Environmentalism Contained: a History of Corporate Responses to the New Environmentalism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTALISM CONTAINED: A HISTORY OF CORPORATE RESPONSES TO THE NEW ENVIRONMENTALISM Joe Greene Conley II A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE PROGRAM IN HISTORY OF SCIENCE NOVEMBER 2006 UMI Number: 3236171 UMI Microform 3236171 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 © Copyright by Joe Greene Conley II, 2006. All rights reserved. Abstract This dissertation describes how affected industries responded to the new environmentalism that emerged as a potent political and cultural force in late-twentieth- century America. Through a series of case studies, it traces how large corporations linked to pollution or toxics problems sought to contain the broad environmental agenda embodied in the landmark environmental laws of the 1970s. These companies and trade associations used public relations and advertising campaigns to shape popular perceptions of industrial environmental impacts. They also employed a variety of tactics to strategically manage scientific information on alleged harms, to inject cost and feasibility considerations into federal environmental laws and the regulatory process, and to challenge the policies used by federal regulators to estimate environmental risks. Drawing on internal corporate documents, records of public relations and advertising campaigns, as well as more traditional sources, this dissertation argues that affected industries were a driving force in moving the discourse of environmental politics toward an increasingly narrow, more technical language of cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and risk-benefit balancing. By portraying environmental regulation as an expensive endeavor fraught with heavy economic costs, affected industries helped recast environmental discourse in terms of “costs” and “benefits” that must always be carefully balanced. And by pressing for ever higher standards of proof in the scientific domain while deriding more precautionary approaches to environmental regulation as impractical quests for “zero risk,” affected industries helped move discussions of environmental hazards into the highly technical arena of risk assessment where regulatory action could often be delayed for years. This project offers a revision to the standard narrative of the environmental movement that has portrayed business as caught off guard by environmentalism and hence placed on the political defensive until the late 1970s. It shows that, even as the environmental movement obtained victories in the legislative arena, affected industries were already on the offensive on a variety of fronts by the early 1970s, working to fundamentally recast the methodologies and discourse of environmental politics in ways that would severely restrain the ambitious goals of the environmental laws of the 1970s. iii Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One: Before Environmentalism: Science, Advertising, and Corporate Power ... 10 Chapter Two: Telling Industry’s Story: The Environmental Crisis and the Greening of the Corporate Image................................................................................................................ 60 Chapter Three: Managing Science in the New Environmental Politics: Monsanto, Electrical Equipment Manufacturers, and PCBs, 1966-1978 ......................................... 103 Chapter Four: “Hungry? Eat an Environmentalist”: From Earth Day to Regulatory Reform and the Rise of Cost-Benefit Analysis, 1965-1980 ........................................... 144 Chapter Five: More and Better Science: Dioxin, Risk Assessment, and the Management of Scientific Doubt, 1965-1995....................................................................................... 203 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 271 iv Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance, support, and encouragement of many people over the past seven years. First, I would like to thank the staff and archivists of the following libraries and archives that I have had the pleasure to visit during this project: the Wisconsin Historical Society, the Hagley Museum and Library, the Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library at Duke University, and Firestone Library. I have been grateful for the generous time, helpful guidance, and insightful research suggestions offered by the staff at each of these institutions. I am also greatly indebted to the Environmental Working Group and its Chemical Industry Archives, a searchable database of internal chemical industry documents dating from the last fifty years. This website stands as a model for the use of the internet to efficiently organize and broaden public access to information that would previously have been obtained only at great effort and expense. I also owe special thanks to Jennifer Pizza, head archivist at Greenpeace in Washington, D.C., who tracked down and provided me with a revealing set of documents on the paper industry, and to J. Brooks Flippen of Southeastern Oklahoma State University, who generously provided me with copies of a number of files on the Nixon administration’s environmental policies gathered during his research. At each stage of this project I have reached out to scholars at other institutions through email queries as I searched for leads and relevant sources. I would like to thank all of those who responded, often at considerable length and with crucial insights for my research. At an early stage of my research, Robert Jackall of Williams College offered helpful advice on how to research public relations campaigns and pointed me to the Public Relations Society of America archives, where I found several important sources for this project. Over the years, I have also received helpful tips and encouragement in correspondence with the following scholars: Elizabeth Fones-Wolf, Thomas McCarthy, Robert Proctor, Sidney Shapiro, and David Rosner. I have been fortunate to receive many helpful comments from a variety of informal readers who have read drafts of various chapters. I would like to thank the following for reading and offering helpful feedback on Chapter 5: Richard Clapp, Phil v Pauly, and Valerie Thomas. I would like to thank Jim Tozzi of the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness for his interest in Chapter 4, and for posting it on his website, which led to many helpful comments from a variety of readers. This included a particularly close reading and detailed set of comments from John Graham and the staff of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I have received financial support at Princeton from the Graduate School, the Department of History, and the Princeton Environmental Institute (PEI). This project benefited greatly from the ample freedom and time to explore my topic that this generous support made possible. I am especially indebted to Dean Redman and Dean Mawhinney in the Graduate School for approving my request to apply PEI fellowship funding toward my sixth year at Princeton, and to Angela Creager, Janet Grushow, and Michael Oppenheimer for supporting that request. This not only allowed me to take full advantage of the excellent science and environmental policy courses offered at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs as a PEI-STEP fellow, but also allowed me to spend my sixth year in residence focused entirely on writing this dissertation. I would also like to thank the administrative staff in the History Department for their help over the years, including Melanie Bremer, Leah Kopscandy, Vicky Glosson, Audrey Mainzer, Tina Erdos, and, more recently, Amy Shortt. Many of the questions that I’ve explored in this project had their origins in conversations with friends and colleagues during dinners, drinks, or the many projects and meetings of student groups with which I participated during my years at Princeton. Outside of the history department, it was a pleasure to spend time and bounce around ideas with the following: Ade Artis, Curtis Deutsch, David Hirvonen, Amy Hughes, Zia Mian, Sujit Nair, Todd Parsons, Subramanian Rajagopalan, Elliot Ratzman, Gabriel Rossman, Traci Schlesinger, Peter Wolanin, and Lee Worden. I am also grateful for the guidance and encouragement of Will Howarth of the English Department. Around the History Department, I have thoroughly enjoyed the friendship, conversation, and scholarly insights of my fellow graduate students, including Brooke Blower, Emily Brock, Jolie Dyl, Nick Guyatt, Drew Levy, Volker Menze, Tania Munz, Jane Murphy, Clara Oberle, Joe November, Gail Schmitt, and Matt Wisnioski. Special thanks are due to Jay Turner, who generously offered his time to carefully proofread one of my chapters, vi and whose own clear and vivid writing has served as a model for writing about environmental politics. This project has been strengthened time and again by the guidance and support of Angela Creager and Dan Rodgers. I am grateful to Angela for continuing to help guide this project even as its focus drifted away from her principal areas of interest. Angela’s suggestions