Environmental advocacy intended to sense the public interest hasn't been doing a good job lately. Much credibility has been lost by activist groups and regulatory agencies as science has repeatedly exposed exaggerated claims. Yet, the United States and much of the western world will likely continue lurching from environmental crisis to environmental crisis largely because of the way scientific evidence is used--or misused--by those promoting "environmental correctness"

It is easy to slam the media for creating this situation--and many have. Journalists like to blame sloppy reporting on deadline pressures, but it is clear that many writers have become unabashed advocates of environmental regulation rather than objective reporters of the issues.

But it seems to me that attention must also be given to the feedback and reinforcements between the media, large and increasingly powerful activist organizations, and government agencies. Uncritical coverage of health and environmental scares -such as we've seen with the Alar story and the nonexistent "ozone hole over Kennebunkport"-- leads to public hysteria and pressure on politicians and government regulators to take action, however ill founded. At the same time, bureaucrats with vested interests in specific legislation develop close ties to the media, enabling them to influence stories and advance their agencies agenda which in Washington means expand the budget and hire more staff.

Environmental groups routinely sue the Environmental Protection Agency to force the strictest interpretation of environmental laws; EPA staffers often encourage such lawsuits for the above-mentioned reasons. In an atmosphere where everyone--but the public -benefits, it's not surprising that policies begin to outrun scientific facts and assume a momentum of their own. In the process however, rationality is lost and scientific evidence is blithely dismissed as "not policy~relevant." It's becoming more and more difficult to structure policies chat can be amended should our scientific understanding of the environmental problem change.

The public deserves better. We are paying a huge price for environmental regulation $150 billion annually in the United States alone. Even though surveys show a majority agreeing that "no price is too great" to protect the environment, the truth is that most people don't have the basic information for a rational assessment of rises and, sadly, neither has the government.

In light of the evident self-interest of she EPA and activist groups, we must learn to separate facts and reasonable beliefs from half-truths and misleading constructions. Resolution of all scientific uncertainty is an unattainable goal, but we can come to recognize hype and hoax, and demand a better return on our environmental dollars.