Business and industry thrive on change and innovations that lead to new technologies, products, and opportunities for profits. This process, often referred to as free enterprise, can lead to jobs and higher living standards for many people, but it can also create harmful health and environmental impacts.

Government can act as a brake on environmentally harmful business enterprises. Achieving the right balance between free enterprise and government regulation is not easy. Too much government intervention can strangle enterprise and innovation. Too little government oversight can lead to environmental degradation and social injustices, and even to a weakening of the government by business interests and global trade policies.

Analysts point out that in today’s global economy, some multinational corporations, which often have budgets larger than the budgets of many countries, have greatly increased their economic and political power over national, state, and local governments, and ordinary citizens. However, businesses can also serve environmental and public interests. Green businesses create products and services that help to sustain or improve environmental quality while improving people’s lives. They make up one of the world’s fastest growing business sectors and are increasingly a source of new jobs.

Many argue that government is the best mechanism for dealing with some of the broader economic and political issues we face, some of which we have discussed in this book. These include the following:

· Full-cost pricing (see Chapter 23 ): Governments can provide subsidies and levy taxes that have the effect of including harmful environmental and health costs in the market prices of some goods and services, in keeping with the full-cost pricing principle of sustainability.

· Market failures (see Chapter 23 ): Governments can use taxes and subsidies to level the playing field when the marketplace is not operating freely due to unfair advantages held by some players.

· The tragedy of the commons: Government plays a key role in preserving common or open-access renewable resources (see Chapter 1 ) such as clean air and groundwater, the ozone layer in the stratosphere, and our life-support system.

The roles played by a government are determined by its policies —the laws and regulations it enacts and enforces, and the programs it funds. Politics is the process by which individuals and groups try to influence or control the policies and actions of governments at local, state, national, and international levels.

One important application of this process is the development of environmental policy —environmental laws, regulations, and programs that are designed, implemented, and enforced by government agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Energy (DOE), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Forest Service (USFS), Geological Survey (USGS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Such agencies enforce laws that set pollution standards, regulate the release of toxic chemicals into the environment, and protect environmental resources such as public forests, parks, and wilderness areas from unsustainable use.

The development of public policy in democracies often goes through a policy life cycle (also known as adaptive management) consisting of four stages ( Figure 24.2 ):

· Problem recognition. A problem is identified by members of the public or by policy makers.

· Policy formulation. A cause or causes of the problem are identified and a solution such as a law or program to help deal with the problem is proposed and developed.

· Policy implementation. A law is passed or a regulation written to put the policy into effect.

· Policy adjustment. The policy and program are monitored, evaluated, and adjusted as necessary.

Figure 24.2

The policy life cycle has been defined in several ways but generally includes these four phases (listed in the orange boxes).

24.1aEnvironmental Laws and Regulations

Many argue that government is the best mechanism for dealing with some of the broader economic and political issues we face, some of which we have discussed in this book. These include the following:

· Market failures (see Chapter 23 ): Governments can use taxes and subsidies to level the playing field when the marketplace is not operating freely due to unfair advantages held by some players.

The development of public policy in democracies often goes through a policy life cycle (also known as adaptive management) consisting of four stages ( Figure 24.2 ):

· Problem recognition. A problem is identified by members of the public or by policy makers.

· Policy formulation. A cause or causes of the problem are identified and a solution such as a law or program to help deal with the problem is proposed and developed.

· Policy implementation. A law is passed or a regulation written to put the policy into effect.

· Policy adjustment. The policy and program are monitored, evaluated, and adjusted as necessary.

Figure 24.2

The policy life cycle has been defined in several ways but generally includes these four phases (listed in the orange boxes).

24.1cEnvironmental Justice

Environmental justice is an ideal whereby every person is entitled to protection from environmental hazards regardless of race, gender, age, national origin, income, social class, or any political factor.

Studies show that a large share of polluting factories, hazardous waste dumps, incinerators, and landfills in the United States are located in communities populated mostly by minorities. Other research shows that, in general, toxic waste sites in white communities are cleaned up faster and more completely than similar sites in communities populated by African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. In addition, people in minority communities tend to have higher exposures to lead-based paint, diesel fumes and other dangerous pollutants ( Figure 24.3 ), bothersome odors, and noise from factories, landfills, and other sources.

Figure 24.3

These residents of a neighborhood in Detroit, Michigan (USA), wanted a nearby hospital to shut down its medical waste incinerator, which was polluting the air in their community.

A photo shows a few boys and girls raising their voice and showing the board with slogans “Stop polluting our community.”

Jim West/Age Fotostock

Such environmental discrimination in the United States and in many other parts of the world has led to a growing effort known as the environmental justice movement. Supporters of this movement pressure governments, businesses, and environmental organizations to become aware of environmental injustice and to act to prevent it. This movement has made some progress toward their goals despite strong opposition.

However, the term “environmental justice” does not appear in any of the environmental laws passed by the U.S. Congress in the 1970s and 1980s. There is also no mention of environmental justice in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some members of the U.S. Congress have proposed environmental justice bills or amendments to existing laws, but as of 2019, Congress had not acted on any such proposals. The main barriers to such legislation are opposition from wealthy individuals and corporations and the lack of economic and political power among low-income people affected by environmental injustices. A Center for Public Integrity study found that since the mid-1990s, the EPA has dismissed 95% of all environmental justice claims.

Some politicians and business representatives suggest that economics should be the main factor in decisions about where to locate new power plants, freeways, landfills, incinerators, and other such potentially disruptive facilities. Often, however, these areas are home to low-income residents who have much less political power than developers and corporations have (see Individuals Matter 22.1 ). Many analysts argue that an ethical principle of environmental justice should carry as much weight as economic factors do in such decisions.

Critical Thinking

1. Do you think that the principles of environmental justice should get equal weight, more weight, or less weight than economic factors in political decisions about where to locate potentially environmentally harmful facilities? Explain.

24.1dEnvironmental Policy Principles

Environmental scientists, economists, and political scientists have proposed several principles designed to reduce environmental harm and help legislators and individuals in evaluating existing or proposed environmental policies:

· Reversibility principle: Avoid making decisions that cannot be reversed if they turn out to be harmful. Two essentially irreversible actions are the production of toxic coal ash in coal-burning power plants and the production of highly radioactive wastes in nuclear power plants. In both cases, the resulting hazardous wastes must be stored safely for thousands of years.

· Precautionary principle: When substantial evidence indicates that an activity threatens human health or the environment, take measures to prevent or reduce such harm, even if some of the evidence is not conclusive.

· Prevention principle: Make decisions that prevent environmental problems from occurring or becoming worse.

· Net energy principle: Prohibit or limit widespread use of energy resources and technologies with low or negative net energy yields ( Figure 15.3 ) that need government subsidies and tax breaks to compete in the marketplace. Examples of such energy alternatives include nuclear power (considering the whole fuel cycle), tar sands, shale oil, ethanol made from corn, and hydrogen fuel, as discussed in Chapter 16 .

· Polluter-pays principle: Develop regulations and use economic tools, such as green taxes, to ensure that polluters bear the costs of dealing with the pollutants and wastes they produce. This stimulates the development of innovative ways to reduce and prevent pollution and wastes.

· Environmental justice principle: No group of people should bear an unfair share of the burden created by pollution, environmental degradation, or the execution of environmental laws.

· Holistic principle: Focus on long-term solutions that address root causes of interconnected problems instead of on short-term and often ineffective fixes that treat each problem separately.

· Triple bottom line principle: Balance economic, environmental, and social needs when making policy decisions ( Figure 24.4 ).

Figure 24.4

The triple bottom line: Policy makers traditionally make their decisions by considering the social, environmental, and economic factors in isolation from one another (represented by the three circles, left). Some analysts say sustainable policy decisions must be made by weighing all of these factors at once and attempting to satisfy the needs of all three sets of priorities (represented by the intersection of these three circles, right).

An illustration shows two sections. The first section shows three circles labeled as Economic, social, and environmental. The other section shows these three circles overlapping on each other. The circles are shaded in different shades.

Implementing such principles is not easy. It requires policy makers throughout the world to become more environmentally literate. It also requires robust debate among politicians and citizens, mutual respect for diverse beliefs, and a dedication to dealing with environmental problems by implementing the win-win principle of sustainability.

Critical Thinking

1. Which three of these eight principles do you think are the most important? Why? Which ones do you think could influence legislators in your city, state, or country? Why?

