for A-plus writer only

nosyistypesif

soc320_chapter_08.pdf

Home >History homework help >for A-plus writer only

iS to

ck ph

ot o/

Th in

ks to

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

• Demonstrate an understanding of the evolution of contemporary U.S. environmental policy.

• Describe key factors affecting the identification and definition of environmental problems.

• Identify various policy actors and policy instruments involved in the environmental policy process.

A Case Study in Problem Identification: The Evolution of Federal Environmental Policy

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 259 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Introduction CHAPTER 8

Thus far, this book has introduced the foundations needed to understand public pol-icy and how policy is made, implemented, and changed within the U.S. political setting. Moving forward, Chapters 8 through 12 will provide case studies of specific social policy issues at the federal level. Each chapter will begin by exploring how a par- ticular policy area has evolved in contemporary times and will then use that policy issue to illustrate a particular stage of the policy process discussed in Chapters 4 through 7. This chapter will discuss problem identification in terms of environmental policy; Chapter 9 will discuss public agenda setting and the policy-making agenda in terms of education policy; Chapter 10 will discuss how policy is formulated in terms of welfare policy; Chapter 11 will discuss policy adoption in terms of health-care policy reform; and Chapter 12 will discuss policy implementation and evaluation in terms of immigration policy.

The United States provides a good case study in environmental policy making, because it serves as a role model of success and failure for other nations. Understanding U.S. fed- eral environmental policy clarifies environmental policy at local, state, and international levels. Environmental policy making in the United States has evolved over time and over various presidential administrations. From the early days of the nation, when there existed a general perception of infinite land and inexhaustible natural resources, to the later part of the 20th century, which saw an increased desire for sustainable development, the goals of environmental policy and the surrounding ideological belief systems have influenced how environmental problems are identified. The approach to environmental policy making in the United States has been one of command and control. That is to say, environmental policy has been about setting legal limits and threatening violators with punishment. The federal government and state governments promote desirable behavior or discourage undesirable activities using subsidies, taxes, and tax breaks.

In all industrialized countries since the early 1980s, policy agendas have given environ- mental issues an increasingly prominent place (Heidenheimer, Heclo, & Adams, 1990). The number of political parties and political leaders representing themselves as “green” reflects the importance of such issues for policy makers. Environmental problems are many and include global warming; destruction of the ozone layer (the layer of the upper atmosphere where ozone, which is atmospheric oxygen, absorbs the ultraviolet compo- nent of incoming solar radiation that could be harmful to life on earth); global deforesta- tion; and overpopulation. Among the numerous issues are air, water, ground, and noise pollution; dangerous levels of radioactivity; toxic waste; the levels and kinds of pesticides; and endangered species. Governments may define their environmental problem in vari- ous ways, and they may formulate and implement numerous policy solutions to address the problems. This partly explains why, in the last decade of the 20th century, most indus- trialized countries achieved substantial environmental gains, but the process of environ- mental protection has been costly, frustrating, and fraught with difficulties.

Because nations define environmental problems differently, the environmental agenda differs from nation to nation. However, many industrialized nations such as the United States are interested in developing environmental policy for the long term that deals with issues relevant to their own environment. Increasingly, many nations are implementing environmental policy on the basis of sustainable development. Sustainable development promotes social and economic progress that is consistent with environmental protection and technological growth.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 260 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

Sustainable development has no commonly agreed-upon definition. The definition cited most often is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; it should also meet the needs of the poor in the world, and economies should take into consideration the impact of human activity on the surrounding environment” (Bhaskar & Glyn, 1995, chapter 2). Sustainable development, then, may be considered development that encourages long-term produc- tion and consumption patterns that do not degrade the human or natural environment.

Environmental protection is the overarching goal of environmental policy, which is gov- ernmental action taken to address the problem of society’s past and present misuse—and to prevent its future mismanagement—of its physical environment: the air, water, soil, and other natural resources such as plants and animals. Environmental problem refers to the result of human and societal actions perceived as undesirable and harmful to the physical environment and citizens’ physical well-being.

8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States

The evolution of environmental policy making can be divided into four distinct time periods: 1800s through 1960s, 1960s through 1980s, 1980s and 1990s, and finally, the early years of the 21st century. Dividing the policy making in this manner gives a clearer sense of the policy succession process, as well as a discussion of the role of policy actors such as the president in the problem identification stage of federal environmental policy making.

A Growing Concern: The 1800s Through the 1960s

Americans’ awareness of environmental issues began in the 19th century, as industries’ increasing exploitation of natural resources led to growing concerns about their protec- tion. Since the late 1800s and the start of regional urbanization, the environment in the United States has been a matter of public concern. Conservation policy, emphasizing effi- cient use of natural resources, was first introduced by Republican president Theodore Roosevelt at the start of the 20th century. He supported the Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902, which promoted federal construction of dams to irrigate small farms and placed 230 million acres of land under federal protection.

Roosevelt’s conservation efforts laid the foundation for federal government coordination of environmental policy activity in the 1930s. The administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, coordinated environmental activity and established new federal agencies to oversee specific resources (for example, the 1933 Tennessee Valley Authority and the Civilian Conservation Corps, which operated from 1933 to 1942). In spite of such agencies, until the mid-1960s environmental policy making was fragmented and char- acterized by a limited numbers of actors and incremental bargaining and compromises. Policy formulation was the prerogative of a few members of Congress, and consistent presidential commitment to identify the environmental problem was lacking.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 261 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

Midcentury Awakening: The 1960s Through the 1980s

In 1962 Rachel Carson published her groundbreaking text on the environment, Silent Spring. The book alerted the public to the environmental damage caused by industrial- ization, such as the health dangers posed by DDT and other pesticides. It was a catalyst in identifying environmental degradation as a problem for U.S. policy makers. From this point on, many Americans became aware of environmental issues, and environmentalism became a movement advocating the sustainable management of resources and steward- ship of the environment through changes in public policy and individual behavior.

The first real piece of legislation enacted in the environmental policy arena was the 1963 Clean Air Act. Although President John F. Kennedy and the Democrat-controlled Congress supported and passed the act, corporate lobbies strongly opposed it. Environ- mentalists considered the act a weak piece of legislation because its enforcement provi- sions—requiring states to initiate lawsuits against polluters—were ineffective. The United States enacted other environmental policy in the 1960s, including the 1965 Water Quality Act, the 1966 Endangered Species Conservation Act, and the 1967 Air Quality Act. These acts established standards and made federal grants available to states wishing to comply.

