As a result of the environmental movement in the United States,
it continued to mature in the 1970s during which several environmental
laws were passed, regulating air and water pollution and forming the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Partially due to the high costs associated with these
regulations, there has been a backlash from business and politically conservative
interests, limiting increases to environmental regulatory budgets and
slowing efforts to protect the environment. Since the 1970s, despite
frequent legislative gridlock, there have been significant achievements
in environmental regulation, including increases in air and water
quality and, to a lesser degree, control of hazardous waste. Due to increasing scientific consensus on global warming and political pressure from environmental groups, modifications to the United States energy policy and limits on greenhouse gas have been suggested.
As established under NEPA, the US was the first nation in the world to introduce the concept of preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the alternatives and impacts of proposed federal actions. The EIS is designed to forge federal policies, programs, projects, and plans. A large percentage of nations around the world have adopted provisions that emulate the American EIS process.
As established under NEPA, the US was the first nation in the world to introduce the concept of preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the alternatives and impacts of proposed federal actions. The EIS is designed to forge federal policies, programs, projects, and plans. A large percentage of nations around the world have adopted provisions that emulate the American EIS process.
Policy tools
The
two major policy tools for protecting the environment are rules and
inducements. The United States has chosen to use rules, primarily
through regulation. Such regulations can come in the form of design
standards and performance standards.
Performance standards specify emission levels and let those covered by
the rules decide how those levels will be met. Design standards specify
exactly how performance standards will be met.
Alternatively, the government can use inducements, or "market
reform". Inducements are rewards and punishments used to influence
people or groups. The two major types of market reforms are charge
systems, such as emissions taxes, and "tradable permit systems".
One type of tradable permit system is an "auction of pollution rights"
in which the amount of allowed pollution is set and divided into units,
which are then auctioned, giving environmental organizations the
opportunity to buy the units to create a cleaner environment than
originally planned. Such a plan was implemented for SO2 emissions in the 1990 Acid Rain Program and has been undertaken for greenhouse gases on a regional scale as a way to mitigate global warming.
Power delegation and policy jurisdiction
Executive branch
Governmental authority on environmental issues in the United States
is highly fragmented. While the EPA is the most comprehensive
environmental agency, its authority on these matters is not absolute.
Virtually all of the executive branch's departments
have some area of environmental authority. This contributes somewhat to
the cost and questionable efficacy of the United States' environmental
regulation.
As chief execute, the President plays an important role in
environmental policy. President's such as Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin
Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon have acted as "bully pulpit" to gain
support for environmental legislation. Their role as chief diplomat
enables them to enact international agreements with environmental
stipulations. Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol, Obama was a
leader in negotiating the Paris agreement and the Bush administration
rejected the Kyoto protocol.
Presidents can use their soft power to draw attention to environmental
issues and set broad administrative goals. They can veto legislation
and, through executive orders, regulate administrative behavior.
| Federal Agency | Environmental Responsibilities |
| White House Office | Overall policy, Agency coordination |
| Office of Management and Budget | Budget, Agency coordination and management |
| Council on Environmental Quality | Environmental policy, Agency coordination, Environmental impact statements |
| Department of Health and Human Services | Health |
| Environmental Protection Agency | Air and water pollution, Solid waste, Radiation, Pesticides, Noise, Toxic substances |
| Department of Justice | Environmental litigation |
| Department of the Interior | Public lands, Energy, Minerals, National parks |
| Department of Agriculture | Forestry, Soil, Conservation |
| Department of Defense | Civil works construction, Dredge and fill permits, Pollution control from defense facilities |
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission | License and regulate nuclear power |
| Department of State | International environment |
| Department of Commerce | Oceanic and atmospheric monitoring and research |
| Department of Labor | Occupational health |
| Department of Housing and Urban Development | Housing, Urban parks, Urban planning |
| Department of Transportation | Mass transit, Roads, Aircraft noise, Oil pollution |
| Department of Energy | Energy policy coordination, Petroleum allocation research and development |
| Tennessee Valley Authority | Electric power generation |
| Federal Emergency Management Agency | Cleaning up the natural disasters caused by climate change |
| Department of Homeland Security|United States Coast Guard | Maritime and environmental stewardship, National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) |
Legislative branch
Fragmentation
within the executive branch is duplicated in Congress and within the
states. In other words, congress shares authority with the president
for environmental federal policy. Congress can have a major impact on
policy through legislative and oversight hearings. They also have the
ability to influence policy by publishing studies and reports, making
speeches and introducing legislation. The EPA is the concern of almost
two-thirds of the House of Representatives' standing committees and subcommittees and a similar percentage in the Senate.