2. 24.2aDemocratic Government: The U.S. Model

3. The U.S. federal government consists of three separate but interconnected branches: legislative, executive, and judicial (Figure 24.5). The legislative branch, called the Congress, consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which jointly have two main duties. One is to approve and oversee government policy by passing laws that establish government agencies or instruct existing agencies to take on new tasks or programs. The other is to oversee the functioning and funding of agencies in the executive branch concerned with carrying out government policies.

4. Figure 24.5

5. Simplified overview of how individuals, companies, and environmental organizations interact with each other and with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the U.S. government in the making of environmental policy.

7. Enlarge Image

8. Ryan Rodrick Beiler/ Shutterstock.com, MDOGAN/ Shutterstock.com, Orhan Cam/ Shutterstock.com, Andrey Burmakin/ Shutterstock.com, jgroup/Getty Images, Cameron Whitman/ Shutterstock.com, Kevin Grant/ Shutterstock.com, jl661227/ Shutterstock.com, Tyler Olson/ Shutterstock.com

9. The executive branch consists of the president, vice president, major department heads (called the President’s Cabinet), and a staff who oversee the many agencies of the executive branch, which are authorized by Congress to carry out government policies. The president proposes annual budgets, legislation, and appointees for major executive positions, which must be approved by Congress. The president also tries to persuade Congress and the public to support executive policy proposals. Citizens vote to elect the president, vice president, and members of Congress.

10. The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. These courts, along with state and local courts, enforce and interpret different laws passed by legislative bodies. They are to ensure that the laws preserve the rights and responsibilities of government and citizens as established by the U.S. Constitution. The president appoints judges at the federal level with the advice and consent of the Senate.

11. The major function of the federal government in the United States (and in other democratic countries) is to develop and implement policies for dealing with various issues. The important components of policy are the laws passed by the legislative branch, regulations instituted by the agencies of the executive branch to put laws and programs into effect, and funding approved by Congress and the president to finance the executive agencies’ programs and to implement and enforce the laws and regulations.

12. Developing and implementing policy is a complex process (Figure 24.5). An important factor in this process is lobbying , in which individuals or groups contact legislators in person, or hire lobbyists (representatives) to do so, in order to persuade legislators to vote or act in their favor. Lobbying elected representatives is an important right in a democracy. However, some critics believe that lobbyists of large corporations and other organizations have grown too powerful and that their influence overshadows the input of ordinary citizens.

13. $8,200

14. Amount spent per day on each member of Congress by lobbyists in 2018

15. Connections

16. Lobbying and Perverse Subsidies

17. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2018 there were nearly 12,553 registered corporate lobbyists in Washington, D.C. They spent $1.6 billion—an average of $4.4 million per day—on efforts to influence the 535 members of the U.S. Congress. That amounts to an average of about $8,200 per day per member.

18. Corporations, trade unions, and other large organizations also provide billions of dollars in political campaign contributions. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want on ads for or against specific candidates running for election.

Most environmental bills are evaluated by as many as 10 committees in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Effective proposals often are weakened by this fragmentation and by lobbying from groups opposing these laws. Nonetheless, since the 1970s, a number of important environmental laws have been passed in the United States, as we discuss in the next section of this chapter. 24.2bDeveloping Environmental Policy—a Complex and Controversial Process

In the United States, passing a law is not enough to make policy. The next step involves trying to get Congress to appropriate enough funds to implement and enforce each law. The government creates a budget to finance its agencies and programs and the enforcement of laws and regulations. Budgeting is the most important and controversial activity of the executive and legislative branches.

Once Congress has passed a law and funded a program, the appropriate government department or agency must draw up regulations for implementing it. A group affected by the program and its regulations may take the agency to court for failing to implement and enforce the regulations effectively or for enforcing them too rigidly.

Businesses facing environmental regulations often pressure regulatory agencies and executives to appoint people from the regulated industries or groups to high positions within the agencies. In other words, the regulated try to take over the regulatory agencies and become the regulators—described by some as “putting foxes in charge of the henhouse.”

In addition, people in regulatory agencies work closely with officials in the industries they are regulating, often developing friendships with them. Some industries and other regulated groups offer high-paying jobs to regulatory agency employees in an attempt to influence their regulatory decisions. The tendency for administrators to move back and forth between agencies and the companies they regulate has been referred to as a “revolving door effect” that can give regulated companies an unfair advantage in the political process.

Some analysts argue that environmental science should play a major role in the formulation of environmental policy. However, politics usually plays a bigger role, and the scientific and political processes are quite different (Science Focus 24.1).

Science Focus 24.1

Science and Politics—Principles and Procedures

The rules of inquiry and debate in science are quite different from those of politics. Science is based on a set of principles designed to make scientific investigations open to critical review and testing. Here are four of the basic principles:

1. Any scientific claim must be based on hard evidence and subject to peer review. This helps prevent scientists from lying about procedures or falsifying evidence.

2. Scientists can never establish absolute proof about anything. Instead, they seek to establish a high degree of certainty (such as 90% to 95%) about the results of their research.

3. Scientists vigorously debate the validity of scientific research. Such debate focuses on the scientific evidence and results, not on personalities involved.

4. Science advances through the open sharing and peer review of research methods, results, and conclusions. There are two exceptions to this: first, some scientists who own or work for companies need to protect their research until legal patents can be obtained. Second, government scientists whose work involves national security often keep their research secret.

In politics, there are no such established and respected principles. In order to win elections and gain influence, politicians use unwritten rules that change frequently. While many politicians would like to base their decisions and actions on facts, others suggest that what matters more than facts is how the public perceives what they do and say. This makes the political process far less open than the scientific process is to review and criticism.

Without such openness, the political process often involves tactics that scientists would reject. For example, some politicians choose facts to support a claim that is not supported by the whole of a body of evidence. They then repeat such a doubtful claim until it becomes part of the news media cycle. If this misuse of evidence is not exposed, as it usually is in science, these unsupported claims can become widely accepted as truth.

Another political tactic that often goes unchallenged is to change a debate about facts to a discussion focused on personal attacks. Such a tactic is meant to make one’s opponents look weak, and it helps a politician avoid serious discussion of issues. In scientific debate, most participants do not tolerate such a shift away from a fact-based discussion.

It is possible to spread disinformation quickly in this media age of almost instant global news coverage, text messaging, social networking, and internet blogs and videos. While the internet enables this, it also allows almost anyone to check the validity of much information and to detect and publicize lies and distortions. Learning how to detect and evaluate disinformation is one of the most important purposes of education.

Critical Thinking

1. What are two examples of widely accepted results of scientific research that have been politicized to the point where they are largely doubted or ignored by the public?

24.2cInfluencing Environmental Policy

A major theme of this book is that individuals matter. History shows that significant political change usually comes from the bottom up when individuals work together to bring about change. Without this grassroots pressure from individual citizens and organized citizen groups, pollution and environmental degradation would be much worse today.

With the growth of the internet, digital technology, and social media, individuals have become more empowered. Partly because of this social networking, the number of citizens’ groups, national and global action networks, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focused on environmental problems has grown rapidly. Figure 24.6 lists ways in which individuals living in democracies can influence and change government policies.

Figure 24.6

Individuals matter: Some ways in which you can influence environmental policy,

Critical Thinking:

1. Which three of these actions do you think are the most important? Which ones, if any, do you take?

At a fundamental level, all politics is local. What we do to improve environmental quality in our own neighborhoods, schools, and work places can serve as an example and have national and global implications. When people work together, starting at the local level, they can influence environmental policy at all levels.

19. 24.2dEnvironmental Leadership

20. You can provide environmental leadership in several different ways. First, you can lead by example, using our own lifestyle and values to show others that beneficial environmental change is possible (Individuals Matter 24.1). You can buy only what you need, use fewer disposable products, eat sustainably produced food, practice the 4Rs of resource use (refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle), adjust your lifestyle to reduce your carbon footprint, and walk, bike, or take mass transit to work and school (Figure 24.7).

21. Individuals Matter 24.1

22. Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez

23. A photo shows Xiuhtezcatl Roske – Martinez.

24. Mark Sagliocco/Getty Images Entertainment/Getty Images

25. Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, born in 2000, learned about environmentalism from his parents while spending much of his early childhood enjoying the beautiful forests and streams near his Boulder, Colorado, home. His father is an Aztec who believes that all life is sacred and should be respected and cared for. His mother co-founded the nonprofit Earth Guardians as part of her commitment to protecting the earth’s water, air, and atmosphere. They taught Xiuhtezcatl (pronounced “Shu-TEZ-Cot”) their values, and he fell in love with nature.

