The US Environmental Protection Agency - Research Paper Example

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: An Agency for the Environment, the People, and the Economy Introduction The resolutions reached by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under its legislative power are rarely uncomplicated resolutions of actual conflicts; rather, they are complicated industrial problems and questionable value judgments that can have an effect on numerous operations, individuals, and organizations. Hence, one may expect to stumble upon established guidelines within EPA for building and applying internal capabilities and for addressing issues of entities outside EPA. Besides creating internal management, the decision-making processes of EPA should allow outside interests to affect the judgments. The decisions of the Agency unavoidably comprise value judgments, and the resolutions should be reached within a web of political restrictions. The EPA’s administrator is the legal authority on any specific resolution; nevertheless, the job is appointed by the President, and the administrator performs his/her tasks under the President’s authority (Glicksman 53). Moreover, regulatory agencies are largely controlled and affected by the manpower and budgetary proposals of the Office of Management and Budget, by the outcome of Congressional inspection, and by the Congress’s supervision (Glicksman 61). EPA should essentially moderate its decisions and activities with a certain level of political sense. In fact, political circumstances may prevent regulatory decisions that seem to be constitutional, and even important, under related statute. Furthermore, since regulatory activities carried out by EPA in Washington should be overseen either by the EPA regional departments that are supervised by independent local and state governments or by fairly autonomous appointees, EPA’s decisions should be appropriate to an even wider array of political interests and should predict difficulties in implementation (Rom 82). This research paper argues that the EPA should have the authority to change policy and implement those policies concerning the health of the nation’s population without causing a political conflict in Washington over the economic impact of government regulations. In essence, this paper argues that EPA should be highly involved in the decision-making process, but it should not be in conflict with the economy and the government. Protecting the Environment and the Economy The regulation of activities that have an effect on the environment has been current event in the United States, but it is a perfect case of the economic involvement of the government for a social reason. Since the 1960s, Americans became more and more worried about the effect of industrial progress on the environment (Heyes 61-62). For example, engine exhaust from numerous vehicles was held responsible for air pollution in major urban areas. Pollution corresponded to ‘externality’, which is defined by economists as “a cost the responsible entity can escape but that society as a whole must bear” (Heyes 62). Because market dynamics are not capable of addressing these issues, numerous environmentalists asserted that government has a moral responsibility to safeguard the planet’s delicate environment, even though doing so entails that a certain level of economic progress be given up. Several major laws were ratified to prevent and regulate pollution, such as the 1972 Clean Water Act and the 1963 Clean Air Act. Environmentalists accomplished a very important objective in 1970 with the creation of EPA which merged into a single organization numerous federal projects focused on environmental conservation. The EPA establishes and implements acceptable regulatory practices, and it provides timetables to encourage polluters to conform to these norms. Because majority of the prerequisites are current, industries are granted a substantial amount of time to abide by these rules (Schoenbrod 25). The Agency also has the power to organize and back up research and environmental programs of local and state governments, educational organizations, and public and private institutions. Regional EPA departments formulate, suggest, and enforce agreed upon regional projects for wide-ranging environmental conservation efforts. Data gathered since the EPA embarked on its tasks reveal drastic improvements in the environment; for instance, there has been a widespread reduction of almost all air contaminants. Yet, in 1990, numerous Americans argued that much more efforts to prevent and reduce pollution were necessary. Congress proposed major revisions to the Clean Air Act, and they were approved by President George Bush (Rom 107). The revised Clean Air Act included a market-based structure aimed at ensuring a considerable decrease in the emission of sulfur dioxide, which creates acid rain. This form of pollution is thought to bring about severe destruction to lakes and forests (Rom 107-109). In the 1990s, under great governmental pressure, the EPA resorted to persuading businesses to care for the environment instead of adopting rigid, hard-hitting regulatory measures. EPA persuaded electric companies and auto manufacturers to cut down the amount of soot that they emit, and tried to regulate chemical runoffs and water pollutants. President Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, strengthened EPA