RE: Outreach and Public Perceptions

[Stephen Bialkowski <sbialkow@cc.usu.edu>]

I think that one of the biggest challenges in public outreach is overcoming the distrust that many people have of the EPA. It is no secret that this distrust is due to antagonist media put out by the public policy institutes that are opposed to the ?precautionary principle'. 

The prescribed perception in conservative society is that the EPA is a law-making agency that is directly responsible for many of the financial problems facing industry, farmers, and homeowners. People with property seem to be the most paranoid. They have the most to lose. On the other hand, it is true that calling a town a superfund site does not do much for property value or the financial well being of the local industry. It comes down to a struggle between financials and quality of life. 

As an educator in environmental science, I often find myself being challenged by students who have heard or read something from these conservative public policy institutes. The messages are often fundamentally opposed to the precautionary principle and very often distort the science behind the laws or issues. Problems with science are generally easily identified and student can usually reason their way through, often with only the textbook. 

I bring up this issue of the strong conservative public policy lobby because the outreach will be ineffective if the public perception is that the EPA are gathering information to pass laws that will limit the economic growth of a community. The EPA apparently does not have a strong lobby force. Does the EPA have to rely on battles between conservative and environmentalist forces? Couldn't there be more accurate public information regarding these issues? 

Identifying the problem is a lot different than coming up with a solution. I have sought for solutions so that I may be a better educator. I don't really have an answer. It seems that education is the key. (Of course I would say that.) But a lot of information is required to allow people to see that the EPA is not trying to limit their freedom or the financial well being of the community but rather to help them improve living conditions in their community.

Time and time again I am left with a question; does anyone think that the EPA needs to change its image or the perception by some that they are a police-like organization? If so, how can this be done?