26. As a young child, Xiuhtezcatl heard a lot about the harmful effects of human activities and noticed that the forest around him was changing. Trees were dying—killed by beetles whose populations were exploding because winter temperatures did not get low enough to kill them off. Dead trees fueled large fires that destroyed more trees.

27. To Xiuhtezcatl, these effects of climate change were real and scary, and they motivated him. At age 6, he gave his first speech at a climate change rally. Since then, he has used his natural leadership ability to become a dynamic and highly effective environmental activist. He helped persuade the Boulder City Council to stop using pesticides in parks, impose a fee on plastic bag use, and require a power company to depend more on renewable energy. He organized and spoke at press conferences, created a multimedia presentation about the harmful environmental effects of plastic bags, spoke at city council meetings and before an EPA hearing, and went door-to-door to organize dozens of rallies and marches. At age 12, he was invited to speak about climate change at the 2012 Rio+20 United Nations Summit on sustainable development in Brazil.

28. As youth leader for Earth Guardians, Xiuhtezcatl has set up Earth Guardian Crews in many parts of the world to promote environmental education and awareness and to encourage other people to act. Young Earth Guardians have planted thousands of trees in Boulder, Colorado, in many other parts of the United States, and in over 20 other countries.

29. Figure 24.7

30. Bicycling to school or work is one way to lead by example. In addition to reducing pollution, it saves you money and provides exercise.

31. A photo shows a woman who rides her cycle on the over-bridge constructed over the lake and buildings are shown behind it.

32. iStock.com/Bryan Hoybook

33. Second, you can work within existing economic and political systems to bring about environmental improvement by campaigning and voting for informed and ecologically literate candidates and by communicating with elected officials. As environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben says, “First change your politicians, then worry about your light bulbs.” You can also send a message to companies that you think are harming the environment. Another way to do this is to vote with your wallet. Refuse to buy environmentally harmful products or services, and let their providers know why. In addition, you can work to improve environmental quality by choosing one of the many rapidly growing green careers highlighted throughout this book and listed in Figure 23.19 and on this book’s companion website.

34. Third, you can run for some sort of local office. Look in the mirror. Maybe you are someone who can make a difference as an officeholder.

35. Fourth, you can propose and work for better solutions to environmental problems. Leadership is much more than just taking a stand for or against something. It also involves coming up with solutions to problems and persuading people to work together to achieve them. This includes finding ways to bridge gaps between people who disagree about solutions.

36. Fifth, good leaders inspire others to lead. Leadership is more than telling others what to do. It involves recognizing each person’s strengths, helping people to recognize their own strengths, and encouraging them to use their strengths creatively and actively.

37. Some environmentally active citizens and leaders are motivated by two important findings: First, research by social scientists indicates that social change requires active support by only 5–10% of the population, which often is enough to lead to a political tipping point. Second, experience has shown that reaching such a critical mass of actively involved people can bring about social change much faster than most people think.

38. 24.3aEnvironmental Law and Lawsuits

39. Environmental law is a body of laws and treaties that broadly define what acceptable environmental behavior is for individuals, groups, businesses, and nations. This section of the chapter deals primarily with the U.S. legal system as a model that reveals the advantages and disadvantages of using a legal and regulatory approach to dealing with environmental problems.

40. Most environmental lawsuits are civil suits brought to settle disputes or damages between one party and another. For example, a homeowner may bring a nuisance suit against a nearby factory because of the noise it generates. In such a suit, the plaintiff , the party bringing the charge (in this case, the homeowner), seeks to collect damages from the defendant , the party being charged (in this case, the factory), for injuries to health or for economic loss.

41. The plaintiff may also seek an injunction, by which the court hearing the case would order the defendant to stop whatever action is causing the nuisance. Short of closing the factory, often the court tries to find a reasonable or balanced solution to the problem. For example, it may order the factory to reduce the bothersome noise to certain levels or to eliminate it at night.

42. A class action suit is a civil suit filed by a group, often a public interest, consumer, or environmental group, on behalf of a larger number of citizens, all of whom claim to have experienced similar damages from a product or an action, but who need not be listed and represented individually.

43. Another concept used in environmental law cases is negligence, in which a party causes damage by deliberately acting in an unlawful or unreasonable manner. For example, a company may be found negligent if it fails to handle hazardous waste in a way that it knows is required by a statutory law (a law, or statute, passed by a legislature). A court may also find a company negligent if it fails to do something a reasonable person would do, such as testing waste for certain harmful chemicals before dumping it into a sewer, landfill, or river (Figure 24.8). Generally, negligence is hard to prove.

44. Figure 24.8

45. This body of water was polluted by a copper mining operation. Such pollution can form the basis for an environmental lawsuit.

46. An illustration shows a land showing plants and trees in certain portions with polluted streams flowing along the land.

47. Enlarge Image

48. Mikadun/ Shutterstock.com

49. Several factors can limit the effectiveness of environmental lawsuits. First, plaintiffs bringing the suit must establish that they have the legal right, or legal standing, to do so in a particular court. To have such a right, plaintiffs must show that they have suffered health or financial losses from some alleged environmental harm. Second, bringing any lawsuit costs too much for most individuals.

50. Third, public interest law firms cannot recover their attorneys’ fees unless Congress has specifically authorized that they be compensated within the laws that they seek to have enforced. By contrast, corporations can reduce their taxes by deducting their legal expenses—in effect getting a government (taxpayer) subsidy to pay for part of their legal fees. In other words, the legal playing field is uneven and puts individuals and groups that are filing environmental lawsuits at a disadvantage.

51. Fourth, to stop a nuisance or to collect damages from a nuisance or an act of negligence, plaintiffs must establish that they have been harmed in some significant way and that the defendant caused the harm. Doing this can be difficult and costly. Suppose a company (the defendant) is alleged to have caused cancer in certain individuals (the plaintiffs) by polluting a river (Figure 24.8). If hundreds of other industries and cities dump waste into that river, establishing that one specific company is the culprit is very difficult and requires expensive investigation, scientific research, and expert testimony.

52. Fifth, most states have statutes of limitations, laws that limit how long a plaintiff can take to sue after a particular event occurs. These statutes often make it essentially impossible for victims of cancer, which may take 10–20 years to develop, to file or win a negligence suit.

53. Sixth, courts can take years to reach a decision. During that time, a defendant may continue the allegedly damaging action unless the court issues a temporary injunction against it until the case is decided.

54. Another problem is that corporations and developers sometimes file strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) targeting citizens who publicly criticize a business for some activity, such as polluting or filling in a wetland. Judges throw out about 90% of the SLAPPs that go to court. However, individuals and groups hit with SLAPPs must hire lawyers, and typically spend 1 to 3 years defending themselves. Most SLAPPs are not meant to be won, but are intended to intimidate and discourage individuals and activist groups.

24.3bU.S. Environmental Laws

During the 1950s and 1960s, the United States experienced severe pollution and environmental degradation as its economy grew rapidly without pollution control laws and regulations. This changed in the late 1960s and in the 1970s when massive protests by citizens led the U.S. Congress to pass a number of major environmental laws ( Figure 24.9 ). Most of them were enacted in the 1970s, known as the decade of the environment in the United States. Implementing these laws has provided millions of jobs and profits from many new technologies for reducing pollution and environmental degradation. This has also improved the health of U.S. citizens.

Figure 24.9

Some of the major environmental laws and their amended versions enacted in the United States since 1969.

Enlarge Image

U.S. environmental laws generally fit into five categories. The first type requires evaluation of the environmental impacts of certain human activities. It is represented by one of the first and most far-reaching federal environmental laws, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, passed in 1970. Under NEPA, an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be developed for every major federal project likely to have an effect on environmental quality. The EIS ( Figure 24.10 ) must explain why a proposed project is needed, identify its beneficial and harmful environmental impacts, suggest ways to lessen any harmful impacts, and present an evaluation of alternatives to the project.

Figure 24.10

The environmental impact statement, required by NEPA, is aimed at minimizing the environmental impacts of major projects. It requires input from several different areas of study covering various possible effects on the environment, including but not limited to areas shown here.

An illustration shows Environmental Impact Statement decision box that shows wildlife habitat, endangered species, soil erosion, landscape/views, human health, wetlands, stream flow, groundwater quality, surface water quality, and air quality around the decision box, which are linked to the decision box through arrow marks.

NEPA does not prohibit environmentally harmful government projects. However, more than one-third of the country’s land is under federal management, and NEPA requires the managing agencies to consider environmental consequences in making decisions. It also exposes proposed projects and their possible harmful effects to public scrutiny. Opponents have targeted NEPA as a law to weaken or repeal.