The adoption in 1969 and enactment in 1970 of the National Environmental Policy Act launched a national environmental policy. The legislation provided the foundation for future environmental policy action. Among the act’s main provisions: Representatives for each major federal construction project must complete an environmental impact state- ment, a demonstration that a government project does not significantly harm the environ- ment. If the environmental impact statement shows the contrary and the project results in damage, procedures and mechanisms are in place to correct the damage.

The reasons for the increase in environmental policy activ- ity in the mid- and late 1960s are the growth of environmen- tal interest groups, renewed congressional interest, and the spotlight on episodes such as offshore oil spills in California. The sociopolitical changes of the 1960s played a role in environ- mental problem identification. For example, the civil rights movement’s successful mobili- zation demonstrated to many that those with little power can change policy through grass- roots activity. As a result, the federal government began to change its view of environmental problems; from the 1970s on, the problem was no longer defined in piecemeal fashion. Rather, policy actors at the federal level concluded environ- mental degradation was a national problem requiring federal coordination of policy. In 1970 Republican president Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency

Getty Images

The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for coordinating and enforcing all environmental laws.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 262 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

(EPA) to coordinate and enforce all environmental laws. Before the EPA’s establishment, several agencies across several federal departments were responsible for monitoring and regulating different aspects of the environment.

As a result of the EPA’s creation, Congress enacted a series of laws in the early 1970s (see Table 8.1). The magnitude of this legislation is impressive, and each act highlighted in Table 8.1 provided some federal support for environmental protection. For example, the Clean Air Act set national standards for air quality, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The act required all states to develop clean air plans, be approved by the EPA, and meet the national air quality requirements. In a situation in which a state plan did not meet federal requirements, the EPA was authorized to prepare and enforce a plan for that state. Additionally, the act mandated the EPA to set exhaust-emission standards for the auto industry and develop plans to introduce catalytic converters and fuels with reduced lead levels. The 1972 Water Pollution Control Act set targets to be achieved by 1985 for the amount of discharged pollutants in navigable waters. It also provided $23 billion in grants for the construction of water treatment plants and local government installation of best-available technologies by 1983. The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act mandated regulation of hazardous waste storage and gave the EPA authority to establish hazardous waste–disposal standards. As groundbreaking as many of these acts were, they were weakened in requiring the EPA to seek state and local government compliance. The EPA simply did not have the resources or manpower to enforce compliance.

Table 8.1: Laws adopted from 1970 to 1976 as a result of the creation of the EPA

Major Environmental Laws

1970 Clean Air Act Amendments

1972 Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act

1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments

1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act

1973 Endangered Species Act

1974 Safe Drinking Water Act

1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act

1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

1976 Toxic Substances Control Act

During Democratic president Jimmy Carter’s tenure in the White House, environmental policy was still at the forefront of the policy-making agenda. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 established environmental controls over strip mining; also in 1977, both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were amended. The 1978 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act regulated the Energy Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, the government attempted to protect over 100 million acres of Alaskan land as national parks.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 263 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

Superficial legislation adopted in 1980 set aside approximately $1.6 billion in emer- gency funds to deal with environmental spills or dumping through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. This legislation authorizes cleanup and enforcement actions to respond to actual or threatened releases of hazard- ous substances into the environment but generally excludes releases of petroleum and certain other materials covered by other federal laws. Under the legislation, the EPA must maintain a National Priorities List to identify the most hazardous sites to prioritize cleanup actions. State governments are primarily responsible for cleaning up sites not listed on the National Priorities List, with the federal role at these sites limited mainly to emergency situations.

The legislation created a multimillion-dollar federal fund, commonly referred to as the Superfund, from taxes levied on chemical feedstock manufacturers and crude-oil pro- ducers. The environmental-response legislation is superficial in part because the Super- fund does not provide a substantial level of coverage of the costs associated with site cleanups. Implementation was ineffective and suffered from the Reagan administration’s laissez-faire policies. During Reagan’s 8 years in office, only 16 of 799 superfund sites were cleaned up. In addition, the government collected only $40 million of $700 million in recoverable funds from responsible parties (“Opinion—Not So Super Superfund,” 1994). Besides defraying corporate costs, the legislation also allowed the EPA to shift its empha- sis from conventional pollutants and increased the agency’s budget by 25%.

The 1970s’ frenzy of environmental legislation produced a strong industrial and busi- ness coalition that opposed environmentalism. Many critics argued that environmental protection was increasing costs and inflation, thereby slowing economic growth. Critics contended the burden on business was too large; compliance with strict environmental regulations increased costs and damaged profits as a result. This argument influenced later administrations, led by strong presidential involvement in policy formulation, in defining and dealing with environmental problems.

The 1980 election of Republican president Ronald Reagan was followed by antienviron- mentalist attempts in Congress (based on ideological, political, and economic concerns) to weaken or repeal many of the conservation-related laws and regulations of the previ- ous decade. Reagan was strongly opposed to additional legislation regulating the envi- ronment. He promoted what he saw as “reasonable” environmentalism and called for bureaucrats to stop exceeding their authority in the environmental sector. In essence, Rea- gan was calling for a new definition of the U.S. environmental problem. He believed that previous policy had led to too much government and too much regulation, in addition to being antibusiness and antigrowth. He argued that government’s role was to encourage businesses to protect the environment voluntarily and not interfere with their ability to compete. Reagan’s policy agenda therefore focused on reducing government regulation and diminishing the federal government’s role in environmental protection.

The 1984 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments revised EPA procedures for regulating hazardous waste facilities, while the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act changed EPA safe drinking-water programs. Consequently, the Reagan years saw reduced bud- gets for environmental policy implementation, repeal of environmental legislation, and the appointment of administrators who were less amenable to environmentalist con- cerns to head government agencies such as the Department of the Interior and the EPA.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 264 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

Antienvironment citizen’s groups such as the Wise Use Movement emerged. Reagan’s administrative appointees favored dismantling existing environmental laws and govern- ment regulation, viewing them as counterproductive. Administrators argued that envi- ronmentalism did not support, for example, private property rights, monetary rule, and rational resource development. They urged an environmental policy that freed corporate interests to regulate themselves on a voluntary basis. Hundreds of EPA staff members were dismissed as a result—including the entire staff of the President’s Council on Envi- ronmental Quality.

