Environmental Policy

Why Controversial??• Creates winners and losers– Interest groups or average citizens– Losers must pay the costs but receive no benefit

• Scientific uncertainty• Takes the form of entrepreneurial politics– Emotional appeals lead to distorted priorities

• Decisions affect federal and international relations– States can pass own laws– US rarely signs international environ. treaties

The American Context: Unique Features

• US more adversarial– Uniform laws require many rules and regulators– Antagonistic interests: govt vs. business

• Depends heavily on the states– Standards/practices left to states (some fed control)– Local politics rules– Federalism reinforces adversarial culture

Entrepreneurial Politics• Santa Barbara oil spill gave rise to environmental

movement– EPA, Earth Day, lots of legislation

• Public opinion rallied • Political suicide to “oppose environmentalism”– But are all issues equally deserving??

• Global Warming- rise in temp from trapped gases will cause floods, storms, disease etc– Activists: agree w/predicted results, want to act now (more

influence)– Skeptics: want to learn more before acting

(more people)

Endangered Species Act 1973

• Prohibits buying/selling plants or animals on the “endangered” list (over 600)

• Firms and agencies wishing to build in areas with endangered species must comply with federal regulations

• Complaints outweigh public support

Majoritarian PoliticsClean Air Act 1970- tough restrictions on pollutants from

automobiles• Started as entrepreneurial- public w/ media support

demanded changes• Small provision of law said states would have to restrict use

of cars if pollution problem persisted– Huge popular opposition, efforts failed (Congress and EPA backed

down)• Consumers, auto industry, unions objected• Loss of horsepower, competitiveness, jobs

• Clean Air Act revived in 1990 w/tougher restrictions, but a 20 year deadline

• Most current laws target particular industries

Majoritarian Politics• When people believe costs are low:– National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA)• Required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any

project “significantly affecting human environment”• Overwhelming support, but caused lots of lawsuits and

delays

• When people believe costs are high:– Increase in gas tax– Most would pay, most would benefit, but benefits not

obvious• More accepted if benefits concrete, like highways, bridges,

etc

Interest Group PoliticsAcid Rain• 2 well-organized interests hoping to reap the

benefits and/or avoid the costs– East vs. Midwest, US vs. Canada

• Solutions/Compromises– Burn low-sulfur coal (effective, but costly and not

local)– Install smokestack scrubbers (costly, complex, caused

sludge waste, didn’t always work, but would burn high-sulfur coal)

Interest Group Politics: Acid Rain• Congress voted for scrubbers on all new plants• Political Advantages:– Protected jobs– Preferred by environmentalists (definitive solution),

scrubber manufacturers (duh!), and eastern governors (their plants more competitive)

• Practical Disadvantages:– Imposed scrubbers on plants next to low-sulfur mines– Scrubbers didn’t work well– Failed to address problem of existing plants

Interest Group Politics: Acid Rain• Interest group politics permeates environmental

policy making– Often lack moral fervor of entrepreneurial politics– Many more groups are organizing- able to block

proposals– Industry plays important role in supporting laws that

favor them (and blocking laws that don’t)• Are much better organized today than the 70’s

• But momentum sticks with policy entrepreneurs– The environment is good politics

Client PoliticsAgricultural Pesticides: issue is control of use

and runoff, farmers have been able to resist much entrepreneurial pressure (except DDT ban)

• 1962 Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring set off public outcry

• 1972 Congress directed EPA to evaluate claims• Program hasn’t succeeded:– Too many pesticides to evaluate (over 50,000)- costs

time and money– Benefits of pesticides may outweigh harm

Client Politics: Pesticides• Political Complications– Farmers are well-represented in Congress– Subsidies encourage over-production • =over use of pesticides

– Damage hard to see and dramatize• EPA budget kept small• Few pesticides banned- those that were had a

very public problem (DDT killing birds)• Client politics wins!

Environmental Uncertainties• What is the problem? –often hard to see– Support goes to most current/popular problem,

Congress and public, not the EPA, often decide• What goals do we want to achieve?– Must be realistic– Weigh costs and benefits

• How do we achieve the goals?– Command-and-control strategy: set rules, enforce

them in court– But often don’t know how to get the most

environmental gain for the least cost

Environmental Policy• Incentives replace command-and-control rules– Offsets: if you increase pollution in one way you must

decrease it in another– Bubble Standard: total amount of air pollution allowed

from a given factory. Company can decide how to meet it

– Pollution allowances (or banks): if company comes in under the standard they can bank the leftover

• Results– Less air pollution, probably less water pollution (harder

to judge)– Hazardous waste (Superfund sites) still a problem