In 2018, NEPA had been in effect for 40 years. In that time, it has helped the EPA to sharply reduce atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, ban the use of leaded gasoline, ban the widespread use of toxic DDT, get secondhand tobacco smoke classified as a carcinogen, and regulate the use of many other toxic chemicals. Instead of hindering economic growth, as its critics feared, NEPA sparked a domestic environmental protection industry that now employs more than 1.5 million people.

Critical Thinking

1. Do you think environmental impact statements such as those required by NEPA are a good idea? Why or why not?

The second major type of environmental legislation sets standards for pollution levels (as in the Clean Air Acts, see Chapter 18 ). A third type sets aside or protects certain species, resources, and ecosystems (the Endangered Species Act, see Chapter 9 and the Wilderness Act, see Chapter 10 ). A fourth type screens new substances for safety and sets standards (as in the Safe Drinking Water Act, see Chapter 20 ). A fifth type encourages resource conservation (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, see Chapter 21 ).

24.3cAttempts to Weaken U.S. Environmental Laws

Most U.S. environmental laws use a “command and control approach.” This involves

1. legally enforceable regulations issued by the EPA for U.S. states,

2. compliance by states, municipalities, industries, and other entities, and

3. penalties for noncompliance with the regulations.

However, since 1980 a well-organized and well-funded anti-environmental movement has mounted a strong campaign to weaken or repeal U.S. environmental laws and regulations and do away with the EPA. Three major groups strongly opposed to environmental laws and regulations are:

· Corporate leaders and other powerful people who see laws and regulations as threats to their profits, wealth, and power.

· Citizens who view environmental laws as threatening to their private property rights and jobs.

· State and local government officials who resent having to implement state and federal laws and regulations with little or no federal funding, or who disagree with specific regulations.

As part of this movement, one group developed a list of goals for what it called “wise use” of resources. Among those proposed goals were eliminating restrictions on wetland development; cutting older forests on national forest land and replacing them with tree plantations; opening all public lands, including wilderness areas, to mineral and energy development; and fining or penalizing anyone who challenges economic development on federal land.

Another problem working against additional environmental laws and regulations is that the focus of environmental issues has shifted away from easy-to-see dirty smokestacks and filthy rivers to complex, long-term, and less visible environmental problems. These include biodiversity loss, groundwater pollution, and climate change.

Since 2000, and especially since 2017, efforts to weaken environmental laws and regulations have escalated (see Case Study that follows). Nevertheless, independent polls show that more than 80% of the U.S. public strongly supports environmental laws and regulations and do not want them weakened. However, polls also show that less than 10% of the U.S. public (and in hard economic times only about 2–3%) considers the environment to be one of the nation’s most pressing problems. As a result, environmental concerns often are not transferred to the ballot box or to personal spending decisions.

To make a transition to a more environmentally sustainable society, U.S. citizens (and citizens in other democratic countries) will have to elect ecologically literate and environmentally concerned leaders. A rapidly growing number of citizens are insisting that elected leaders work across party lines to end the political deadlock that has virtually immobilized the U.S. Congress since 1980, with respect to environmental issues and other key concerns.

Instead of weakening or doing away with environmental regulations and the EPA, environmental scientists and economists call for:

· Updating existing environmental laws or passing new ones that deal with the potentially harmful effects from new technologies such as fracking (see Chapter 15) and serious environmental issues such as biodiversity loss, groundwater pollution, nonpoint air and water pollution, and climate change.

· Updating all environmental laws to put more emphasis on prevention and the other eight environmental principles listed in Section 24.1.

· Use an incentive-based and innovation-based system for meeting environmental regulations used by several European nations instead of the command-and-control system used by the United States. The EPA would establish long-term goals for meeting environmental regulations and heavy penalties for not achieving these goals. This would allow industries more time to meet the goals in any way that works, which would promote innovative ways to meet environmental regulations and could lead to profitable new products and processes.

However, revising existing environmental laws and developing new environmental laws could open up environmental laws to being weakened or abolished by the growing political and economic influence of the U.S anti-environmental movement (see Case Study that follows).

Critical Thinking

1. Do you support or oppose these proposals for strengthening the EPA? Why or why not?

Case Study

A Weaker U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA was formed in 1970 in response to tens of millions of people suffering from severe air and water pollution in the dirty 1960s and calling for federal government to take action to reduce air and water pollution. Since then the EPA has been responsible for enforcing the country’s environmental laws, most of them passed by the U.S. congress in the 1970s.

U.S. environmental laws have been effective, especially in controlling pollution. Since the EPA was formed in 1970 the following has occurred:

· Air pollution is down by 70% and research has shown that this has saved millions of lives.

· Pollution of U.S. waterways has decreased from 66% to 35%.

· Blood levels of toxic lead have dropped by 75%.

· Hundreds of toxic Superfund sites have been cleaned up.

· Ozone depletion in the stratosphere is being reduced.

However, since 1980 the U.S. anti-environmental movement has pressured elected officials to weaken or repeal U.S. environmental laws and to weaken or do away with the EPA. In 1981, Ronald Reagan became president of the United States. He ran on a campaign of weakening or repealing U.S. environmental laws. The Reagan Administration cut the EPA budget by 22%, reduced the number of EPA employees by 30%, hired employees from the industries the EPA was charged with regulating, reduced the number of cases filed against polluters, and relaxed clean air regulations.

Between 1990 and 2017, the EPA recovered from some of these efforts to weaken environmental regulations and had rebuilt the scientific expertise it needs to evaluate proposed environmental regulations. However, in 2017 Donald Trump became president with the goal of weakening environmental regulations and by the end of 2018, had appointed two successive EPA administrators to accomplish this goal. The first one had sued the EPA 14 times as Oklahoma’s Attorney General. The second was an energy lobbyist for the coal industry, vice president of the Washington Coal Club, which includes 300 coal producers, and legislative aide to Senator Jim Inhofe who has stated that climate change is a scientific hoax.

By the end of 2018, EPA administrators had:

· Overturned more than 46 environmental regulations and was in the process of rolling back 31 more. They included regulations that banned coal companies from dumping debris into local streams and required oil and gas companies to report their emissions of climate-changing methane.

· Done away with a regulation requiring that major factories use the best available technology to reduce air pollutants.

· Lifted the freeze on new coal leases on U.S. public lands.

· Eliminated the EPA Office of the Scientific Advisor, whose job was to ensure that the highest quality science was used to help evaluate and make the agency’s policies and decisions.

· Reduced the use of scientific panels to advise the EPA on its policies and decisions and added industry-friendly appointees to the remaining scientific advisory panels.

· Proposed cutting the EPA budget by 31% with a 60% cut in the agency’s enforcement programs, and eliminating 25% of the agency’s jobs many of them devoted to enforcing EPA environmental regulations.

· Proposed virtually eliminating regional water pollution cleanup programs (see Chapter 11), including those for the Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, the Everglades, and the Great Lakes.

· Deleted any mention of climate change on the EPA website.

· Reduced the goal of 23 km/liter (54 mpg) as the fuel efficiency standard for cars, SUVs and light trucks to 16 km/liter (37 mpg).

· Lowered the goal of reducing emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants from 32% to 1% by 2030.

According to the two newest EPA administrators, these changes are needed to reduce inefficiency and save money. Many corporate leaders and other members of the anti-environmental movement strongly support the above proposals.

In contrast, environmental scientists and economists and many other business leaders oppose them. They warn that if the proposals are adopted, environmental pollution and degradation will increase and will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in worsening health problems and damage to ecosystems. To them, the question is, do we want to return to the dirty 1960s or progress toward a cleaner future?

Critical Thinking

1. Do you support or oppose these proposals for weakening environmental regulations and the EPA? Why or why not?

2. 24.4aRoles of Environmental Groups

3. The spearheads of the global conservation, environmental, and environmental justice movements are the tens of thousands of nonprofit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working at the international, national, state, and local levels.

4. NGOs range from grassroots groups with just a few members to mainline organizations. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) operates in 100 countries, with 5 million members globally and 1.2 million members in the United States. Other international groups with large memberships include Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

5. Using social networks, text messages, e-mail, and Internet websites, some environmental NGOs have organized themselves into an array of influential international networks. Examples include the Pesticide Action, Climate Action, International Rivers, and Women’s Environment and Development Networks. They collaborate across national borders and monitor the environmental activities of governments, corporations, and international agencies such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO). They also attend international conferences to try to influence negotiations and agreements. They help to expose corruption and violations of national and international environmental agreements, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which prohibits international trade of endangered species (see Chapter 9).