When identifying environmental problems, the Reagan administration took into account cost containment, introducing cost-benefit analysis into environmental policy design. Any new EPA regulation had to submit to a cost-benefit analysis. Publicly, the government claimed it was ensuring that any money spent on proposed regulation would result in increased benefits rather than increased costs to taxpayers. Most new environmental regu- lation failed the cost-benefits test because a dollar amount could not easily be assigned to the benefits of environmental aesthetics or increased life span for endangered species. For example, Reagan authorized the removal of solar panels from the White House roof in 1986 after oil prices dropped to a near-record low. To Reagan’s critics, removing the panels symbolized the administration’s attitude toward conservation and the environment. In any event, Reagan achieved his objective of promoting industrial growth through reduced environmental regulation.

Environmental Protection or Energy Conservation: The Late 1980s Through 1999

Reagan’s successor, Republican president George H. W. Bush, faced increased public support for stronger environmental protection, support that was mobilized by militant environmental interest groups (see Figure 8.1). In the face of such environmental con- sciousness, Bush made environmental policy a key issue of his 1988 campaign for the presidency, announcing that he wanted to be known as the “environmental president” (Holusha, 1988, 1). Although one cannot characterize Bush as an activist environmental president, he did deliver somewhat on his promise. His administration enacted two major pieces of legislation: the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Both more closely reflected congressional desires than Bush’s own. They were stricter and imposed more costly regulations on industry. The acts combined legislative mandates that air quality throughout the United States meet certain standards through reduced emis- sions (including pollutants that cause acid rain) from industrial processes and cars. They also introduced standards for phasing out chemicals that attack the ozone layer.

In the later years of his administration, Bush approved an increase in the EPA’s budget and supported declaring areas of America’s coastline off-limits for oil exploration. Other legis- lation of note included the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and the 1992 Omnibus Water Act. However, Bush refused to support the 1992 Rio Earth Summit environmental treaty until its provisions aimed at slowing global warming were modified and weakened. Also at that summit, he refused to sign a treaty protecting endangered spe- cies, arguing that it would slow technology development. Environmental groups strongly opposed these two actions by the president.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 265 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

Figure 8.1: Public support for environmental protections versus public support for economic growth, 1985–1991

Focus on environmental policies grew as public support for stronger environmental protections became more prominent.

Adapted from Gallup Polls, 1985–1991.

In 1992 Bush sought reelection. Democratic candidate Bill Clinton and his vice presiden- tial candidate Al Gore perceived a general dissatisfaction with Bush on the environment. They criticized the president for not being committed to controlling environmental dam- age and for allocating minimal funds to environmental cleanup and protection—thus challenging Bush’s identification of the environmental problem. Clinton and Gore prom- ised to be active environmentally and vowed to reverse the course on environmental pro- tection. Gore (1992) promised that being tough on environmental protection did not mean being tough on business.

The Clinton–Gore years attempted to balance the demands of economic growth while protecting the environment from increased damage. For some, this effort meant being too generous to business at the cost of tougher environmental legislation (Tsuru, 1999). Clin- ton’s environmental policy focused on more generous funding of environmental man- dates, as well as attempts to make the system less bureaucratically rigid. Additionally, by the end of Clinton’s first year in office, he had made major changes in the leadership of the main environmental agencies involved in formulating and implementing policy.

% Supporting Environmental Protection % Supporting Economic Development

P u

b li c S

u p

p o

rt %

Year

1991198919871985

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 266 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

Although a number of measures implemented tougher standards, for the most part Clin- ton’s environmental policy agenda was frustrated by a Republican-controlled Congress determined to reduce federal government regulation. The existence of a divided govern- ment from 1994 to 2000 proved to be a formidable obstacle to stricter environmental pol- icy. For example, congressional Republicans opposed discussing global warming, which resulted in executive–legislative gridlock and blocked Clinton’s attempts to address the issue. However, the Clinton administration did enact three notable pieces of legislation: the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, a major reform of pesticide regulation; the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996; and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which provided funds not only for improving highways and mass transit sys- tems but also for addressing transportation-related environmental issues.

During Clinton’s second term, the administration pushed the idea of cost-effective envi- ronmental reform. In 1997 the Clinton administration acted as a signatory to the Kyoto Pro- tocol, an international environmental agreement on global warming (see United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1997). The United States remains the only signatory not to have ratified the protocol. The Kyoto accord requires industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels. Signing the Kyoto Protocol placed the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO

2 ) emissions squarely on the institutional agenda. At the

time, the problem of CO 2 emissions required a policy remedy, since data showed that in

1995, 85% of net greenhouse gas emissions in the United States were CO 2 related.

Clinton’s true success in environmental policy was to shift the focus of environmental ini- tiation from Congress to the White House, thus ensuring that the president took control of problem definition. This shift was symbolized by Clinton’s replacement of the Council on Environmental Quality with the White House Office on Environmental Policy and grant- ing cabinet status to the EPA.

To Be or Not to Be Green: 2000 to 2012

The 2000 presidential election campaign made it clear that once elected, Republican George W. Bush would launch an assault on much of the Clinton environmental record. For example, Bush spoke out against land-preservation efforts, pushing for oil production in public lands such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Nonetheless, Bush still cam- paigned as an environmentally friendly candidate and stressed his commitment to limit- ing CO

2 emissions, accusing Gore and the rest of the Clinton administration of not doing

enough in this area. His campaign website implied that he would support mandatory reductions similar to those that had been introduced in his home state of Texas.

After his election, Bush’s first 90 days in office generated much concern among environ- mental groups. In March 2001 he reneged on his pledge to limit CO

2 emissions by rejecting

proposed limits. The president justified his turnaround on the issue by arguing such limits could lead to major increases in energy prices. Bush’s CO

2 position was a clear reversal.

