About 9½ years ago, I wrote the first editorial for Volume 1, Number 1 of Environmental Practice (March 1999). I reread that editorial in preparation for writing this, my last editorial, for Volume 10, Number 2 (June 2008).

On July 1, 2008, Jim Montgomery and I became co-Editors-in-Chief of Environmental Practice, alternating as lead editor for different periods of time. Together, we comprise a combination of science and policy that appears to fit the journal's mission. This editorial is my voice and is written from a policy standpoint as I begin to look toward the calendar year's end, reflecting upon where the United States is going with respect to environmental issues and, internationally, with regard to leadership. As Environmental Practice's last editorial for 2008, I will make some predictions for 2009 as well.

Beginning July 1, we are the new co-Editors-in-Chief of Environmental Practice, journal of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP). We are excited to lead this journal, particularly during a time when the public appears to have a renewed interest in environmental issues. With a new President and Congress, the environment may become one of the salient domestic issues for the country.

Bad economic news abounds these days—recession, home foreclosures, unemployment, jitters, and collapses on Wall Street. And, of course, we also have the war, with costs already in the trillions and counting and oil prices seemingly firmly stuck over $100 per barrel. All these indicators and more suggest that prudent souls should hunker down for the duration.

Nuclear power is an opaque, technologically complex, and—let's be forthright—potentially hazardous way to generate electricity. Because of these characteristics, some people will always view the technology with skepticism or suspicion and argue that the benefits are not worth the risks. In addition, in part because nuclear power presents many potential benefits, there will always be others, usually with more thorough technical expertise, who see it as an obviously elegant solution to major energy and climate constraints and whose risks are relatively small and manageable. These well-worn and arguably defensible perspectives have infused and colored the past few decades of public policy discourse—particularly in the US and some European countries—on nuclear power as part of global energy supply. The pressing constraints of anthropogenic climate change, regional air quality in growing cities, and volatile resource prices, however, raise the appropriate question of how much nuclear power might reasonably contribute in a future global energy portfolio.

There is no technological reason why significant reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels cannot be made in the United States over the next five to fifteen years at modest cost. Most of the technology required is now available and what is not is close to commercial development. Policies for internalizing external costs are also well known, have been thoroughly studied, and have been used effectively in other cases. Most lacking are effective political strategies for enacting pertinent public policies. Following are five political and policy proposals to help the United States address the global warming problem.

Recognize the bold, red, stylized sphere, with a single small wave, on the cover of Environmental Practice and shown here in black and white? It is the logo of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP). We are the only professional association authorized to call it ours, the only organization legally entitled to allow its display. Our logo symbolizes the tool of imagination, mankind's genius for inventive solutions. It is offered here as a reminder of who we are—the “now” NAEP—and as a lead-in for this Point of View on who we are becoming, the “next” NAEP.

Earth Day comes but once … no … twice a year—April 22nd and around March 20th, the equinox.

What choice should we make? In The Art of War, Sun Tzu taught us to visualize war, to approach battle intelligently, to defend territory until you can advance, to see in your mind the enemy you plan to conquer, to focus on your opposition's weaknesses, and finally, to seize the moment of victory. In Stewardship, Peter Block taught us that stewardship is the willingness to be accountable for the well-being of others—your friends, your family, your community, our planet—by being in service, rather than by acting in control or out of self-interest. These are very interesting and diverse perspectives on human behavior and on how we should act and feel toward one another. In the “art of war,” we have the attitude of winning at all costs. In stewardship, we have the point of view of enriching all that is around us. In the following paragraphs, I discuss some of the aspects of the art of war currently ingrained in our culture and how shifting our horizon to a stewardship view could provide us, as environmental professionals, the opportunity to lead others toward a new way of being for the rest of the twenty-first century.

Forest certification has quickly emerged as a prominent non-governmental policy approach to forest management, where market and civic stakeholders play increasingly important roles in new institutional development. In Finland, this development has been characterized by an adversarial and politicized environment between entrenched interest groups competing for decision-making authority in forestry governance. In this article, we discuss key distinctions between the two rival certification schemes, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Finnish Forest Certification System (FFCS), and explain the factors in the development process that led to the domination of the forest landowner- and forest industry-led FFCS. A central finding is that, although an alternative to traditional governmental approaches to forest management, the dominant FFCS adopted and modified traditional rulemaking processes and institutionalized the status quo of rulemaking and rule makers that existed prior to the development of forest certification. This resulted in the elimination of new perspectives in FFCS certification development. An absence of incentives and facilitating mechanisms to build trust between old and new policy participants fostered the collapse of a new integrated policy network in Finland.