6. In the United States, more than 8 million citizens belong to more than 30,000 NGOs that deal with environmental issues. They range from small grassroots groups to large, heavily funded mainline groups, the latter usually staffed by expert lawyers, scientists, economists, lobbyists, and fundraisers. The largest of these groups are the WWF, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, Greenpeace (Figure 24.11), Friends of the Earth, and the NRDC (see the Case Study that follows).

7. Figure 24.11

8. These Greenpeace protesters used an inflatable motorized boat to try to hinder the hunting of whales by a Japanese whaling fleet. For several decades, Greenpeace has engaged in such environmental actions and in environmental education activities.

9. A photo shows a few men traveling in a motorized boat with a ship comprising of one man who takes care of the ship behind it sailing in sea waters.

10. Enlarge Image

11. Jeremy sutton-hibbert/Alamy Stock Photo

12. Case Study

13. The Natural Resources Defense Council

14. One of the stated purposes of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is “to establish sustainability and good stewardship of the Earth as central ethical imperatives of human society. … We work to foster the fundamental right of all people to have a voice in decisions that affect their environment. … Ultimately, NRDC strives to help create a new way of life for humankind, one that can be sustained indefinitely without fouling or depleting the resources that support all life on Earth.”

15. To those ends, NRDC goes to court to stop environmentally harmful practices. It also informs and organizes millions of environmental activists, through its website, magazines, and newsletters, to take actions to protect the environment—globally, regionally, and locally. NRDC regularly informs its supporters about environmental threats all over the world, and helps people to take action by donating money, signing petitions, and writing letters to corporate and government officials and newspaper editors.

16. For example, the NRDC helped forge an agreement among Canadian timber companies, environmentalists, native peoples, and the provincial government of British Columbia (Canada) to protect a vast area of the Great Bear Rainforest from destructive logging. This followed years of pressure from NRDC activists on logging companies, their U.S. corporate customers, and provincial officials to protect the habitats of eagles, grizzly bears, wild salmon, and the rare spirit bear, a subspecies of the American black bear with a white fur coat.

17. The largest environmental groups have become powerful and important forces within the U.S. political system. They have helped to persuade Congress to pass and strengthen environmental laws (Figure 24.9), and they fight attempts to weaken or repeal these laws.

18. 24.4bGrassroots Environmental Groups

19. The base of the environmental movement in the United States and throughout the world consists of thousands of grassroots citizens’ groups organized to improve environmental quality, often at the local level. Some historians say this movement began in the late 1960s when Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson envisioned organizing the millions of people who were disgusted by pollution and other environmental problems that had grown severe throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Nelson and graduate student Denis Hayes established the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. It involved teach-ins and thousands of public demonstrations focused on pollution, toxic waste, coal mining, lead contamination, and other urgent environmental issues. More than 20 million people took part. Later, Hayes worked on building the Earth Day Network, which now includes more than 180 nations. As a result, each year, Earth Day is now celebrated globally.

20. According to political analyst Konrad von Moltke, “There isn’t a government in the world that would have done anything for the environment if it weren’t for the citizen groups.” Taken together, a loosely connected worldwide network of grassroots NGOs working today for bottom-up political, social, economic, and environmental change can be viewed as an emerging citizen-based global sustainability movement.

21. Since the 1970s, many grassroots groups have worked with individuals and communities to oppose harmful projects such as landfills, waste incinerators, and nuclear waste dumps, as well as to fight against the clear-cutting of forests and pollution from factories and power plants. They have also taken action against environmental injustice (Figure 24.3) and have worked to make many communities more sustainable (see the Case Study that follows).

22. Case Study

23. The Environmental Transformation of Chattanooga, Tennessee

24. Local officials, business leaders, and citizens have worked together to transform Chattanooga, Tennessee, from a highly polluted city to one of the most sustainable and livable cities in the United States (Figure 24.12).

25. Figure 24.12

26. Since 1984, citizens have worked together to make the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, one of the best and most sustainable places to live in the United States.

27. Photograph of a part of the city of Chattanooga, a sustainable place in the United States. In the photograph bridges are seen across a stream along with buildings and green cover.

28. Enlarge Image

29. Kevin Ruck/ Shutterstock.com

30. In 1969, a Federal Air Quality Report rated Chattanooga the most polluted city in the United States. Its air was so polluted by smoke from its industries and coal furnaces that people sometimes had to turn on their vehicle headlights during daylight hours. To make matters worse, the city sits in a valley surrounded by mountains that can trap pollutants in thermal inversions (Figure 18.9, left). The Tennessee River, flowing through the city’s industrial center, bubbled with toxic waste. People and industries fled the downtown area and left a wasteland of abandoned and polluting factories, boarded-up buildings, high unemployment, and crime.

31. In 1984, the city decided to get serious about improving its environmental quality. Civic leaders started a Vision 2000 process with a 20-week series of community meetings in which more than 1,700 citizens from all walks of life gathered to build a consensus about what the city could be at the turn of the century. Citizens identified the city’s main problems, set goals, and brainstormed thousands of ideas for solutions.

32. By 1995, Chattanooga had met most of its original goals. The city had encouraged zero-emission industries to locate there and replaced its diesel buses with a fleet of quiet, zero-emission electric buses, made by a new local firm. The city also launched an innovative recycling program after environmentally concerned citizens blocked construction of a new garbage incinerator that would have emitted harmful air pollutants. These efforts paid off. Since 1989, the levels of the seven major air pollutants in Chattanooga have been lower than the levels required by federal standards. In 2017, the American Lung Association rated Chattanooga as one of the cleanest cities in the United States.

33. Another project involved renovating much of the city’s low-income housing and building new low-income rental units. Chattanooga also built one the world’s largest freshwater aquariums, which became the centerpiece for downtown renewal. The city developed a riverfront park along both banks of the Tennessee River, which runs through downtown. In addition, the city built bike lanes, encouraged carpooling, and created an electric shuttle throughout the downtown to reduce air pollution. Chattanooga now has more than 30 LEED-certified buildings (see Chapter 16). In other words, the city shifted from a heavily polluted industrial economy to an economy based on sustainability, environmental quality, and tourism.

34. In 1993, the community began the second stage of this process in Revision 2000. Goals included transforming an abandoned and blighted area in South Chattanooga into a mixed community of residences, retail stores, and zero-emission industries where employees can live near their workplaces. By 2009, most of the 2000 goals were met.

35. Chattanooga’s environmental success story is a shining example of people working together to produce a livable and economically and environmentally sustainable city. It is an example of using the win-win principle of sustainability.

36. Grassroots groups have organized conservation land trusts wherein property owners agree to protect their land from development or other harmful environmental activities, often in return for tax breaks on the land’s value. These groups have also spurred other similar efforts to save wetlands, forests, farmland, and ranchland from development, while helping to restore clear-cut forests, degraded grasslands, and wetlands and rivers that have been degraded by pollution.

37. The internet, social networking, and text messaging have become important tools for grassroots groups. With these tools, they can expand their membership, raise funds, and quickly plan and execute actions such as demonstrations and rallies.

38. Most grassroots environmental groups use nonviolent and nondestructive tactics such as protest marches, sitting in trees to help prevent the clear-cutting of old-growth forests (Individuals Matter 24.2), and other approaches (Figure 24.11) to help educate and encourage the public to oppose various environmentally harmful activities. Such tactics often work because they produce bad publicity for practices and businesses that threaten or degrade the environment.

39. Individuals Matter 24.2

40. Butterfly in a Redwood Tree

41. A photo shows Julia Hill.

42. © Julia Butterfly Hill

43. “Butterfly” is the nickname given to Julia Hill, who spent 2 years of her life on a small platform near the top of a giant redwood tree in California. She was protesting the clear-cutting of a forest of these ancient trees, some of them more than 1,000 years old. She and other protesters occupied these trees illegally, as a form of nonviolent civil disobedience.

44. Butterfly had never participated in any such act of civil disobedience or environmental protest. She went to the site to express her belief that it was wrong for the trees’ owners to cut them down for short-term economic gain. She planned to stay for only a few days.

45. However, after seeing the destruction and climbing one of these magnificent trees, she ended up staying in the tree for 2 years to publicize what was happening and to help save the surrounding trees. She became a symbol of the protest and during her stay used a cell phone to communicate with members of the mass media throughout the world to help develop public support for saving the trees. Her living space was a platform not much bigger than a king-sized bed, 55 meters (180 feet) above the ground. Over time, she endured high winds, intense rainstorms, snow, and ice, and hours of noise from trucks, chainsaws, and helicopters.