Only a month earlier at the G8 environment summit in Trieste, Italy, his EPA director, Christine Todd Whitman, had publicly stated that the Bush administration would be a dependable ally in the war against the greenhouse effect and global climate change. (The G8, or Group of Eight, is an annual meeting of representatives from eight of the world’s largest economies—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—to discuss and take positions on issues of global concern.) However,

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 267 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

backed by strong lobbying from coal and utility companies, Vice President Dick Cheney per- suaded Bush to contradict Whit- man, whose job as EPA director, in theory, has the greatest influ- ence in determining the nation’s environmental policy. Cheney thereby managed to persuade Bush to reverse his own clearly defined position in favor of emissions control. In doing so, the Bush administration indi- cated that instead of letting sci- entific data determine policy, the president would set his own environmental agenda. In other words, the administration—not the EPA’s own experts—would

guide the agency’s direction. Environmental groups felt betrayed and braced themselves for the president’s next assault on established policy.

It came relatively quickly. The Bush–Cheney administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol by the president simply refusing to sign it or seek Senate ratification. Bush claimed Kyoto’s costs were too high to bear and that it threatened the U.S. economy and lifestyle (Golub, Markandya, & Marcellino, 2008). As expected, the reversal upset environmental groups in the United States and also led to international criticism. European Union leaders issued a statement expressing concern about the change of heart and fears for the future of the Kyoto agreement. Some articulated they would proceed with the Kyoto Protocol without the participation of the United States.

Increased opposition from U.S. industry explains Bush’s CO 2 -emissions reversal. The

industrial opposition argued that industry would be hurt by more stringent emission standards and the resulting increased transportation costs. In short, industry argued that tighter standards would affect its ability to compete in a global marketplace and would ultimately result in lost jobs. The best policy, according to industry supporters, is the use of voluntary standards, but most supporters of environmental control argue these will achieve little. Conservatives and energy industry supporters claimed the Kyoto Protocol imposed costly environmental controls on domestic businesses while giving developing countries, such as India and China, an unfair competitive advantage by easing restrictions facing them.

Bush and his supporters argued the idea of global warming is based on uncertain sci- ence and in truth might be an environmental problem that does not exist. For example, before departing for a European state visit in the early summer of 2001, Bush told report- ers the Kyoto global warming agreement was “fatally flawed.” He called for more scien- tific research before the world could devise a workable strategy for dealing with climate change. Bush went on to state that the Kyoto agreement was based on inconclusive scien- tific evidence and would require unattainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In

Thinkstock

The Kyoto Protocol is an international environmental agreement that requires industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 268 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

short, the president was arguing there was a lack of sound science at work to support the concept of global warming. The belief that global warming was based on incorrect scien- tific analysis prompted the Bush administration next to reject the Rio Climate Treaty that had been signed by the president’s father, George H. W. Bush, and ratified by the senate in 1992. (The treaty was also known as the Framework Convention on Climate Change and had 150 nations as signatories.)

The first year of the Bush administration also saw the creation of the National Energy Policy Development Group, an energy task force headed by Cheney under the Depart- ment of Energy. Despite its mission to research and develop recommendations outside of international agreements, the task force proved controversial. Many policy actors in and outside of government criticized the task force for operating in secrecy, having close working relationships with industry leaders, and paying little attention to scientific evi- dence (Kraft, 1990). However, the Bush administration claimed the recommendations of the Energy Task Force were balanced and based on the input of many diverse groups. In response, critics argued the recommendations seemed to favor the energy industry, as the task force recommended easing environmental regulations that inhibit new energy production (Kraft, 1990). One of the outcomes of the task force was the 2005 Energy Pol- icy Act, which aimed to increase domestic production of energy resources and improve energy efficiency through tax incentives and loan guarantees for renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, ethanol, and biodiesel. The act established no new require- ments for improving automobile fuel efficiency. It did call for increased energy research and development, new energy efficiency standards for federal office buildings, new pro- grams to encourage states to develop and implement energy conservation, and modern- ization of the nation’s electricity grid (Kraft, 1990).

During the George W. Bush presidency, Congress enacted these additional laws that affected the environment:

• The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002, which authorized the federal government to clean up pollution in the Great Lakes.

• The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002, which provided both liability protection to small businesses that contributed to waste sites and increased funding to local programs that assessed and cleaned up abandoned or underused waste sites.

• The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, which authorized timber cutting in selected areas managed by government agencies, the protection of lands from wildfires, and the creation of hazardous fuel–reduction programs on federal land.

• The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which aimed at a national automobile fuel-economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 and an increase in the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a renewable fuel standard of 36 billion gallons by 2022. In the last years of his presidency, Bush initiated a number of environmental proposals calling for multinational actions to control greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental issues featured prominently in the presidential election of 2008. All major environmental groups favored Democratic candidate Barack Obama over Republican can- didate John McCain, and voters generally perceived Obama as a strong supporter of envi- ronmental regulation. By 2008, in addition to concerns over air quality, the water supply,

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 269 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

and sustainability, newer issues such as acid deposition and ozone depletion were gaining prominence on the environmental agenda. In his electoral campaign, Obama claimed that the U.S. economy could be stimulated through the creation of “green” jobs and industries. He also promised policy that would bring about efficient energy consumption that would cut costs and reduce reliance on fossil fuel. Obama’s victory was welcomed by environ- mentalists, who were optimistic about the direction of environmental policy under the new administration. However, their optimism has not been entirely rewarded.

Obama’s term in office through 2012 did not accomplish policy adoption in the area of climate legislation, nor did it advance global warming on the institutional agenda. The administration’s most notable successes reflected in the American Recovery and Rein- vestment Act of 2009. This legislation authorized $90 billion in spending, tax incentives, and loan guarantees to promote stricter automobile mileage standards, mass transit, clean coal, energy efficiency programs, and renewable energy projects. The Obama adminis- tration has consistently argued that efforts to benefit the environment can be a powerful stimulus for new job growth and the creation of inno- vative new industry and businesses. This perspective contrasts with the view of many Republicans that environmentalism inhibits business growth because of its excessive regu- lation of industry.

According to the Obama White House, domestic crude-oil produc- tion in 2011 was at its highest level since 2003, and domestic natural gas production grew by 7% in 2011; the previous all-time production record was set in 1973 (White House, n.d.). In response to the Deepwater Hori- zon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama administration also launched offshore oil regulation and oversight. In addition, during the early Obama years the nation’s dependency on foreign oil was reduced: U.S. oil imports fell from 60.3% of consumption in 2005 to 45% in 2011—the lowest level since 1995 (White House, n.d.). This reduction can be partly contributed to the declining econ- omy and many Americans’ growing resentment of the nation’s dependency on overseas oil, highlighted by the war in Iraq and spiked oil prices stemming from the deregulation of trading.

