HENRY NICKEL: The objective of Professor Stewart's idealized risk management system is simply to do more good than harm. That is not a very radical notion; unfortunately, our statutes do not currently operate to ensure this result in every case.

To determine whether a particular course of action will produce more good than harm, agencies must look at the economic expenditures involved and at the entire spectrum of risks that will be created by a decision to proceed or not to proceed in a particular manner.

GEORGE FREEMAN: This morning, it was noted that longevity has improved substantially over the past decade. As a whole, prople in this country are much better off than they were a century ago.

This fact tells us that the net effect of our increasingly complex industrial society has been more beneficial than detrimental. If we were to examine the roles of the private and public sector in bringing about this effect, I think we would see that the private sector has contributed more to the net result than has the government.

I think we should start by reminding ourselves why we are at a meeting of this sort. It is not because we are radicals trying to attack the capitalist system with its dangerous chemical companies, nor it it because we are trying to provide the chemical companies with ammunition to defend themselves against the radicals. We are here because we want to play our part in reducing the risk to life, in improving the expectation of life, and, more importantly, in improving the quality of life by making sure that the environment is safe.

Editors' Summary: In July 1985, the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Environmental Law and the ABA's Sections on Natural Resources Law and Corporation, Banking, and Business Law sponsored a panel presentation on international environmental issues. The participants address pressing global environmental problems facing the world over the next several decades, analyze the relationship between environmental protection and economic development, and examine the role of lawyers in resolving these issues.

Editors' Summary: In our form of government, an important aspect of all federal environmental laws is the tension between the need for national uniformity in certain areas of environmental protection and the realization that state and local governments are closer to the problem and may have additional resources, financial and otherwise, to did in solving the problem.

Editors' Summary: Much attention has been focused on the role of statutes in environmental enforcement. This focus is understandable, given the huge arsenal of environmental statutes that have been enacted. But the courts have not forgotten the common law, and as this article points out, neither should litigants. Approaching the subject from the perspective of the state enforcement official, the article discusses the applicability of the common law concept of public nuisance to modern-day environmental problems, particularly those caused by hazardous waste and toxic substances.

Editors' Summary: The tragic release of deadly methyl isocyanate gas from a Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, India, followed shortly by the release of a toxic gas from Union Carbide's plant in Institute, West Virginia, sharply focused the public's attention on the risk of sudden, accidental releases of hazardous chemicals in this country. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as the chemical industry itself, have responded with various initiatives designed to reduce the risks.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986¹ provides a significant turnaround in the environmental implications of U.S. tax policy. Congress approved a number of major tax code changes to eliminate subsidies for destruction of wetlands, cultivation of highly erodible lands, and centralized energy facilities.

Editors' Summary: The Burger Court, in its final Term, issued seven major decisions on environmental law. These opinions construed provisions of the Clean Air Act, the FWPCA, CERCLA, and the Bankruptcy Code. The opinions also involve the availability of attorneys fees under environmental statutes, the investigatory power of agencies that enforce environmental law, and the future of two species of wildlife. The author reviews these decisions and notes the further development of patterns established by the Court in recent years.

Editors' Summary: One of the major focuses of environmental protection programs over the next several decades will be on limiting our exposure to toxic substances. Residents of certain geographic areas, especially older industrial areas, can be exposed to these substances through several pathways. The traditional environmental control structure was not designed to address these site-specific, multi-media exposure problems. The author of this article argues that Congress intended to address precisely this problem when it passed TSCA in 1976.