46. Although Butterfly lost her courageous battle to save the surrounding forest, she persuaded Pacific Lumber MAXXAM to save her tree (called Luna) and a 60-meter (200-foot) buffer zone around it. Not too long after she descended from her perch, someone used a chainsaw to seriously damage the tree. Cables and steel plates are now used to preserve it.

47. In a larger sense, Butterfly did not really lose her fight. She wrote a book about her stand and has been traveling to campuses all over the world. In the process, she has inspired many people to stand up for protecting biodiversity and other environmental causes.

24.4cStudent Environmental Groups

Hundreds of campus and many high school environmental groups have been leading the way to make their schools and local communities more sustainable ( Core Case Study ). Most of these groups work with members of their school’s faculty and administration to bring about environmental improvements in their schools.

For example, at Northland College in Ashland, Wisconsin, students helped design a green living and learning center (see Tying It All Together , end of chapter), which houses 150 students and features a wind turbine, solar panels, furniture made of recycled materials, and waterless (composting) toilets. Northland students voted to impose a green fee of $40 per semester on themselves to help finance the college’s sustainability programs.

Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, integrates sustainability throughout its curriculum and uses wind power to offset all of its electricity use. Since 1990, De Anza Community College in Cupertino, California, has been integrating sustainability concepts into its curriculum. In addition, a team of students, faculty, administrators, and members of the local community worked together to build the LEED-platinum-certified Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies.

Many student groups make environmental audits of their campuses or schools. They use the resulting data to propose changes that could make their campuses or schools more environmentally sustainable, usually while saving money in the process. Such audits have focused on implementing or improving recycling programs, convincing university food services to buy more food from local organic farms, improving the energy efficiency of buildings, shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and implementing concepts of environmental sustainability throughout the curriculum.

Other students have focused on institutional investments. Since 2015, more than 400 student-led campaigns have been pressuring colleges and universities to stop investing their endowment funds in environmentally harmful industries, such as coal-fired electricity production. They also work toward getting their schools to increase their investments in renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and other environmentally beneficial businesses.

Critical Thinking

55. What major steps is your school taking to increase its own environmental sustainability ( Core Case Study ) and to educate its students about environmental sustainability?

56. Since the mid-1980s, there has been a boom in environmental awareness on college campuses and in public and private schools around the world. In the United States, hundreds of colleges and universities have now taken the lead in a quest to become more sustainable by making their campuses greener and educating their students about sustainability —the capacity of the earth’s natural systems and human cultural systems to survive, flourish, and adapt to changing environmental conditions into the long-term future.

57. For example, at Oberlin College in Ohio, a group of students worked with faculty members and architects to design a more sustainable environmental studies building ( Figure 24.1 ) powered by solar panels, which produce 30% more electricity than the building uses. Closed-loop underground geothermal wells provide heating and cooling. In its solar greenhouse, a series of open tanks populated by plants and other organisms purifies the building’s wastewater. The building collects rainwater for irrigating the surrounding grasses, gardens, and meadow, which contain a diversity of plant and animal species.

58. Figure 24.1

59. The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio.

60. A photo shows a building with reflecting glasses on the sides along with a small pond and greenery shown in the front.

61. Robb Williamson/NREL

62. At the University of Washington in Seattle, more than half of the food served on campus comes from the campus farm and other small local producers. All eggs served are organic from cage-free hens. This saves the school money and cuts it energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

63. The University of California, San Diego (UCSD), uses only drought-tolerant native plants for all of its new landscaping, which saves the campus a great deal of water that has historically been used to water grass in this drought-stricken area of the country. More than a third of UCSD’s vehicle fleet is all electric and the school runs 55 of its vehicles on biofuel.

64. Each year the Sierra Club ranks the 20 greenest colleges and universities in America. In 2018, the top six (with the first two tied for first place) were (1) Green Mountain College in Vermont, for its green curriculum, research, campus engagement, and commitment to powering the campus with renewable energy; (1) University of California, Irvine, for its green core curriculum, green campus construction, and campus and public engagement; (2) University of New Hampshire, for its curriculum, organic dairy farm, food waste reduction system and campus and public engagement; (3) University of Connecticut, for its green food system, a goal to become carbon neutral by 2050, and its campus and public engagement; (4) Colorado State University, for its sustainability curriculum, and campus and public engagement; and (5) Arizona State University, for its research, carbon-neutral policy for new buildings, and campus and public engagement.

65. In addition to making campuses greener, colleges are increasingly offering environmental sustainability courses and programs. At Catawba College, many students have accompanied Professor Luke Dollar, a national Geographic Explorer, on trips to Madagascar to take part in his research on that country’s endangered species and ecosystems.

66. These are just a few examples of the hundreds of institutions educating students who will provide leadership in working to make our societies and economies more sustainable during the next few decades. Maybe you will join the ranks of such environmental leaders.

67. Since the mid-1980s, there has been a boom in environmental awareness on college campuses and in public and private schools around the world. In the United States, hundreds of colleges and universities have now taken the lead in a quest to become more sustainable by making their campuses greener and educating their students about sustainability —the capacity of the earth’s natural systems and human cultural systems to survive, flourish, and adapt to changing environmental conditions into the long-term future.

68. For example, at Oberlin College in Ohio, a group of students worked with faculty members and architects to design a more sustainable environmental studies building ( Figure 24.1 ) powered by solar panels, which produce 30% more electricity than the building uses. Closed-loop underground geothermal wells provide heating and cooling. In its solar greenhouse, a series of open tanks populated by plants and other organisms purifies the building’s wastewater. The building collects rainwater for irrigating the surrounding grasses, gardens, and meadow, which contain a diversity of plant and animal species.

69. Figure 24.1

70. The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio.

71. A photo shows a building with reflecting glasses on the sides along with a small pond and greenery shown in the front.

72. Robb Williamson/NREL

73. At the University of Washington in Seattle, more than half of the food served on campus comes from the campus farm and other small local producers. All eggs served are organic from cage-free hens. This saves the school money and cuts it energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

74. The University of California, San Diego (UCSD), uses only drought-tolerant native plants for all of its new landscaping, which saves the campus a great deal of water that has historically been used to water grass in this drought-stricken area of the country. More than a third of UCSD’s vehicle fleet is all electric and the school runs 55 of its vehicles on biofuel.

75. Each year the Sierra Club ranks the 20 greenest colleges and universities in America. In 2018, the top six (with the first two tied for first place) were (1) Green Mountain College in Vermont, for its green curriculum, research, campus engagement, and commitment to powering the campus with renewable energy; (1) University of California, Irvine, for its green core curriculum, green campus construction, and campus and public engagement; (2) University of New Hampshire, for its curriculum, organic dairy farm, food waste reduction system and campus and public engagement; (3) University of Connecticut, for its green food system, a goal to become carbon neutral by 2050, and its campus and public engagement; (4) Colorado State University, for its sustainability curriculum, and campus and public engagement; and (5) Arizona State University, for its research, carbon-neutral policy for new buildings, and campus and public engagement.

76. In addition to making campuses greener, colleges are increasingly offering environmental sustainability courses and programs. At Catawba College, many students have accompanied Professor Luke Dollar, a national Geographic Explorer, on trips to Madagascar to take part in his research on that country’s endangered species and ecosystems.

77. These are just a few examples of the hundreds of institutions educating students who will provide leadership in working to make our societies and economies more sustainable during the next few decades. Maybe you will join the ranks of such environmental leaders.

78. 24.5aGlobal Environmental Security

79. Countries are legitimately concerned with national security and economic security. However, ecologists and many economists point out that all economies are supported by the earth’s natural capital (Figure 1.3 and Figure 23.5). Thus, environmental security, economic security, and national security are interrelated.

80. According to environmental scientist Norman Myers, “National security is no longer about fighting forces and weaponry alone. It relates increasingly to watersheds, croplands, forests, genetic resources, climate, and other factors that, taken together, are as crucial to a nation’s security as are military factors.”

81. For example, Haiti has suffered from a severe loss of environmental and economic security because of a combination of rapid population growth, deforestation, severe soil erosion, rampant poverty, and political disruption. In a desperate struggle for survival, its people have stripped away most of the country’s trees and other vegetation for use as firewood (Figure 24.13 and Figure 10.17). Because of this, along with several damaging hurricanes, the percentage of Haiti’s land that was forested dropped from more than 60% in 1923 to about 30% in 2016. This major loss of vegetation led to severe soil erosion. Taken together, these factors along with a severe earthquake in 2010 have greatly reduced food production and led to greater poverty, malnutrition, and social unrest.

