Here we are. 1990 and a new decade has begun. Like most writers these days I cannot resist the temptation to reflect on the many changes we are seeing in the world and their meaning as we begin the last decade of the century.

A journalist I know told me that storywriters and columnists try to write stories that have some "sizzle with the steak". The sizzle is what gives the writing its impact, makes it fun, gets the stories read. The steak is the facts, the situation, the real story. Is there something in this for us?

As watershed managers we might be heartened with what seems to be a strong trend toward increased awareness of the environment. A recent poll revealed that the proportion of Americans who want environmental improvements regardless of cost had grown from 45 percent in 1981 to 80 percent in 1988. President Bush has declared himself an environmentalist. Last summer's economic summit of the Group of Seven major industrial democracies put environmental protection on top of their agenda.

The environment seems to have eclipsed all other issues as the most common concern of the world's people. Environmentalism is no longer a special interest or a "position"- it is the mainstream of our country and the world. For now anyway.

This welcome emphasis is not surprising. The last five years have brought a steady stream of news about global environmental threats- threats that go beyond anyone's backyard, affecting all life on earth. Acid rain, climatic changes, ozone depletion, species extinction, toxic contamination, ocean pollution. These have captured the attention of the world's inhabitants. Many now believe that the quality of life depends primarily on the quality of the environment.

I was in New Jersey last Spring. It became clear to me that for many people there, the thought of medical waste washing up onto their beloved Atlantic shores had completely changed their view of the environment.

Now that public attention is firmly focused on the environment, what are we going to do with it? This attention represents opportunity and responsibility for those who make the environment their profession.

This attention could mean more work, bigger budgets, chances to create new initiatives. It means that our efforts could be amplified by media attention, public awareness and political action. Our specialties might seem to take on more promise and become more in demand than during the 80's (see Brandow's article on wages in this issue) Take your ideas and hook them to a high-gain amplifier.

But who will set the agendas? Who will influence which problems get a boost in resources and which are deemed less important, to be tended to later, after the "immanent threats" are dealt with. As always, there's more to do than there are resources to do it. And good intentions may be misplaced, squandering precious resources.

Who indeed? I think the primary influence will come from mass media and politicians, as usual. The top stories will be those that have conflict, "dire threats", good visuals, stories that generate funding for professionals in public relations, newsy stuff. Hypodermic needles in the surf get air time and press. Soil erosion doesn't. Science might play a very small part in the priority-setting picture. All sizzle and no steak.

Science is too dull, too rational for the entertainment-minded media. Watershed scientists don't make good sources or good lobbyists. Stories play best in the media if there is a conflict between people to highlight. If its not a fight, its not a story. But to the scientist, the conflict is usually irrelevant. Plenty of steak, no sizzle.

Too often, scientists are completely out of the loop. Activists and PR people create the stories, the media runs them, the public reacts, and politicians try to please the voters. We might notice that facts are distorted and exaggerated, priorities misplaced, and conflicts between people are the only thing that seems to make news. Meanwhile soils erode, the air gets worse, and many of the real problems are ignored because they don't have enough sizzle to make a good story.

Is this the best way? Shouldn't the agenda for the environment be set by science, by practitioners who are experts in the affected resources?. Of course, we say. But is that what usually occurs? Nope.

I think we need to get better at telling our stories, and learn to add some sizzle. There's lots of ways to do it. It doesn't have to be conflict. Personal passion, oddity, creative analogy, ties with national or global issues, heroism, bringing it close to home, visual impacts, and human interest are some of the ways to add sizzle to the steak. This is not science, but it might keep you from being ignored and it might help to add some badly-needed science to the public agenda.

The agendas are being set, and will be. Will the focus come from reporters who are sniffing for sizzle and only add steak later for credibility? Or will it come from environmental scientists who have the steak, lots of it, and need only to add some sizzle?

We are at a critical time, full of opportunity. I am reminded of the English teacher's advice to his students in one of the 80's best films, "Dead Poets Society". It was, "Carpe Diem", which translates, "Seize the day". - ed

(Have an opinion about current events, trends affecting our profession, a passion to share something? Guest editorials and letters-to-the-editor are welcome. - ed)