One of the net benefits of this decreased foreign oil consumption has been the growing popularity of affordable, fuel-efficient cars. The Obama administration calls for average fuel efficiency to reach 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. More fuel-efficient cars will also mean reducing oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day, and cut greenhouse gas emis- sions by 6 billion metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles sold during this period (White House, n.d.). Additionally, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 is the most important expansion of federal land conservation since the early 1990s. However,

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Oil spills like the large BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico can coincide with policies that promote economic growth over environmental regulation.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 270 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.1 An Overview of Federal Environmental Policy in the United States CHAPTER 8

Policy in Practice: Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Although the United States has an abundance of fossil fuels, especially coal and natural gas, advocates argue that only a small fraction of these resources should be used if the country wants to minimize the rise of atmospheric carbon and reduce the environmental impacts of mining and of burning fossil fuels. One of several attractive alternatives to fossil fuels is renewable energy technologies that gen- erate electricity. The most common examples of such energy technologies are wind turbines or solar thermal and photovoltaic systems. Continuing to increase the use of renewable energy has been a top policy priority of U.S. environmental advocates, and renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) are among the most effective policies in the United States today for fostering the growth of renewable energy.

The electric utility industry is a major consumer of fossil fuels and is only about 33% efficient (Inter- national Energy Agency, 2008). (It takes three units of coal, for example, to generate one unit of electricity.) Meeting more of our electricity needs with renewably generated electricity, rather than fossil-fueled power plants, could thus offer big payoffs if every unit of renewably generated electric- ity that offsets conventionally generated electricity saves 3 times its amount in fossil fuels. RPSs require that a certain percentage of a utility’s power plant capacity or generation come from renew- able or alternative energy sources by a given date. To meet these requirements, electric utilities invest in renewable energy sources or purchase renewably generated electricity from other utilities. Renewable portfolio standards are developed, implemented, and evaluated by individual states, not the federal government. RPSs in some states include “carve outs,” which require that a certain per- centage of a portfolio be generated from a specific energy source, such as solar power. Although the first RPSs were enacted in California in the 1980s, their use as a policy tool became widespread only after 2000. Thirty states now have RPSs, with more to follow. States adopt RPSs for a variety of rea- sons: for cleaner air, to foster job creation, to cultivate innovation, and to guard against price spikes in fossil fuel–generated electricity.

Many RPSs are ambitious. California, for example, required that 20% of all electricity sold in the state come from renewable resources in 2010, with this requirement jumping to 33% by 2020. New York insists on a 25% renewable electricity portion by 2013 and a 30% portion by 2015. And Oregon requires 25% by 2020, with a special “carve out” for solar photovoltaic electricity (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2012). Other states boast similar requirements. Together these

Obama’s reputation as an environmental policy maker was damaged by his decision in September 2011 to overrule the EPA and delay the tightening of smog regulations until 2013. Many environmental activists saw this as giving in to pressure from Republican members of Congress and corporate America.

What lies ahead is difficult to predict; however, it is safe to say with the ascendance of the Tea Party and other conservatives in Congress, it is more than likely there will be a full- frontal assault on environmental legislation as being detrimental to the economy, costing Americans jobs, and being simply cost-ineffective. In his campaign for reelection, Obama emphasized the need for an all-out approach that develops every available source of U.S. energy so that there is safe and responsible oil and natural gas production, more focused attention on increasing energy efficiency, and support for cleaner sources of energy. Pub- lic opinion polls indicate that such an approach is favored by the public at large and that many Americans prefer a policy that emphasizes conservation over energy production (Jones, 2012).

(continued)

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 271 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.2 Current Identification and Definitions of Environmental Problems CHAPTER 8

Policy in Practice: Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (continued) state policies provide national economic stability for the renewable energy industry while fostering competition to generate low-cost renewable electricity. They also set the stage for a national RPS which, up to now, has been successfully blocked by fossil fuel and other interest groups.

Buying green products and making use of renewable energy at home are both admirable gestures toward environmental sustainability. But the recent history of RPSs suggests broader policies can help adjust the energy use behaviors of powerful organizations such as electric utility companies. Residents in states with an RPS are using a significant amount of renewably generated electricity and supporting the expansion of renewable energy.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Peruse the range of state-level RPSs at websites like http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions /policy-maps/renewable-energy-standards or http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm? id=4850. (Click on the states at the first link to learn more about their individual policies.) What are some patterns in state policy, and what policy forces might account for such patterns?

2. When electric utility companies invest in renewable energy, they often pass any additional cost along to the consumer without much if any explanation. In some ways RPSs are a hidden policy that consumers might knowingly support whether they agree with the policy or not. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this policy approach?

3. Some environmental advocates object to RPSs because the policies privilege large renew- able-energy installations that have their own range of environmental impacts. California, for example, meets some of its RPS goals with large solar thermal installations in the desert that use sunlight to create steam that spins turbines for electricity. The environmental impacts on fragile desert ecosystems are sometimes significant. What might be some other unintended impacts of the RPS policy approach to fostering renewable energy?

8.2 Current Identification and Definitions of Environmental Problems

The way governments define problems involving the environment is complicated by the fact that individuals may find it hard to identify tangible benefits (as they can with policies related to health or welfare), even if intellectually they can see the advantages of clean air or water. Common to most industrialized nations’ definitions of environmental problems is the assumption that such problems result from many activities of modern industrial society—activities that are vital to growth and economic well-being. Therefore, environmental protection can be perceived as a public good that in many ways is paid for by placing limits on industry. In fact, regulation of corporate and individual behavior is particularly salient in the environmental policy sector.

In many ways environmental policy making curbs activities that benefit society and there- fore is a postmaterialist political concern (McCormick, 1989). This means that in healthy periods when economic growth is good and unemployment is low, many Americans feel

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 272 11/21/12 12:56 PM

http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/renewable-energy-standards

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4850

Section 8.2 Current Identification and Definitions of Environmental Problems CHAPTER 8

they can afford the luxury of supporting environmental regulation. However, since 2007 the U.S. economy has been in a downward spiral, with recession and crisis a reality. As such, currently many Americans believe the nation cannot afford a public good such as environmental protection. Even after events like the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, data indicate the public’s prioritization of economic growth over environmental regulation. Figure 8.2 shows that since 2009 more Americans have favored economic development over environmental protection.