82. Figure 24.13

83. Hillsides stripped of vegetation near Haiti’s capital city of Port-au-Prince.

84. A photo shows a hill-side, which is stripped off with the vegetation and shows very little area covered with trees and a clear sky above it.

85. Enlarge Image

86. ROBIN MOORE/National Geographic Image Collection

87. Research by Thomas Homer-Dixon, director of Canada’s Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has revealed a strong correlation between growing scarcities of resources, such as cropland, water, and forests, and the spread of civil unrest and violence that can lead to failing states. These countries have dysfunctional governments that can no longer provide security and basic services such as education and health care. They tend to suffer from a breakdown of law and order. Failing states also generate millions of refugees who are displaced from their homes and land, often fleeing for their lives.

88. Norman Myers and other analysts call for all countries to make environmental security a major focus of diplomacy and government policy at all levels.

24.5bInternational Environmental Policies

A number of international environmental organizations help shape and set global environmental policy and improve environmental security and sustainability. Perhaps the most influential is the United Nations, which houses a large family of organizations including the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Other organizations that make or influence environmental decisions are the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Despite their often limited funding, these and other organizations have played important roles in:

· Expanding understanding of environmental issues;

· Gathering and evaluating environmental data;

· Developing and monitoring international environmental treaties;

· Providing grants and loans for sustainable economic development and reduction of poverty; and

· Helping more than 100 nations to develop environmental laws and institutions.

In 1992, governments of more than 178 nations and hundreds of NGOs met at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The major policy outcome of this conference was Agenda 21, a global agenda for sustainable development in the 21st century, with goals for addressing the world’s social, economic, and environmental problems. The conference also established the Commission on Sustainable Development to monitor progress toward the Agenda 21 goals.

Despite the good intentions of Agenda 21, little progress has been made toward its goals. In 2012, the UNEP evaluated progress and found that, of the 90 most crucial goals, only 4 had been approached and none had been achieved. The removal of lead from gasoline, the phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals, improvements to drinking water supplies in poor countries, and research on pollution of the oceans were the four areas where significant progress had been made. In other areas, such as carbon dioxide emissions, extinction threats, overfishing, ocean dead zones, and harm to coral reefs, the world has not made much progress in achieving the Agenda 21 goals.

In 2012, on the 20th anniversary of UNCED, the UN hosted Rio+20, another Earth Summit conference to revisit the issues addressed in 1992. It was the largest conference ever, with 50,000 attendees, and as it kicked off, there were up to 50,000 non-attendees demonstrating in the streets of Rio de Janeiro. After 3 days, the conferees produced a nonbinding document as a roadmap for sustainable development. The representatives of more than 190 nations, including the United States, ratified it.

However, some analysts and organizations criticized the agreement for focusing primarily on traditional economic growth without enough attention to environmentally sustainable development. The document contained no enforceable commitment on climate change. It did not address any proposal to end fossil fuel subsidies and it failed to promote a shift to renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency. Critics also argued that, because of excessive influence by corporate sponsors, the conference was unable to make real progress toward shifting the world onto a more sustainable path. Figure 24.14 summarizes some of the successes and failures from long-term international efforts to deal with global environmental problems.

Figure 24.14

Trade-offs: There have been successes and failures in international efforts to deal with global environmental problems.

Critical Thinking:

1. In weighing these successes and failures, do you believe that international conferences are valuable and should be continued? Why or why not? If you agree, how would you improve their effectiveness? If you disagree, what are some alternatives?

Photo: NASA

In 2018, executives, diplomats, and elected leaders participated in an international conference held in Sweden on what to do about climate change. At the conference, fifteen-year-old Greta Thunberg of Sweden delivered a strong rebuke on behalf of the world’s youth climate movement. She said, “We have not come here to beg the world leaders. They have ignored us in the past and they will ignore us again. We have come here to let them know that change is coming whether they like it or not. The people will rise to the challenge.” According to Kevin Andersen, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, Thunberg “demonstrates more clarity and leadership in one speech than a quarter of a century of the combined contributions of so-called world leaders.”

The primary focus of the international community on environmental problems has been the development of various international environmental laws and nonbinding policy declarations called conventions. There are more than 500 international environmental treaties and agreements—known as multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).

To date, the Montreal Protocol and the Copenhagen Amendment for protecting the ozone layer (Chapter 18) are the most successful examples of such agreements. The MEA process faces a number of challenges. MEAs typically take years to develop and require full consensus to implement. There is often a lack of funding, it becomes difficult to monitor and enforce these agreements, and they sometimes conflict with one another.

89. 24.5cRole of Corporations in Promoting Environmental Sustainability

90. In our increasingly globalized economy, it has become clear that governments and corporations must work together to achieve goals for increased environmental sustainability. Governments can set environmental standards and goals through legislation and regulations, and corporations generally have efficient ways to accomplish such goals. Making a transition to more sustainable societies and economies will require huge amounts of investment capital and research and development funding. Most of this money will likely have to come from profitable corporations, especially considering the budgetary pressures faced by most governments. Thus, corporations could play a vital role in achieving a more sustainable future.

91. The good news is that some thoughtful business and political leaders are realizing that “business as usual” is no longer a viable option. A growing number of corporate chief executive officers (CEOs) and investors are aware that there is considerable money to be made from developing and selling green products and services during this century. This switch to new product lines is guided by the concept of eco-efficiency, which is about finding ways to create more economic value with less harmful health and environmental impacts. Improving eco-efficiency can also save businesses money and help them to meet their financial responsibilities to stockholders and investors.

92. Companies such as 3M have found that such investments can improve their bottom lines considerably. (See Case Study, Chapter 17.)

93. 24.6aGreen Planning

94. Governments have the power to play strong roles in making a transition to a more sustainable future. In some countries, the governments are doing just that in a process called green planning—the creation of long-term environmental management strategies with the ultimate goal of achieving greater environmental and economic sustainability and a high quality of life for a country’s citizens.

95. Green plans usually involve most or all of the policy-guiding principles listed in Section 24.1. Some include other principles such as the responsibility to leave the world sustainable for future generations, along with other priorities embodied in the principles of sustainability. Green plans are now being employed in several nations, including Mexico, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and The Netherlands (see the Case Study that follows).

96. Case Study

97. The Netherlands—A Model for a National Green Plan

98. In 1989, the northern European nation of The Netherlands began implementing a green plan called the National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP). It resulted from widespread public alarm over declining environmental quality. The goal of this national green plan is to cut many types of pollution by 70–90% and achieve the world’s first environmentally sustainable economy within 25 years, or one lifetime.

99. The Dutch government began by identifying eight major areas for improvement: climate change, acid deposition, eutrophication, toxic chemicals, waste disposal, groundwater depletion, unsustainable use of renewable and nonrenewable resources, and local nuisances (mostly noise and odor pollution).

100. Next, the government formed a task force consisting of people in industry, government, and citizens’ groups for each of the eight areas, and asked each task force to agree on targets and timetables for drastically reducing pollution. Each group was free to pursue whatever policies or technologies it wanted. However, if a group could not agree, the government would impose its own targets, timetables, and stiff penalties for industries not meeting certain pollution reduction goals.

101. Each task force focused on four general themes: life-cycle management; energy efficiency, with the government committing $385 million per year to energy conservation programs; environmentally sustainable technologies, also supported by a government program; and improving public awareness through a massive government-sponsored public education program. The NEPP has established over 200 targets as part of an integrated environmental policy program. The program is revised every 4 years to meet changing needs. Updates on progress and new problems are done every year.

102. Many of the country’s industrial leaders like the NEPP because they can make investments in pollution prevention and pollution control with less financial risk and a high degree of certainty about long-term environmental policy. They are also free to deal with the problems in ways that make the most sense for their businesses. Many industrial leaders have learned that creating more environmentally sound products and processes often reduces costs and increases profits. In addition, Dutch companies are making money in the global marketplace selling the technologies that were created to meet the NEPP goals.

103. The NEPP was the first attempt by any country to foster a national debate on the issue of environmental sustainability and to encourage innovative solutions to environmental problems. By 2015, over 70% of the original goals had been met. This has led to the expansion of organic agriculture, greater reliance on bicycles (Figure 24.15), and more ecologically sound housing developments. The NEPP is regarded as a blueprint for other nations wishing to create green plans.

104. Figure 24.15

105. Bicycles are used for about one-third of all urban trips in the Netherlands. These bicycles are in Amsterdam, one of the world’s most bicycle-friendly cities.