Some seventy committees and subcommittees control water quality policy,
for example. Such fragmentation creates both opportunities and
problems. While such a variety of committees provide enormous access for
environmentalist and industry groups to lobby, the division of tasks
means that no one committee or agency looks at environmental problems as
a whole. Building policy consensus in Congress is rarely easy because
of the diversity of interests and of members whose concerns need to be
met.
| Senate | |
| Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry | Pesticides |
| Committee on Appropriations | Appropriations |
| Committee on the Budget | Budget |
| Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation | Oceans, Research and Development, Radiation, Toxics |
| Committee on Energy and Natural Resources | Synthetic fuels, Conservation oversight, Energy budget, Mines, Oil shale, Outer continental shelf, Strip mining |
| Committee on Environment and Public Works | Air, Drinking water, Noise, Nuclear energy, Ocean dumping, Outer continental shelf, Research and development, Solid waste, Toxics, Water |
| Committee on Foreign Relations | International environment |
| Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs | Interagency subject area |
| Committee on Labor and Human Resources | Public health |
| Committee on Small Business | Impact of environmental regulations on small business |
| House | |
| Committee on Agriculture | Pesticides |
| Committee on Appropriations | Appropriations |
| Committee on the Budget | Budget |
| Committee on Oversight and Government Reform | Interagency subject area |
| Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs | Synthetic fuels, Conservation oversight, Energy budget, Mines, Oil shale, Outer continental shelf, Radiation (Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight), Strip mining |
| Committee on Energy and Commerce | Air, Drinking water, Noise, Radiation, Solid waste, Toxics |
| Committee on Natural Resources | Ocean dumping |
| Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure | Noise, Water pollution, Water resources |
| Committee on Science and Technology | Research and Development |
| Committee on Small Business | Impact of environmental regulations on small business |
History
There are many more environmental laws in the United States, both at the federal and state levels. The common law of property and takings also play an important role in environmental issues. In addition, the law of standing, relating to who has a right to bring a lawsuit, is an important issue in environmental law in the United States.
Origins of the environmental movement
The history of environmental law in the United States can be traced back to early roots in common law doctrines, for example, the law of nuisance and the public trust doctrine. The first statutory environmental law was the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,
which has been largely superseded by the Clean Water Act. However, most
current major environmental statutes, such as the federal statutes
listed above, were passed during the modern environmental movement
spanning the late 1960s through the early 1980s. Prior to the passage of
these statutes, most federal environmental laws were not nearly as
comprehensive.
The precursor of the modern environmental movement in the United States was the early 20th century conservation movement, associated with President Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot. During this period, the U.S. Forest Service was formed and public concern for consumer protection began, epitomized by the publication of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. The modern environmental movement was inspired in part by the publication of Rachel Carson's controversial 1962 book Silent Spring,
which pointed out the perils of pesticide use and rallied concern for
the environment in general. Carson argued that nature deserved human
protection and referred to pesticides as the atomic bomb for insects.
She stated that these pesticides would cycle through the environment
hurting humans and nature and thought they should be used wisely. Carson
played a big role in environment activism that was later to come. Along with critiques of the misuse of technology from figures such as William Ophuls, Barry Commoner and Garrett Hardin,
the ineffectiveness and criticism of the 1960s-era Clean Air and Clean
Water acts gave a burgeoning momentum to the environmental movement.
In addition to growing public support, structural changes such as
Congressional reform and new access to the courts gave
environmentalists new power to enact change. The movement that formed
held three key values: ecology, health, and sustainability.
These values—that we depend and are interconnected with the
environment, that insults to the environment can affect our health, and
that we should limit our dependence on non-renewable resources—along
with a uniquely sympathetic president and Congress, led to great
environmental policy change in the 1970s. In 1972 the Club of Rome
report came out which was a scholarly effort to gauge the severity of
the environmental problem. A team of researchers concluded with one of
the most alarming appraisals of the time and set off widespread debates
over the findings, its methods, and policy implications. The model was
built mainly to investigate major trends of global concerns such as
accelerating industrialization, rapid population growth, widespread
malnutrition, depletion of nonrenewable resources and a deteriorating
environment. They concluded that if the present growth trends in world
population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource
depletion remains unchanged than the limits to growth on this planet
will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.
