AUGUSTA — The state needs to develop an environmental policy that directs regulatory and legislative efforts toward those problems that pose the greatest risk for Maine people and their surroundings, according to several panelists at the 6th annual environmental conference sponsored by the Maine Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

In a time of looming recession, the state can no longer afford “management by fad,” in which governmental resources are thrown at whatever perceived environmental problem is most trendy, according to Daniel E. Boxer, the panel moderator.

“It’s the perception of many people in industry that business is being regulated to death without any rational reason … on whim, emotion, politics, perceived public desire and certainly without an understanding of the needs of business,” said Boxer, an environmental attorney.

In a strongly worded introduction, the moderator said the state needs to assess the risks to human health and natural resources posed by environmental challenges. Then it should try to solve those problems that are most serious.

“Without priorities, the greatest risks won’t get the attention they deserve,” said Boxer. “If we don’t solve the greatest risks, we divert business dollars to problems that don’t really need our attention.”

About 100 people attended the conference, which was held at the Augusta Civic Center. In a brief speech to the group, Gov. John R. McKernan acknowledged the need for more thorough consideration of proposed environmental legislation.

“I have informed my commissioners that any new regulatory initiative should carry a cost-benefit assessment,” he said. “We will weigh the cost to the regulated industry against the benefit to society. We will examine which problems the state can reduce or eliminate in a cost-effective way, and which problems deserve federal resources. … Those risks that can realistically be addressed by the state will be prioritized.”

Charles Colgan, associate professor of public policy at the University of Southern Maine and a former state economist, said that cost-benefit analysis was the common sense way to approach environmental regulation.

“The notion of setting environmental priorities makes a fair amount of inherent sense,” said Colgan. “We’ve got to use our air, water and financial resources … in a way that will do the most good.”

But Colgan cautioned that such assessments were both difficult and inexact. How does an economist assess the benefits of things that are not easily measured in dollars, he asked, such as a clean stream?

“There are a lot of techniques to measure that, but they are expensive and don’t produce a precise result,” said Colgan.

Dean C. Marriott, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection, said his agency would do more cost-benefit analysis than it had in the past. But he warned that all such analyses were based on assumptions.

“The numbers you put in determine what you get out,” said Mariott. “I’m curious to see what an economist thinks a view in Acadia National Park is worth.”

Everett Carson, executive director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, was the only representative of environmental groups on the eight-member panel. Carson did not comment on the issue of ranking environmental threats, but he acknowledged that impact on humans should be considered in assessing environmental initiatives.

“(The environment is) the whole fabric of life here — our home, work and play environments,” said Carson. “Environmental legislation is usually applied to land, water and air, but I agree with those who say economics should be built into the consideration.”

The mood of the panelists changed toward the end of the discussion, when Boxer asked if Maine businesses should be required to spend money to address environmental problems of a national or global nature.

“If all the industries in Maine were to shut down, it would have only a minor impact on ozone levels in the state,” said Boxer. “Why should we exact a financial toll on Maine industries for what amounts to symbolism?”

State Sen. Judith Kany, D-Waterville, said such laws were meant to acknowledge that people and corporations were responsible for their actions. Each of us has a small impact, she said, but our combined action eventually will solve national and world environmental problems.

Furthermore, Kany said, other states and nations eventually will follow Maine’s lead in working to preserve the environment.

Carson said the Natural Resources Council increasingly was studying regional efforts, because it recognized that Maine could not solve all of its environmental problems alone.

Even so, he said, Maine environmental standards should be higher than other areas.

“There is more to protect in Maine than there is in Los Angeles,” said Carson.