Environmental Practice 10:4–12 (2008)

Citizen participation and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) both have long and storied histories in environmental practice. Arnstein's ladder for citizen participation depicts a continuum of possibilities for public involvement in land-use planning, with nonparticipation at one extreme and full control at the other. This typology was published in 1969, but examples across the full spectrum can still be found in land-use and environmental planning today. The National Environmental Policy Act, enacted one year after publication of Arnstein's article, requires public involvement for environmental assessments of all federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We employ Arnstein's typology to evaluate citizen participation in decisions about habitat protection in northern New York. This area has been identified as a critical location in the eastern North American flyway for migratory waterfowl. Initiatives to protect habitat reflected little public involvement before the implementation of NEPA, but substantial involvement afterwards. Before NEPA, residents were simply informed of agency actions. After NEPA, citizen participation caused a land acquisition plan to be withdrawn and replaced by a voluntary partnership program. Recently, a second acquisition proposal also was suspended, in part as a consequence of citizen input. These case studies demonstrate how citizens have utilized NEPA to participate in environmental decision making.

Environmental Practice 10:140–151 (2008)

Water demand management (WDM) practitioners will always need sufficient political will and financial resources to implement their WDM agenda. In addition, however, this research found that those elements, even when supported by a local champion, are insufficient to initiate and sustain municipal WDM. The research results affirmed that social networks have dynamic structure and function. The network's function is critical to WDM because it establishes membership parameters (e.g., deciding who is included and excluded), facilitates and regulates information exchange (e.g., through defining research questions and undertaking a research agenda), and reinforces the community's knowledge (e.g., through meetings and articulation, either implicit or explicit, of priorities and norms). These findings support the premise that adjustments in WDM research and practice is valuable. The research has shown the Ontario network makes a significant contribution to generating additional data, information, and knowledge and is a source of momentum behind the implementation of a municipal water efficiency agenda. The results indicate that a closer focus on the individuals who are responsible for implementing programs is necessary to help make WDM programs more successful. Understanding the social networks of those actively engaged in WDM implementation will be essential.

Environmental Practice 10:42–52 (2008)

Since its release in 1996, ISO 14001 has emerged as the leading voluntary system for certifying a firm's commitment to environmental management. By using India as a case example, this article examines the benefits and limitations of ISO 14001 in improving the environmental performance of firms in developing nations. By overlaying an analysis of the standard with the experiences of knowledgeable stakeholders in India, we examine (a) possible motivations driving Indian firms to pursue ISO 14001 certification, (b) the value of ISO 14001 certification in encouraging firms to improve their environmental performance, and (c) the potential role of ISO 14001 as a regulatory tool. In the end, we conclude that the value of ISO 14001 certification is intimately connected to the quality of the certification process as well as the effectiveness of the local regulatory system. Furthermore, its main value appears to lie in the positive effects associated with a well-implemented environmental management system, which improves a firm's ability to comply with environmental regulations consistently and efficiently over the long term.

Environmental Practice 10:53–65 (2008)

Environmental justice policy goals encompass the fair treatment and the meaningful involvement of all people in environmental policy formation and implementation. Few studies consider how new environmental justice programs foster meaningful involvement; this study addresses this gap by examining seven years of an environmental justice small grants program implemented by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We frame our research in the theory of environmental discourses, dividing policy implementation among adherents with a managerial, pluralist, or communitarian perception of remedies to environmental injustice. We hypothesize that EPA awards will emphasize the managerial and pluralist discourses. Our study's empirical foundation included a content analysis of documents on 736 small grant awards. We supplemented this data with 23 interviews of grant recipients and four interviews with EPA officials. During seven years, more than half of the grants (58%, or 501) funded programs to primarily increase environmental justice information in the recipient community. Grants for technical capacity came in a distant second (21%, or 186) of the programs funded by EPA. Organizational efforts were the third most frequent award, representing 14% of all grants. Finally, only 7% of awards funded an initiative to expand public participation in environmental decisions. The EPA policy objectives included the goal of building participatory capacity in the design and implementation of local environmental decisions; however, funded programs emphasized efforts to generate and disseminate information, instead of building civic capacities for citizens to use information in meaningful ways. We conclude that environmental justice practitioners should better balance technical and informational efforts with “civic-minded” capacity-building programs.

Environmental Practice 10:152–163 (2008)

Environmental hazards in the home can contribute significantly to disease. These hazards disproportionately affect low-income, urban, and minority children. Childhood lead poisoning and asthma are prime examples of health concerns to which poor housing conditions may contribute. A community-academic partnership in Rochester, New York, created a model Healthy Home, an interactive museum in a typical city home, to help residents, property owners, contractors, and community groups reduce environmental hazards. The Healthy Home project educates visitors about home environmental health hazards, demonstrates low-cost methods for reducing home hazards, and helps visitors develop individualized strategies for action. In its first year of operation, over 700 people visited the Healthy Home. Evaluation surveys indicate that the Healthy Home experience motivated visitors to take action to reduce environmental hazards in their homes. Follow-up phone interviews indicate that most visitors took some action to reduce home environmental hazards. The Healthy Home has established a diverse Advisory Council to share its messages more broadly, invite input into future directions, and recruit visitors. This article presents experiences from the Healthy Home's first year, highlighting the partnership principles that guided its development and lessons learned from the process.