One lawsuit that has been widely recognized as one of the earliest environmental cases is Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, decided in 1965 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, prior to passage of the major federal environmental statutes. The case helped halt the construction of a power plant on Storm King Mountain
in New York State. The case has been described as giving birth to
environmental litigation and helping create the legal doctrine of standing to bring environmental claims. The Scenic Hudson case also is said to have helped inspire the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the creation of such environmental advocacy groups as the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Nixon Administration and beginning of the Environmental Decade (1970–1980)
On January 1, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), beginning the 1970s as the environmental decade. NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality which oversaw the environmental impact of federal actions. Later in the year, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which consolidated environmental programs from other agencies
into a single entity. The legislation during this period concerned
primarily first-generation pollutants in the air, surface water,
groundwater, and solid waste disposal. Air pollutants such as particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone were put under regulation, and issues such as acid rain, visibility, and global warming were also concerns. In surface water, the pollutants of concern were conventional pollutants (bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids),
dissolved solids, nutrients, and toxic substances such as metals and
pesticides. For groundwater, the pollutants included biological
contaminants, inorganic and organic substances, and radionuclides.
Finally, solid waste contaminants from agriculture, industry, mining,
municipalities, and other sectors were put under control.
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 moved environmental concerns in
a new direction.
The new CAA standards that were to be promulgated were
unattainable with existing technology—they were technology-forcing. The
standards that the EPA put into place called mainly for state
implementation. Each state prepared state implementation plans (SIPs),
requiring EPA approval. The 1970 CAA also enacted deadlines and
penalties for automobile emission standards in new cars, resulting in
the development and adoption of catalytic converters and greatly reducing automobile pollution.
For wastewater, each discharging facility was required to obtain a permit, and EPA began to issue new federal standards ("effluent guidelines") that required industries to use the "best available technology" for treating their wastes. Congress also established a massive public works program to assist in the construction of sewage treatment plants for municipalities, and most plants were required to meet secondary treatment standards.
The Reagan Administration (1981–1989)
Ronald Reagan
entered office skeptical of environmental protection laws and
campaigned against harsh government regulation with the environmental
arena in mind. As Reagan entered office, he was given two transition
reports – one called "Mandate for Leadership" from the Heritage Foundation and one called "Avoiding a GOP Economic Dunkirk" from conservative Congressman David Stockman(R-MI)
– that called for drastic changes in environmental regulation,
primarily through administrative changes. In pursuit of this strategy,
Reagan gradually reduced the EPA's budget by 30% through the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, cut the number of EPA employees, and
appointed people at key agency positions who would enthusiastically
follow the administration line. Appointees such as Anne Burford at the EPA and James G. Watt
at the Department of the Interior were overtly hostile to environmental
protection. Through his appointments, Reagan changed the operations of
environmental protection from stiff regulation to "cooperative
regulation."
Under this administrative strategy of regulatory relief,
environmental laws were written and interpreted more favorably for
industry interests. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) was also given new powers to write regulations. During the first
Reagan administration, the OMB was given the power to require a
favorable cost-benefit analysis of any regulation before it could be
implemented. This was used to delay new regulations, and changes that
resulted in regulatory relief often had this requirement waived. At the
beginning of the second Reagan administration, the OMB was given more
power- all regulatory agencies were required to submit proposals each
year for all major environmental regulation- allowing it to reduce
regulatory efforts before such proposed regulations became public.
Within few months from entering the White House, Reagan removed
the solar panels that his predecessor Carter had installed on the roof
of the White House’s West Wing. "Reagan's political philosophy viewed
the free market as the best arbiter of what was good for the country.
Corporate self-interest, he felt, would steer the country in the right
direction," the author Natalie Goldstein wrote in "Global Warming.". In October 2010, president Obama planned to reintroduce the solar panels on the White House roofs, after 31 years.
The George H. W. Bush Administration (1989–1993)
Environmental policy during the first Bush administration contained a mixture of innovation and restriction. George H. W. Bush appointed the first environmentalist, William Reilly,
to head the EPA, along with others with strong environmental
inclinations. Before accepting the appointment, Reilly secured the
President’s agreement to support his pro-environment agenda and his
access to the White House, but competing interests ensured conflicts.
In other departments with environmental responsibilities and in White
House offices, however, he appointed people who were more
development-oriented, such as John H. Sununu, Richard Darman, and Dan Quayle.
