50; PCSD, BUILDING ON CONSENSUS, supra note 47.

56. Thomas E. Graedel & Robert J. Klee, Getting Serious About Sustainability, 36 ENVTL. SCT. & TECH. 523-29 (2002).

57. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 10, 1997, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/197/L. 7/Add. 1, reprinted in 37 I.L.M. 22 (1998).

58. United Nations, supra note 51.

59. OECD WORKSHOP ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT 30 (1997) (OECD/GD/(97)124).

60. Id.

61. UNCSD, supra note 52.

62. OECD, supra note 1.

63. Id.

64. Id.

65. PCSD, supra note 31.

66. THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP ON EXTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY, supra note 50.

67. WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION: A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE (1996).

68. NICK ROBINS & SARAH ROBERTS, MAKING SENSE OF SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION (1998).

69. Id.