A seemingly simple question, but one which invokes controversy in today's society.  Why controversy?  Because many people think they know the answer, but, in reality, they are projecting attitudes onto people they don't know.  In the old days, earlier in this century, that was called stereotyping and led to discrimination.  Could we be on the verge of this in environmental law?
 

Probably, the most common sign of stereotyping is what I call "Rule By Mantra".  When facing a problem or trend in the environment, the response of some people is to chant their "mantra" instead of looking for new solutions.  In many cases, these mantras are based on very outmoded conceptions of the state of society and the environment.  A few examples: Salmon Recovery:  "Breach the dams" Traffic Congestion:  "Carpool, SOVs are bad" Toxics Releases:  "It's industry's fault" Can you think of any others?

The way I see it is there is no real cause to pollution, and hence, no one solution.  Pollution is caused by the individual acts of each person on the planet.  It is the cumulative effect which is overtaxing the environment's capability to maintain itself.  Can we maintain a satisfactory lifestyle and a clean environment?  I think so.  Some examples of cumulative effects: More oil enters Puget Sound every year from people who change the oil in their car than was spilled from the Exxon Valdez. Recent estimates show people in cities use six times as much pesticide and fertilizer per acre to maintain their lawns that growers to grow crops. One bottle of cleaner at a time, households in Washington dispose of 4000 tons of hazardous waste a year. Automobile exhaust accounts for 55% of all air pollution in Washington.

Now, for the hard part.  Washington is also known, and has been shown on various occasions, to have a public highly concerned about and very involved in environmental protection.  Where is the disconnect?