While considerable regulation was initially passed, during his last two
years in office he severely restricted regulation, and in 1992, a total
freeze was put on new regulations.
On July 21, 1989, Bush sent a bill to Congress proposing amendments to the Clean Air Act.
The core of the amendments were meant to reduce acid rain by limiting
sulfur dioxide emissions from coal burning plants, to bring eighty urban
areas up to current air quality standards and to lower emissions from
over two- hundred airborne toxic chemicals. Bush supported a cap-and-trade system to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, a strategy which allowed utilities flexibility in meeting the laws goal.
The final version of the bill included new regulatory programs for
control of acid rain and for the issuance of stationary source operating
permits, and expansion of the regulatory program for toxic air
emissions. Congress passed the bill with large majorities in both houses, and Bush signed the bill on November 15, 1990.
The private-sector Council on Competitiveness (distinct from the federal Competitiveness Policy Council)
was formed in 1989 to play the same role as the previous Task Force on
Regulatory Relief that Bush had served on in the Reagan administration,
which was to negotiate on behalf of the President for regulatory relief
with the heads of federal agencies. This executive branch agency negotiated with EPA Administrator Reilly, leading to industry-favorable rulings such as the redefinition of wetlands
and the allowance of untreated toxic chemicals in local landfills (this
was later reversed). While previous regulatory-relief efforts, such as
Reagan's use of OMB, were subject to Congressional oversight,
the Council on Competitiveness was independent and wasn't required to
keep records of its proceedings. The Council on Competitiveness received
its authority from a White House memoranda and its members included
Vice President Dan Quayle, Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, Commerce
Secretary Robert Mosbacher, and White House Chief of Staff John Sununu.
In 1992, Bush opposed international efforts at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil by refusing to sign the biodiversity treaty and lobbying to remove all binding targets from the proposal on limiting global carbon dioxide emissions.
The Clinton Administration (1993–2001)
The Clinton Administration promised a change in the direction of environmental policy. Al Gore, the vice president, and appointees such as Carol Browner in EPA and Bruce Babbitt
were all encouraging from an environmental standpoint. Clinton
eliminated the Council on Competitiveness, returning regulatory
authority to agency heads, and Clinton and Gore argued that
environmental protection and economic growth were not incompatible.
Clinton's record as the governor of Arkansas
however, suggested that Clinton would be willing to make compromises.
Through a number of middle-of-the-road positions, on issues such as
grazing fees in the West and clean-up of the Everglades, and through his support of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1994, Clinton dissatisfied some environmentalists. Specifically, the Green Party and its candidate Ralph Nader were outspoken in their criticism of Clinton's environmental record.
Despite criticism from environmental purists, the Clinton
administration had several notable environmental accomplishments.
Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development,
signed the Kyoto Protocol (although he did not submit the treaty to the Senate), and stood firm against Republican
attempts after the 1994 elections to roll back environmental laws and
regulations through the appropriations process. During the Clinton
administration, the EPA's budget was increased, and much of the
country's natural resources were put under greater protection, such as
the restoration of the Everglades and the increase in size of the Everglades National Park. Important U.S. Supreme Court cases from this period included United States v. Weitzenhoff, et al.
The George W. Bush Administration (2001–2009)
The President’s Initiative
In 2002 President George W. Bush announced an environment legislative initiative titled Clear Skies.
The Clear Skies proposal's stated goals were to reduce three
pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and mercury. Clear Skies
was to use a market based system
by allowing energy companies to buy and trade pollution credits. The
president argued that since Clear Skies would use a market based system,
millions of tons of pollution would be eliminated when compared to the Clean Air Act. However, the president’s critics argued that the Clear Skies policy would weaken provisions in the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act was enacted by the United States Congress and signed by President Richard Nixon
in 1970. The main provisions of the Clean Air Act were to control air
pollution on a national level and an initiative program called New Source Review
(NSR). The NSR initiative would require power plants to upgrade to
anti-pollution technologies before they can expand existing facilities
and add new technologies.
The Clear Skies initiative proposed by the Bush administration main
intention was to remove the New Source Review provision and deregulate
some of the standards that the Clean Air Act required energy facilities
to meet.
The proposed removal of the NSR prompted nine northeastern states to
file suit in federal court to prevent the new ruling. Advocates against
Clear Skies viewed the removal of NSR as a weakening of existing laws
and an “assault on the Clean Air Act”. Environmental advocates and their
political allies would eventually prevail in defeating the Clear Skies
initiative.