Figure 8.2: Public support for environmental protection versus public support for economic growth, 1985–2012

Support for environmental protections has decreased in favor of economic development. This shift of priorities is reflective of changes in the nation’s economic well-being.

Adapted from Gallup Poll, 2012.

Problem identification in the environmental policy sector is complicated by citizens’ defi- nition of their rights and freedoms with respect to the environment. Such rights will be reflected in widely held social values. For example, in the United States social values like the right to own and drive an automobile and the importance of the open road ultimately influence the government’s definition of the environmental problem. This in turn affects the type of policy solution that is formulated and implemented. In the long run the value placed on car ownership will eventually hinder the adoption of more restrictive environ- mental policies.

% Supporting Environmental Protection % Supporting Economic Development

P u

b li c S

u p

p o

rt %

Year

201220112009200720052003200119991997199519931991

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 273 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.2 Current Identification and Definitions of Environmental Problems CHAPTER 8

Some authors argue that if something is viewed as “right and proper” (Switzer, 1974, p. 40), then it is rarely challenged when it comes to making decisions about environmen- tal policies. Environmental problem definition in the United States frequently takes into account public opinion and priorities. Often, policy adoption is easier to pursue if policy makers define the environmental problem the same way the U.S. public does (Laverty, 1990). Since 2003 fewer Americans have overwhelmingly prioritized environmental pro- tection over economic growth, thus explaining the somewhat mixed record of environ- mental policy making over the last 10 years. In 2012, 47% compared to 44% of Americans prioritized energy development over environmental protection (Jones, 2012). This rep- resents a significant change from previous years, when more individuals prioritized the environment.

Environmental problem identification may also be affected by economic factors. Economic pressures arising from globalization and increased international competitiveness have affected how U.S. policy makers perceive a specific environmental problem at any given time. For example, how willing the government is to identify air pollution as a result of poor emissions standards will influence its concern with not damaging the nation’s inter- national competitiveness. Cost considerations undoubtedly influence the environmental problem identification process in the United States—policy makers will be reluctant to encourage expensive policy solutions. The economic costs of achieving CO

2 emission tar-

gets have clearly determined how the U.S. government has defined the need for clean air.

Since the major environmental legislation of the 1970s was enacted, some areas have seen great progress where other areas have not. From 1970 to 1996 air pollutants dropped 32%. However, a report from the American Lung Association in 2012 indicates that although the United States has made steady progress in improving air quality, about 41% of the population still suffers from pollution levels that can make breathing dangerous. Other pollutants have been more difficult to track, especially water pollutants. Water standards since 1970 have shown some improvement. However, in 2010, 40% of U.S. rivers and 46% of U.S. lakes did not meet minimum standards for all uses (swimming, fishing, drinking, and supporting aquatic life) (US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2012). In the same year, more than 860 billion gallons of untreated sewage was discharged into U.S. waters through sewer overflows, and 3.5 million people became sick from contact with sewage-contaminated water (EPA, 2012).

The overall cost of environmental regulation in the United States is estimated to be about 2% of the gross domestic product, similar to many other countries. However, critics of environmental legislation argue that the gains made in environmental protection come at too great a cost. Problem identification in the U.S. environmental policy sector is further complicated by the fact that in spite of the vast majority of scientists and a preponderance of evidence supporting the need to address climate change, enough critics challenge the evidence to create doubt as to the effectiveness and need for environmental legislation. To define and identify a problem, policy makers must clearly identify policy goals. In the United States over the last 30 years, environmental policy goals can be identified as secu- rity, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. In sum, the policy direction is protecting environ- mental quality and natural resources in an efficient and cost-effective manner in order to promote equity in individuals’ resource use. How different administrations pursue these goals is affected by their ideological beliefs surrounding the role and nature of govern- ment intervention in society.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 274 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.3 The Policy Process and Policy Actors Involved in Environmental Policy Making CHAPTER 8

Global Warming 101 Global warming is a serious issue that means more than just melting ice and more summer days. The excessive greenhouse gases contributing to global warming are likely the result of human activ- ity. Learn the basics about global warming and what you can do to reduce it in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAbATJCugs.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. What is global warming, and what causes it? 2. What is the evidence for the global warming problem? 3. What do scientists theorize are the consequences of global warming?

8.3 The Policy Process and Policy Actors Involved in Environmental Policy Making

The formulation and implementation of contemporary environmental policy in the United States is complex because these policy steps occur at multiple points in the government system. Further, the existing research on environmental policy largely consists of case studies; thus, there is a general absence of theorizing. Most work on envi- ronmental policy is highly descriptive, as is this discussion.

A variety of executive branch offices, departments, and agencies, including the EPA, are responsible for problem definition regarding the environment and the development of sub- sequent policies. The creation of the EPA in 1970 in effect ensured the executive branch has the primary responsibility for environmental protection policy. Previously, Congress was the major institution responsible for formulating environmental policy. Political scientist Michael Kraft (1990) suggests that decreased congressional responsibility is understand- able, given congressional “gridlock” and the general absence of progressive sentiments on Capitol Hill. It can also be argued that Congress simply failed to lead the environmental agenda-setting process and thus lost the initiative in formulating policy (Switzer, 1974). Among the reasons for congressional failure are the fragmented committee system, con- gressional members being cross-pressured by pro-business and pro-environment lobbies, insufficient resources such as time and expertise, and finally, a concern with local, rather than national, issues (Switzer, 1974).

On occasion, Congress, under its constitutional jurisdiction to regulate interstate com- merce and control activities on federal lands, may also adopt specific, detailed (rather than framework) environmental policies. These laws will then be implemented, depend- ing on their specific provisions, by either the executive branch or the states. Additionally, implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation may be pursued through criminal and civil actions in the courts. Indeed, federal environmental management in the United States is characterized by strong compliance and enforcement.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 275 11/21/12 12:56 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAbATJCugs

Section 8.3 The Policy Process and Policy Actors Involved in Environmental Policy Making CHAPTER 8

What Is Fracking? Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a recently developed method for accessing nature’s hard-to-reach resources. While this might seem like a far-removed phenomenon, about 80% of fracking happens in North America, and the process can have unforeseen dangers. Watch this easy-to-understand explanation of fracking and some of the consequences of the process: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=LAxsTJd7VCA.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. What are some problems associated with fracking? 2. What might be some possible solutions? 3. How might a public policy help address some of the problems associated with fracking? What

might be some hurdles associated with such a policy?