Environmental Practice 10:94–106 (2008)

A Best Management Practice (BMP)-based air permitting program has been developed for large dairies in Idaho. General “Permits to Construct” are being issued for the emission of ammonia to all new and existing dairies based on the type of facility, manure handling system, and dominant land application method. A list of BMPs to control ammonia emissions has been developed, and each practice was given a score for its relative control of ammonia emission. Producers then select which BMPs will be installed or implemented on the farm and will be reviewed for compliance by the Idaho Department of Agriculture. Inspections during the summer of 2006 found that 95% of all permitted dairies were in compliance with the Rules for the Control of Ammonia from Dairy Farms, with an average score of 32.9 ± 6.1 points of BMPs, exceeding the 27 points required. Solid separation of manure, corral harrowing, low-pressure irrigation, composting, and rapid manure removal from outdoor lots were found to be the most common BMPs.

Environmental Practice 10:13–19 (2008)

This study is an attempt to find the fundamental key to improving the social status of waste management workers by examining the history of nurses. A strong prejudice and discrimination against waste management workers still exist in Japanese society. The social status of nurses also used to be extremely low, but has improved drastically. Nursing has become a profession that many parents would like their daughters to choose as a career. The drastic improvement resulted from a change in the mindset toward “patients.” Similarly, the status of waste management workers can be improved if people start thinking of waste in terms of resources. Improvement in the social status of waste management workers could be one of the powerful driving forces for making waste management a more interesting profession and respected field.

Environmental Practice 10:66–74 (2008)

Between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2006, 53 federal executive branch entities made available to the public 2,236 final environmental impact statements (EISs). The US Forest Service, the Federal Highway Administration, and the US Army Corps of Engineers prepared 51% of these documents. We evaluated the individual performances of these three entities and that of all other EIS-producing entities combined. The number of final EISs made available annually from 1998 through 2006 was comparable to the 20-year average calculated from US Environmental Protection Agency data. We determined the time required to prepare 2,095 of the final EISs made available during our study period. The time to prepare an EIS ranged from 51 days to 6,708 days (18.4 years). The average time for all federal entities was 3.4 years. Average times differed significantly by year and by entity. The time for all entities to prepare their EISs increased during our study period by an average of 37 days per year; most of this increase was associated with the preparation of draft EISs. The percentage of EISs completed within three years or less from publication of the Notice of Intent decreased throughout the study period. The decrease was matched by an increase in the percentage of EISs completed within four to eight years from publication of the Notice of Intent. Our data indicate that various attempts to “streamline” the EIS preparation process have either failed or have yet to take effect.

Environmental Practice 10:164–174 (2008)

From the time it appeared in the 1978 regulations implementing the United States' National Environmental Policy Act, agencies have struggled with the concept of cumulative impacts in their environmental analyses. Although the regulations touch on every aspect of environmental impact analysis, they merely define cumulative impacts and then refer to them only in other definitions in the Terminology section. Agencies have become fairly adept at analyzing direct and indirect effects, but cumulative impacts have posed more difficult methodological problems, giving rise to a host of legal challenges. The courts have attempted to sort out what is required for adequate cumulative impact analysis, causing agencies to reactively develop agency-specific, and often complex, methodologies. This article relates the basic concepts of cumulative impact assessment to emerging case law, focusing on US federal land management issues. From this basis, it proposes a novel approach to cumulative effects analysis that (1) uses the doctrine of proximate cause from tort law to ensure that there is a reasonable probability that a proposal will affect a resource of concern before undertaking analysis of other effects on that resource, and (2) uses the No Action Alternative's trajectory of resource conditions (which incorporates the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) as the baseline for assessing an action's incremental effects. The proposed six-step process integrates effects analysis by describing the overall effects of the No Action Alternative, altered by an action's direct and indirect (or incremental) effects, as the cumulative effect on a particular resource of concern.

Environmental Practice 10:107–115 (2008)

This commentary provides a synopsis and evaluation of the Kelay Conservation Health Program (KCHP) and “lessons learned” through the program that may be applicable to other conservation projects. The KCHP is an example of a collaboration of multiple stakeholders (university, non-governmental organization, and local government) that uses medicine in the service of conservation. The program site in Indonesian Borneo (Kalimantan) is noted for its exceptionally high biodiversity value, with a human population whose health and well-being are deeply linked to the rainforest ecosystem. The KCHP has a dual agenda: (1) to improve health for local people, and (2) to allow more effective conservation of critical rainforest habitat. As such, it is a unique example of a conservation agency collaborating with a government health department to improve health and healthcare for people living in a conservation target area. A comprehensive evaluation indicated that the program has had significant positive impacts on both health and conservation in the area it serves, at a total cost of about $62,500 (USD). The KCHP has allowed an international conservation organization to further its orangutan conservation goals while addressing human needs in the conservation area.

Environmental Practice 10:20–28 (2008)