Global environmental policy
President Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, citing fears of negative consequences for the U.S. economy. Bush also cited that developing countries like India and China were exempt from Kyoto's requirements as a reason for his opposition.
When President Bush withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, many of his
critics alleged that he made his decision on ideology rather than on
science. Suzanne Goldenberg from the Guardian wrote the Bush years are
seen “as concerted assault, from the administration's undermining of the
science”. Bush’s own Environmental Protection Agency head Christine Todd Whitman
said the decision to walk away from Kyoto was "the equivalent to
'flipping the bird,' frankly, to the rest of the world". Also, Eileen
Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
said the idea of a head of state putting the science question on the
table was horrifying. Bush’s critics included Jonathon Dorm, Earth Policy Institute and NASA scientist James Hansen.
Dorm contended that the administration made a “covert attempt to
silence the science” while Hansen alleged the administration was “trying
to block data showing an acceleration in global warming”.
President Bush’s refusal to seek ratification from the Senate was widely criticized by his opponents in the United States Congress
and in the media. Some of President Bush’s harshest critics claim his
decision taken on the Kyoto Protocol was due to his close relationship
with big oil companies. Greenpeace
obtained briefing papers that revealed the administration thanked Exxon
for their “active involvement” on climate change. The Guardian reported
documents revealed Under-secretary Paula Dobriansky “sound out Exxon executives and other anti-Kyoto business groups on potential alternatives to Kyoto”. However, in 2003, Exxon head of public affairs Nick Thomas denied taking any position on Kyoto.
Campaign promise on the environment
In
2001, President Bush broke a campaign environment promise by reversing a
promise he had made during his presidential campaign to regulate carbon
dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants. Governor Bush pledged
power plants would have to meet clean-air standards while promising to
enact tougher policies to protect the environment.
The broken campaign promise was seen as a betrayal by environmental
groups. The president’s reversal on regulating carbon dioxide emissions
was one of a series of controversial stands on environmental issues. For
example, the Bush administration ruled that factory farms can claim they do not discharge animal waste to avoid oversight from the Clean Air Act.
Environmental regulation
The
actions taken during the Bush administration were seen by
environmentalists as ideological rather than scientifically based. The
criticism stemmed from the president’s shifting views while he was a
candidate for president and executive action taken as president. The
Bush presidency was viewed as being weak on the environment due to
ideology and close ties with big oil. However, Eli Lehrer from the Competitive Enterprise Institute contended that the Bush administration issued more regulations than any other administration in U.S. history.
Reducing air pollution
During
President Bush’s eight years in office he utilized his executive powers
for a number of issues. In an effort to bypass NSR requirements, the
president took executive action to “curb plant-by-plant permit reviews”.
He also ordered the EPA to develop a regional regulation using a
market-based system. The EPA came-up with the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR). CAIR was aimed at reducing 70 percent of pollution from coal
burning plants. However, CAIR would later be struck down by U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2008. Additionally,
The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) was also introduced. CAMR was created
for the purpose of establishing a permanent national cap on mercury
emissions.
Bush environmental legacy
In
the later years of the Bush administration, the president engaged in a
series of environmental proposals. He called on countries with the
largest greenhouse gases to establish a global goal to control emissions and in 2008 initiated the U.S to join the United Nations
to negotiate a post-2012 global climate plan after Kyoto expires. The
plan calls for inclusion of both developed and developing nations to
address greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, during the later years,
President Bush’s position on climate changed. The president had taken
steps in the later years of his presidency to address environmental
criticism of his broken campaign promises, and argued that the Kyoto
protocol was a plan to cripple the US economy. This stern position
caused him serious credibility challenges on environmental issues both
nationally and globally.
The Obama Administration (2009–2017)
Environmental issues were prominent in the 2008 presidential election, and Barack Obama obtained a clear lead above his rival, John McCain, on the environment, winning the backing of 'all mainstream environmental groups' and public confidence on the issue. Upon election, appointments such as that of the Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Chu were seen as a confirmation that his presidency was serious about environmental issues.
One example of a new initiative by the Obama Administration is the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, which preserves and highlights numerous natural features, and also raises public awareness.