Since the early 1980s, state governments have increasingly become environmental policy initiators and formulators and taken away much of the federal government’s traditional responsibility in environmental regulation (Hays, 1991). The response of particular state governments to environmental issues is dictated by factors such as the severity of envi- ronmental damage, urbanization levels, the fiscal resource base, who controls the state legislature, and the prevalence of professional legislators and administrators (Vig & Kraft, 2000). For example, in California the 2004 Marine Life Protection Act created a system of marine reserves along California’s coastline—something not yet implemented by the fed- eral government. Additionally, the level of influence of an individual state’s environmen- tal interest groups and the strength of industry will affect state government responses.

In those states where formulation and implementation have become more of a state gov- ernment responsibility, state bureaucratic structures have been created to develop and implement environmental policies. In such situations state policies under strict federal oversight can extend, or possibly supersede, federal mandates. In other states laws are in place that prevent the toughening of federal standards. However, in spite of some states’ increased assertiveness in the area of environmental policy implementation and enforce- ment, there exists in the United States a general policy of shared authority and coopera- tive arrangements between federal and state governments, often with state governments having to comply with federal regulations in the environmental policy sector. For exam- ple, in the early 2000s the federal government threw out the state of California’s attempt to implement emissions standards that were stricter than federally required.

Generally, local governments play a minor role in implementing current regulations. The exception would be in areas where the environmental movement is visibly strong, such as the Western states (Laverty, 1990). In such areas local policy makers are often pres- sured into implementing stricter rules than required by the state or federal protection laws (Hays, 1991). For example, when the federal government eased air quality standards, the City of Los Angeles went ahead with its own, stricter implementation plan to regulate emissions from shipping. In response to growing state assertiveness in recent years, some authors predict that in the coming years it would be more correct to argue that states and localities act autonomously in the area of environmental protection (Hays, 1991).

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 276 11/21/12 12:56 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAxsTJd7VCA

Section 8.4 Policy Instruments That Aid Environmental Policy Making CHAPTER 8

8.4 Policy Instruments That Aid Environmental Policy Making

The way a problem is identified will affect not only how it progresses on the agenda, but also what type of policy is formulated to deal with the problem as identified. This then leads to consideration of what type of instruments will be used to achieve the goals of the policy that is eventually adopted. U.S. policy makers use various instru- ments in their pursuit of environmental management. Environmental policy in the United States primarily takes the form of direct regulations that set strict standards. Stiff penalties and noncompliance fees have been handed down to those who do not comply with stan- dards and regulations. Economic instruments and voluntary agreements are also com- monplace to control environmental degradation, though to a much lesser degree than direct regulations.

U.S. policy makers have increasingly addressed environmental problems through the use of economic incentives that stress market mechanisms—for example, environment-specific

subsidies, tradable discharge permits, or tax breaks for corporations that implement pollution controls (such as renewable electricity generation tax credits or electric vehicle tax credits provided by the federal government to businesses). There are limitations to the use of such incentives, however. First, the effec- tiveness of economic incentives depends on both con- sumers and polluters accepting shared responsibility and accurately informing each other about what they are doing. Second, it is difficult to administer and monitor such incentives. Third, it is not easy to assess whether goals and targets have been reached.

The government and industry have entered into voluntary agreements to reduce environmental degradation and pollution levels. These agree- ments are normally used in conjunction with other policy instruments. Government and industry may directly negotiate voluntary agreements, or industry may independently develop programs that demonstrate its concern with the environment in which it operates. When voluntary agreements are entered into, they are not legally binding. Gov- ernment and industry mutually agree to set goals,

targets, and target dates. The problem with such agreements is that they are difficult to monitor and enforce. Additionally, there are limitations because of the way sanctions are imposed for a noncompliance.

Like other industrialized nations dealing with the globalization of many environmental problems, the United States has used international environmental agreements as an environ- mental policy instrument. In the 1980s and 1990s the United States was a strong advocate of and participant in international environmental policy making. Indeed, the United States was in the forefront of industrialized nations promoting the development, implementation, and encouragement of global environmental agreements, particularly with respect to air qual- ity. For example, the United States is party to both regional and international agreements

Tetra Images/Superstock

Policy makers use economic incentives such as renewable energy tax credits to help address environmental problems.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 277 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Section 8.4 Policy Instruments That Aid Environmental Policy Making CHAPTER 8

to reduce air contaminant emission levels. One of the earliest of these agreements was the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. The United States also joined the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, also drafted in 1992. Agreements also exist between the United States and Mexico, such as the 1992 Integrated Border Environmental Plan and the 1996 Border XXI Program. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global warming is one of the more controversial international agreements that the United States has considered, which may account for George W. Bush’s position and the Senate’s lack of ratification. Table 8.2 shows some of the major environmental legislation in the United States over the past half century.

Table 8.2: Major environmental legislation in the United States Key legislative milestones in U.S. environmental policy:

1963 Clean Air Act

1965 Water Quality Act

1966 Endangered Species Conservation Act

1967 Air Quality Act

1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

1970 Clean Air Act Amendments

1972 Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act

1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments

1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act

1973 Endangered Species Act

1974 Safe Drinking Water Act

1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act

1976 Toxic Substances Control Act

1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

1977 Clean Air Act Amendments

1977 Clean Water Act Amendments

1978 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act

1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

1984 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments

1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

1992 Energy Policy Act

1992 Omnibus Water Act

1996 Food Quality Protection Act

1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments

1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

2002 Great Lakes Legacy Act

2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act

2005 Energy Policy Act

2007 Energy Independence and Security Act

2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 278 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Key Points to Remember CHAPTER 8

Summary

Public opinion polls indicate the importance of environmental issues in recent years. The polls regularly demonstrate the public’s concern over environmental degrada-tion and the need for government to be more responsive to environmental protec- tion (Rapp, 1990). Constant media exposure of urgent environmental problems intensifies these societal feelings. For most of the last 30 years, Americans believed environmental protection was more of a priority than even economic growth. This trend started to change as the economic recession deepened in 2009.