106. A bicycle stand in Amsterdam, Netherlands with rows of bicycles have been parked by commuters.

107. Enlarge Image

108. dinosmichail/ Shutterstock.com

24.6bShifting to More Environmentally Sustainable Societies

Scientists and other experts have suggested guidelines that we can follow as we work toward making our societies more environmentally sustainable. First, work on preventing or minimizing environmental problems instead of letting them build up to crisis levels. Second, use well-designed and carefully monitored marketplace solutions (see Chapter 23 ) to help prevent or reduce the harmful impact of most environmental problems. Third, cooperate and innovate to find win-win solutions or trade-offs to environmental problems and injustices, in keeping with one of the principles of sustainability. Fourth, be honest and objective. People on both sides of thorny environmental issues should take a vow not to exaggerate or distort their positions in attempts to play win-lose or winner-take-all games. Some environmental scientists have specialized in helping people and organizations to apply these principles.

The world has the knowledge, technologies, and financial resources to shift to more equitable and environmentally sustainable global and national policies. Making this shift is primarily an economic, political, and ethical decision (see Chapter 25 for a discussion of environmental ethics). It involves shifting to more sustainable forestry ( Figure 10.14 ), food production ( Figure 12.35 ), water resource use ( Figure 13.20 and Figure 13.22 ), energy resource use ( Figure 16.20 , and Figure 16.23 ), and economies ( Figure 23.18 ), while slowing climate change ( Figure 19.19 ) and educating public and elected officials about the urgent need to make this shift over the next several decades.

Some say that the call for making this shift is idealistic and unrealistic. Others say that it is unrealistic and dangerous to keep assuming that our present course is sustainable, and they warn that we have precious little time to change our unsustainable course.

Big Ideas

109. An important outcome of the political process is environmental policy—the body of laws, regulations, and programs that are designed, implemented, funded, and enforced by one or more government agencies.

110. All politics is local, and individuals can work with each other to become part of political processes that influence environmental policies (individuals matter).

111. Environmental security is necessary for economic security and is at least as important as national security; making the transition to more environmentally sustainable societies will require that nations cooperate just as many do for national security purposes.

112. ollege students around the world have shown that it is possible to create sustainable environmental policies, at least in the communities in and around many college campuses ( Core Case Study ). The world has the abilities and resources to implement policies that would help to eradicate poverty and malnutrition, eliminate illiteracy, sharply reduce infectious diseases, stabilize human populations, and protect the earth’s natural capital. We can do this by applying the scientific principles of sustainability —relying much more on solar energy and other renewable energy sources, reusing and recycling much more of what we produce, and respecting, restoring, and protecting as much as possible of the biodiversity that supports our lives and economies.

113. National and international policy makers could also be guided by the three economic, political, and ethical principles of sustainability. In the political arena, they will have to try harder to find win-win solutions that benefit the largest numbers of people while also benefiting the environment. Such solutions will likely have to include internalizing the harmful environmental and health costs of producing and using goods and services (full-cost pricing). In addition, if they are truly interested in long-term sustainability, these decision makers, as well as all the rest of us, must make each decision with future generations in mind—seeking to leave the world in at least as good a condition as what we now enjoy.

114. Making a shift to more sustainable societies and economies can occur much more rapidly than we think. Any or all of us can choose to take part in the change by becoming politically aware, informed, and active with regard to issues that affect our environmental and political futures.

Critical Thinking

115. Consider the various actions taken by college students and their institutions as described in this chapter’s Core Case Study, as well as in other parts of this chapter. Which one or more of these actions would be appropriate and effective on your campus? Explain. Pick one of these actions and write a brief plan for implementing it where you go to school.

116. Pick an environmental problem that affects the area where you live and decide where in the policy life cycle (Figure 24.2) the problem could best be placed. Apply the cycle to this problem and describe how the problem has progressed (or will likely progress) through each stage. If your problem has not progressed to the policy adjustment stage, explain how you think the policy dealing with the problem could be adjusted, if at all.

117. Explain why you agree or disagree with each of the eight principles listed on in Section 24.1, which are recommended by some analysts for use in making environmental policy decisions. Which three of these principles do you think are the most important? Why?

118. What are two ways in which the scientific process described in Chapter 2 (see Figure 2.2) parallels the policy life cycle (Figure 24.2)? What are two ways in which they differ?

119. Do you think that corporations and government bodies are ever justified in filing SLAPP lawsuits? Give three reasons for your answer. Do you think that potential defendants of SLAPP suits should be protected in any way from such suits? Why or why not?

120. Government agencies can help to keep an economy growing or to boost certain types of economic development by, for example, building or expanding a major highway through an undeveloped area. Proponents of such development have argued that requiring environmental impact statements for these projects interferes with efforts to help the economy. Do you agree? Is this a problem? Why or why not?

121. Congratulations! You are in charge of the country where you live. List the five most important components of your environmental policy.

122. List three ways in which you could apply the material in Section 24.2 to try to have an effect on an environmental policy making process.

Data Analysis

Choose an environmental issue that you have studied in this course, such as climate change, population growth, or biodiversity loss. Conduct a poll of students, faculty, staff, and local residents in your community by asking them the questions that follow, relating to your particular environmental issue. Poll as many people as you can in order to get a large sample. Create categories. For example, note whether each respondent is male or female. By creating such categories, you are placing each person into a respondent pool. You can add other questions about age, political leaning, and other factors to refine your pools.

Poll Questions

Question 1	On a scale of 1 to 10, how knowledgeable are you about environmental issue X?
Question 2	On a scale of 1 to 10, how aware are you of ways in which you, as an individual, impact policy making related to environmental issue X?
Question 3	On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it for you to learn more about environmental issue X?
Question 4	On a scale of 1 to 10, how sure are you that an individual can have a positive influence on policy making related to environmental issue X?
Question 5	On a scale of 1 to 10, how sure are you that the government is providing the appropriate level of leadership with regard to environmental issue X?

123. Collect your data and analyze your findings to measure any differences among the respondent pools.

124. List any major conclusions you would draw from the data.

125. Publicize your findings on your school’s website or in the local newspaper.

126.

hap2

Campuses

24.1

Government Role in a Transition to Sustainable Societies

24.1a

Environmental Laws and Regulations

24.1b

The Democratic Process

24.1c

Environmental Justice

24.1d

Environmental Policy Principles

24.2

Envir

onmental Policy

24.2a

Democratic Government: The U.S. Model

24.2b

Developing Environmental Policy

—

a Complex and Controversial

Process

24.2c

Influencing Environmental Pol

icy

24.2d

Environmental Leadership

24.3

Environmental Laws

24.3a

Environmental Law and Lawsuits

24.3b

U.S. Environmental Laws

24.3c

Attempts to Weaken U.S. Environmental Laws

24.4

Environmental Groups

24.4a

Roles of Environmental Groups

24.4b

Grassroots Environmental Groups

24.4c

Student Environmental Groups

24.5

Environmental Security

24.5a

Global Environmental Security

24.5b

International Environmental Policies

24.5c

Role of Corporations in Promoting Environmental Sustainability

24.6

Sustainable and Just Environmental Policies

24.6a

Green Planning

24.6b

Shifting to More Environmentally Sustainable Societies

Tying It All Together

Greening College Campuses and Sustainability

Chap24



 Campuses

 24.1Government Role in a Transition to Sustainable Societies

 24.1aEnvironmental Laws and Regulations

 24.1bThe Democratic Process

 24.1cEnvironmental Justice

 24.1dEnvironmental Policy Principles

 24.2Environmental Policy

 24.2aDemocratic Government: The U.S. Model

 24.2bDeveloping Environmental Policy—a Complex and Controversial

Process

 24.2cInfluencing Environmental Policy

 24.2dEnvironmental Leadership

 24.3Environmental Laws

 24.3aEnvironmental Law and Lawsuits

 24.3bU.S. Environmental Laws

 24.3cAttempts to Weaken U.S. Environmental Laws

 24.4Environmental Groups

 24.4aRoles of Environmental Groups

 24.4bGrassroots Environmental Groups

 24.4cStudent Environmental Groups

 24.5Environmental Security

 24.5aGlobal Environmental Security

 24.5bInternational Environmental Policies

 24.5cRole of Corporations in Promoting Environmental Sustainability

 24.6Sustainable and Just Environmental Policies

 24.6aGreen Planning

 24.6bShifting to More Environmentally Sustainable Societies

 Tying It All TogetherGreening College Campuses and Sustainability