Chapter 21 Environmental Policy
Why is environmental policy so controversial?
1. There are winners and losers in the policy game, and the losers in the
environmental game are wither powerful or unwilling to change to help the
environment.
2. Many of the issues are uncertain; there is no clear-cut definite answer.
Experts disagree or do not know exactly what is going on, which makes
people unwilling to change their livelihood to prevent something that may not
be happening
3. Most environmental policy is entrepreneurial policy- policy that appeals to
emotions to get the support of groups that are against it, and does not always
work.
The American Context- The difference between the US and European environmental
policy.
1. Environmental policy in America is much more adversarial than countries in
Europe. There are lots of long lasting conflicts over simple policy because of
their strict deadlines or expense. Lawyers bring lawsuits to support or
challenge the policy where as in England there are almost no lawsuits. The
rules in England are looser, which instead of being meaningless has greatly
improved their air and water quality.
2. The policy here depends on the states. While there are national standards,
how these standards are achieved is up to the states.
3. Federalism promotes adversarial politics. While in most European nations
there is little arguing over environmental policy, the states fight over the
standards and where they should apply. The separation of powers also allows
anyone who wants to influence the policy the ability to do so.
Entrepreneurial Politics: Global Warming
1. Environmental Policy is rarely opposed in the current government. Public
opinion is so strong on the subject no politician will go against it.
2. Global Warming has issues because there is no concrete definite proof that
what is happening with carbon di-oxide levels in the atmosphere is harmful, or
that it is due to us. There are arguments that global warming is just the earth’s
natural cycle of temperature flocculation. There are many holes in the Global
warming argument but it is argued that we still need to change things.
3. Activists have lots of powers, but entrepreneurial politics have created a large
conflict between elitists and activists, each trying to scare the population onto
their side.
4. The Endangered Species Act (passed in 1973) protects endangered species,
with huge support from the population.
Majoritarian Politics: Pollution from Automobiles
1. Clean Air Act of 1970 failed due to lack of public willingness to adjust to the
necessary changes to reduce automobile emissions. The cars that were made
with emission cleaning parts were expensive unpopular and had less
horsepower than the older models. Support of environmental bills is best
when someone else has to pay or the costs are hidden (car prices). Some
examples:
a. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 said an EIS
(environmental impact statement) must be filled out and reviewed
before the project that would influence the human environment would
be allowed to proceed. This is used by environmental activists to
block and stall unwanted or harmful projects. It requires the agency to
think of what it is doing and it gives critics a chance to study and
challenge their plan. Popular support for this plan is strong because
the public sees it as low cost with a high benefit.
b. Gasoline tax hikes usually fail because people are unwilling to pay
more, despite the large benefits for the environment and for people.
Since the tax would support noncash benefits, many doubt of the
validity of it. This is an example of Majoritarian politics when people
believe the costs are high.
Interest Group Politics-Acid Rain
1. Burning fuels that contain lots of sulfur cause acid rain (rain, snow or dust
particles that are acidic). While lakes and rivers have become more acidic,
controversy is over it is due to pollution or natural fluctuation. The long-term
effects are unknown as well. This provides fuel for both sides, the northerners
who blame the loss of forests and acidifications of lakes on Midwestern
smokestacks, who in turn deny that the problem is their fault and even if it
was, they should not have to pay to fix it.
2. In 1977, there were two alternatives for plants, use low sulfur coal, or
scrubbers to remove the flames from the gas before it escaped. Congress
voted for scrubbers since it protected the miners (who had powerful allies in
Congress) and satisfied the environmentalists. However, the bill did not solve
much, the scrubbers did not work well and only new plants were equipped
with scrubbers. Bush senior accomplished a solution, requiring a reduction of
emissions by a fixed amount but leaving it to the plants to decide how to do it.
Client Politics- Agricultural Pesticides
1. One group that has escaped scrutiny is organized Farmers and the pesticides
they use. In 1972, the EPA ordered an evaluation of pesticides and immediate
disuse of the bad ones. However there are 50,000 pesticides in use with 5,000
new ones added every year. Limitation is hard because results take years to
find and the process is expensive, and pesticides have beneficial uses.
2. The politics is tough because Farmers are some of the most productive
workers and most believe they cannot accomplish their potential without
pesticides. Subsidies (given to increase the amount of food they produce)
encourage the use of pesticides, most of which contaminate the ground water.
3. The Client politics (politics meant to help a certain group of people) in
pesticides is obvious. The budget is kept low, which means few pesticides
have been taken off the market. Those that have been removed have been
removed because of heavy media coverage.
Environmental Uncertainties
1. It is difficult to identify the problem, scientists have trouble determining the
causes of many problems, let alone how to fix them.
2. It is also difficult to determine the goals we wish to accomplish. How clean is
clean, and how much we are willing to give up to get it is where there are
disagreements
3. How we achieve is goals also are an issue. These issues are two complex and
varied for there to be an easy solution that applies to all with minimal cost and
maximum efficienceny.
4. What is the Problem?
a. The EPA was given tasks involving air and water quality, and
pesticides. However, with every crisis attention is diverted from these
goals to the crisis.
5. What are the Costs and Benefits?
a. Peoples fears like Cancer and toxic chemicals, the attempts to remove
these problems causes more than they fix. The issue is keeping the
focus on real risks rather than popular concerns with unreal ones.
6. What are our Goals?
a. The EPA was told to eliminate all smog and cut auto emissions by
90% by 1985. This is unrealistic and when the EPA realized it could
not accomplish the goals they asked for extensions, which made them,
appears weak and useless.
7. How do we achieve our goals? When the rules became too much for
companies to handle the EPA developed incentives for businesses.
a. Offsets- the development of a plant that creates pollution is allowed in
response to a reduction of pollution from another source or plant.
b. Bubble Standard- standard giving to a factory, leaving the company
with the freedom to determine how to reach that standard
c. Pollution Allowances (or banks) - If a company reduces emissions past
the necessary amount it can use the excess to cover a future plant or
sell it to another company as an offset.
The Results
1. The environment has actually improved since 1970, with much less carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. It is harder to tell if there has been an
equal improvement in the water, since the sources are not fixed or easily
determined.
2. Hazardous waste and dangerous pesticides however have not seen such an
increase since the ability to judge the effects or complete a job takes years to
accomplish.