However, U.S. policy makers and the U.S. public are faced with a dilemma: Environmen- tal protection requires regulation, which means more government intervention and inter- ference in citizens’ daily lives. How the dilemma plays out determines how U.S. policy makers identify problems and eventually formulate and implement policies in the envi- ronmental policy arena. The tone set by President George W. Bush in the last years of his administration and by President Barack Obama appears to be one that will continue deal- ing with the environment through policy design that takes into account cost-effectiveness, voluntary action, and consensus building. Such policies will call for flexibility and more public–private partnerships. If one agrees that this will occur, then it seems possible— given the evolution of environmental policy over the last 30 to 40 years—that sustainable development principally will be responsible for creating objectives, targets, and strategies for environmental policy. There may be more tax incentives to phase out environment- damaging activities such as ozone deflecting substances, and business may be asked to publicly articulate its activities that harm the environment. In addition, there will be increased emphasis on reporting performance, as well as subsidization to various sectors such as agriculture to create incentives to comply with environmental consciousness.

Many formidable obstacles to stricter environmental regulation exist. First, it is likely that many Americans will continue to strongly oppose policies that increase their cost of liv- ing. Second, public opinion in the United States is currently weakly mobilized around the issue of global warming. Thus, there is limited support for stronger immediate action. Third, industry and consumer advocacy groups have fought adopting economic instru- ments to reduce environmental degradation. The opposition argues that the costs of such regulation are too high and the result would be damage to U.S. economic competitiveness. Given the current economic environment, such opposition will likely continue. Fourth, the lack of a strong formal environmental party in the United States reduces the likelihood that Congress will address environmental issues. On the other hand, although U.S. envi- ronmental policy making is fragmented due to political realities such as the two-party sys- tem, these same realities allow for flexibility and responsiveness to market considerations.

Key Points to Remember

• Because of the necessity of consensus building in the U.S. policy process, U.S. environmental policy making has been predominantly incremental and adaptive.

• Environmental policy development was pioneered through the setting of legal limits and threats to punish violators and later through voluntary and market- based approaches.

• As one of the most active nations in developing and complying with global envi- ronmental agreements, the United States has extensive experience in the environ- mental policy sector.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 279 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions CHAPTER 8

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Should environmental concerns be nonpolitical and above party politics and ideological concerns?

2. In your opinion, what should be the true goals of environmental policy? 3. Is it possible to define the environmental problem of the United States, or is it in

fact better to define the nation as facing a series of environmental problems? 4. If the United States were to implement a national energy policy, what should it

emphasize?

• Although U.S. policies are not always successful, compared to many other nations the United States has a strong record of commitment to developing envi- ronmental policy. This record is partly due to the creation of effective institutions responsible for implementing environmental policies.

• What allows one aspect of environmental regulation to be successful and another to fail is not apparent. However, future success is more likely to be achieved by policies based in both a sound socioeconomic and an environmental science context. The ramifications of such policies should be understood over time, as should interactions across geographical areas and the interests of the various stakeholders, from community to business.

• The ongoing struggle between environmental reform and the realities of conduct- ing business in the United States will continue to raise policy-making challenges such as identifying environmental problems that call for policy solutions.

• The costs of environmental protection and its role in government budget defi- cits will continue to emphasize the notion that government must be accountable through cost-effective measures.

Key Terms

environmental impact statement (EIS) A document created by the government that demonstrates that a government project does not significantly harm the environ- ment and provides procedures and mecha- nisms to correct damage already done.

environmental policy A governmental action taken to solve the problem of soci- ety’s relationship to its physical environ- ment, which includes elements of air, water, and soil.

environmental problem A problem that is the result of human and societal actions that are perceived as being undesirable and harmful to the physical environment and citizens’ physical well-being.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) A U.S. federal agency created in 1970 to coordinate and enforce all environ- mental laws.

Kyoto Protocol An international environ- mental treaty adopted in 1997 that obli- gates industrialized nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases in an effort to slow global warming.

sustainable development Development that encourages long-term production and consumption patterns that do not degrade the human or natural environment.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 280 11/21/12 12:56 PM

Applied Internet Exercises CHAPTER 8

Applied Internet Exercises: Environmental Policy 1. You’ve just been hired as a new speechwriter for the newly elected president. One of the first

tasks he assigns is a speech about climate change. He wants the speech to reflect his views about whether or not this is a problem that demands immediate action. Your initial tasks are as follows: a. Flip a coin and determine whether your president is Republican (heads) or Democrat (tails). b. Review two speeches given in the past by President Barack Obama and President George W.

Bush on climate change. These speeches can be found at the following sites: • Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/us/politics/23obama.text

.html?pagewanted=all • Bush: http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/president-bushs-speech-greenhouse-gas-

emissions-climate-change-april-2008/p16043 Do not use language from these speeches, since that could prove very embarrassing for the president.

c. Prepare a two-page briefing memo that accomplishes the following: i. Describes the problem ii. Provides key facts iii. Provides a summary of the different perspectives on this issue. Specifically,

• Government agencies, like the EPA, NASA • Interest groups (pro-environment, pro-business) • The media

The following are some helpful links that will help guide your research. Please be sure to conduct additional research as well.

• EPA Resource: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/ • Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/Exec_Summary_

CorpStrategies.pdf • NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/ • Natural Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/

2. Using previous speeches as a guide, prepare a draft speech that addresses the issue of climate change from the perspective of your president (not your personal perspective). Be sure to use your research and facts within your speech to bolster the president’s explanation of the climate change problem—and what should be done to address it. Your draft speech should include the following components:

a. A brief description of the issue’s importance to the nation b. A brief description of the problem, with key facts to reinforce the problem c. The impact this problem will have on the nation and why it must (or must not) be addressed d. Proposed policy actions (if any)

The speech should be no more than three single-spaced pages. Be sure to have your speech reviewed by your colleagues for logic and flow, as this president is a stickler for detail and does not look kindly on poorly laid-out arguments or poorly written speeches.

the80472_08_c08_259-282.indd 281 11/21/12 12:56 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/us/politics/23obama.text.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/president-bushs-speech-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change-april-2008/p16043

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/Exec_Summary_CorpStrategies.pdf

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/