The Trump Administration (2017–present)
The environmental policy of the Trump administration represents a shift from the policy priorities and goals of his predecessor, Barack Obama. While Obama's environmental agenda prioritized the reduction of carbon emissions through the use of clean renewable energy, the Trump administration has sought to increase fossil fuel use and scrap environmental regulations, which he has often referred to as an impediment to business. Trump has announced plans to pull the United States out of the 191 nation Paris agreement. At a presidential debate in March 2016, Trump said he would eliminate the EPA as a part of his plan to balance the budget.
Trump's "America First Energy Plan", focuses on increasing the
use of fossil fuels without mentioning renewable energy. It would repeal
many Obama policies including the Climate Action Plan and the Clean Water Rule,
and limit the EPA's mission to protecting air and water quality. Within
days of taking office he signed executive orders to approve two
controversial oil pipelines and to require federal review of the Clean
Water Rule and the Clean Power Plan.
He also invited American manufacturers to suggest which regulations
should be eliminated; industry leaders submitted 168 comments, of which
nearly half targeted Environmental Protection Agency rules.
Trump's appointments to key agencies dealing in energy and environmental policy reflected his commitment to deregulation, particularly of the fossil fuel industry. Several of his cabinet picks, such as Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy and Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, were people with a history of opposition to the agency they were named to head. The Director of the Climate and Development Lab and Brown University environmental studies
professor J. Timmons Roberts said in 2018, "It's been a hard year....
Literally every country in the world is moving ahead [on reducing carbon
emissions] without us."
Issues
Since the
environmental movement of the 1970s, the nature of environmental issues
has changed. While the initial emphasis was on conventional air and
water pollutants, which were the most obvious and easily measurable
problems, newer issues are long-term problems that are not easily
discernible and can be surrounded by controversy.
Acid deposition
Acid deposition, in the form of acid rain and dry deposition, is the result of sulfur and nitrogen dioxide
being emitted into the air, traveling and landing in a different place,
and changing the acidity of the water or land on which the chemicals
fall. Acid deposition in the Northeast United States from the burning of
coal and in the West United States from utilities and motor vehicles
caused a number of problems, and was partially exacerbated by the Clean Air Act, which forced coal power plants to use taller smoke stacks, resulting in farther transmission of sulfur dioxide in the air.
During the Carter
administration, the United States undertook a risk-averse policy,
acting through the EPA and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to
research and control the pollutants suspected to cause acid deposition
even in the face of scientific uncertainty. The Reagan administration
was more risk tolerant. It argued that, given the scientific
uncertainties about harm and exposure levels, new expenditures should
not be undertaken that would curtail energy security
and economic growth. During George H. W. Bush's presidential campaign,
he called for new Clean Air Act legislation to curtail sulfur- and
nitrogen-dioxide emissions. In 1990, after he was elected, amendments to
the Clean Air Act were finally passed that cut emissions by over 12
million tons per year, set up a market-like system of emissions trading,
and set a cap on emissions for the year 2000. These goals were achieved
to some degree by the installation of industrial scrubbers.
While the initial costs in cutting emissions levels were expected
to be over $4.6 billion for utilities and a 40% rise in electricity
costs, the impact ended up being only about $1 billion and a 2–4% rise
in electricity costs. Part of the reason for the relatively low costs is
the availability of low-sulfur coal.
Ozone depletion
Ozone depletion is the reduced concentration of ozone in the Earth's stratosphere (called the ozone layer), where it serves to block much of the ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), which were used beginning in the 1930s in a number of important
areas, were determined in 1974 to be responsible for much of the
depletion of the ozone layer. Four years later, the EPA and FDA
banned CFCs in aerosol cans. As research in the 1980s indicated that
the problem was worse than before, and revealed a controversial massive
hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, three international agreements were made to reduce the ozone-damaging substances- the Vienna Convention, the 1987 Montreal Protocol,
and a third agreement in 1990 in London. In the United States, the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments phased out production of CFCs and required
recycling of CFC products.
Although the phase-out of CFCs took almost two decades, the
policy is generally seen as a success. While a crisis seems to be
averted, due to the longevity of CFC particles in the atmosphere, the
ozone layer is only expected to start showing sign of recovery by 2024.
Hazardous wastes
Hazardous waste regulations began in the United States in 1976 with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to govern hazardous waste from its initial generation to final disposition (cradle-to-grave regulation) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to anticipate possible hazards from chemicals. Following the events at Love Canal, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA, or Superfund) was enacted in 1980 to assist in the cleanup of
abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites. In the mid-1980s, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (1984) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986) were passed.
The aim of hazardous waste regulation is to prevent harm from
occurring due to hazardous waste and to pass the burdens of cleanup of
hazardous waste on to the original producers of the waste. Some of the
problems of hazardous waste regulation are that the negative effects of
hazardous waste can be difficult to detect and controversial and that,
due mainly to the large amount of hazardous waste that is generated (214
million tons in 1995), regulation can be difficult and costly.
Implementation has been difficult, with years sometimes passing
between legislation passage and initial regulations. Superfund was
passed in December 1980, just before Reagan took office. The first
administrator of Superfund was Rita Lavelle
who had worked for a major hazardous waste generator. The result was
that her implementation of Superfund was designed mainly to delay
regulation, and the subsequent controversy resulted in the resignation
of Lavelle, EPA administrator Anne Burford,
and several other top EPA personnel. In 1986, Congress passed the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, increasing funding to $9
billion and providing for studies and new technologies. By 1995,
Superfund cleanup still took an average of twelve years per site, and
costs for each site can range in the billions of dollars. Superfund,
while showing improvements, has been probably the most criticized of
environmental programs based on costs of remediation, implementation problems, and the questionable seriousness of the problems it addresses.
Risk control policy
Underlying the policy decisions made by the United States is the concept of risk control, consisting of two parts: risk assessment and risk management.
The science behind risk assessment varies greatly in uncertainty and
tends to be the focus of political controversy. For example, animal testing is often used to determine the toxicity
of various substances for humans. But assumptions made about expected
dosage and exposure to chemicals are often disputed, and the dosage
given to animals is typically much larger than what humans normally
consume. While industry groups tend to take a risk-tolerant position,
environmentalists take a risk-averse position, following the precautionary principle.
Another issue is the effect that chemicals can have relative to lifestyle choices. Cancer, for example, typically surface decades after first exposure to a carcinogen,
and lifestyle choices are frequently more important in causing cancer
than exposure to chemicals. While the governmental role in mitigating
lifestyle-choice risks can be very controversial, chemical exposure through lifestyle choices can also occur involuntarily if the public is not properly educated (see Endocrine disruptors).
Finally, the way that threats are presented to the public plays a large role in how those threats are addressed. The threat of nuclear power and the environmental effects of pesticides
are overstated, some have claimed, while many high-priority threats go
unpublicized. In order to combat this discrepancy, the EPA published a Relative Risk
Report in 1987, and a follow-up report published by the Relative Risk
Reduction Strategies Committee in 1990 suggested that the EPA should
adopt a more pro-active posture, educating the public and assigning
budgetary priorities for objectively assessed high-risk threats.
Regulation of these policies are also very difficult to have
implemented. The EPA is faced with many challenges when it comes to
emplacing these standards. For a more conservative government less EPA
action is allowed to be carried out and even more so now with the
potential disbandment of the EPA (2018). The battles over environmental
science, the EPA, and regulatory decision making in 2017, as well as
over the past two decades, say much about the way Congress deals with
environmental, energy, and natural resources issues today, and the many
obstacles it will face in trying to chart new policy directions of the
twenty-first century. The environmental gridlock that often slows the
democratic process makes it very difficult for the EPA to pass the risk
control policy that they hope to implement.
Impact
Since the
major environmental legislation of the 1970s was enacted, great
progress has been made in some areas, but the environmental protection
has come at a high price. Between 1970 and 1996, air pollutants dropped
32% while the population grew by 29%. Other pollutants have been more
difficult to track, especially water pollutants. While air and water
standards have been slowly improving, in 1996 70 million people still
lived in counties that didn't meet EPA ozone standards. 36% of rivers
and 39% of lakes didn't meet minimum standards for all uses (swimming,
fishing, drinking, supporting aquatic life). In the same period, the
size of the National Park Service grew from 26,000,000 acres (110,000 km2) to 83,000,000 acres (340,000 km2), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expanded by over three times to manage over 92,000,000 acres (370,000 km2). In 1995, 41% of the 960 endangered species were stable or improving.
Critics of environmental legislation argue that the gains made in
environmental protection come at too great a cost. 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, but calculating the cost is challenging both
conceptually (deciding what costs are included) and practically (with
data from a broad range of sources).
In 1994, almost $122 billion was spent on pollution abatement and
control. $35 billion of that has been in direct government spending, $65
billion was spent by business, and $22 billion was spent by
individuals.