policies by strongly supporting incentives for people to use public transportation, environment-friendly automobiles that would release fewer air toxins, and diminished air pollution to reduce global warming (Glicksman 78). The government has attempted to apply price mechanisms to accomplish regulatory objectives, thinking that this would be less damaging to market mechanisms. For instance, it created an air-pollution credit scheme, which permitted businesses to trade the credits among themselves. Businesses capable of conforming to regulatory standards in a least costly way may trade credits to other businesses (Schoenbrod 59). Through this, government authorities expected the accomplishment of pollution-control objectives in the most inexpensive, successful manner. Meanwhile, even though the lead phase out is widely regarded as one of the major accomplishments of environmental law, the experience of the young environmental advocate David Schoenbrod in opposing the EPA over the harmful effects of lead was the start of his eventual disappointment with existing environmental law. It was a common knowledge that exposure to high levels of lead can damage the intellectual development of children and that leaded gasoline was one of the primary sources of exposure. Once Congress approved the 1970 Clean Air Act, the EPA immediately showed willingness to take action. But politics got involved, and action was delayed (Rom 115). In the end, after numerous lawsuits, the lead was completely pulled out. However, by passing off the lead controversy to the EPA, Congress got off the hook and postponed environmental efforts. Basically, the ‘lead’ event can be recounted over and over again. As revised in 1990, the Clean Air Act is hundreds of pages long. However, a large number of the law’s conditions are not found in the act, but in the implementing policies taken up by the EPA, which consequently is backed up by hundreds of pages of supplementary materials, manuals, and justifications (Schoenbrod 44). Hence, Schoenbrod calls the EPA a ‘military organization’. He further states, “Top-down military organization is the logical consequence of thinking that the environmental captain should be insulated from accountability to the passengers of Spaceship Earth” (Schoenbrod 62). The EPA is the sole organization that can be relied on to define, lay down, and implement environmental directives, hence the EPA has the final word on what policies are sufficient and appropriate. Yet, the EPA is not as protected from outside pressure. Confronted with a succession of stringent and impractical directives—“the battle plan that Congress has told the EPA to execute is beyond its [the EPA’s] capacity” (Schoenbrod 211)—the Agency is unable to establish its priorities effectively. The inability to fulfill any specific legislative directive can be fought in court, usually by environmental organizations. The outcome is a type of ‘central planning through litigation’, generating a ‘battered agency syndrome’ (Schoenbrod 64), wherein external entities determine the priorities of environmental policy through the tactical exercise of litigation. A great deal of environmental policymaking should be separated from Washington, D.C. Local and state governments instead of the federal government should formulate the policies regulating nearly all sources of pollution. The federal government should limit itself to issues wherein the states and localities are really unable to act independently, like when an operation in a particular state causes a leak out of pollution into the jurisdiction of another state. These types of problem require federal intervention. Instead, “the EPA controls the regulation of millions of farms, businesses, and government activities, regardless of how localized their impact maybe” (Burns et al. 69). The involvement of the federal government in local environmental issues is usually rationalized on the basis that states cannot be relied on to take on measures to protect the environment. But the history reveals a somewhat different reality. States started implementing rigid and forceful environmental policies way prior to the establishment of the federal EPA. In fact, several federal policies were implemented because states were too rigid and rigorous in their regulatory approach. When states started to enforce emission policies on new automobiles, the country’s auto manufacturers stormed Washington and proposed uniform federal policies to spoil the attempts of autonomous states (Burns et al. 69). If the federal government did not intervene and allowed the states to continue with their regulatory approach, states might have remained advanced in terms of environmental regulation, shifting away from centralized and top-down regulations toward more market-based, responsive, and flexible systems. If market-oriented environmental policies are the most effective, just, and ethical way of safeguarding the environment, these regulatory approaches are more likely to develop from state jurisdictions than from a federal, centralized legislative system in Washington, D.C. (Glicksman 82). Elected representatives should formulate policies against pollution. Instead of the EPA creating most of the policies with which individuals and businesses should obey, there should be an organization that only carries out research, presents proposals to Congress, and puts into operation the policy resolutions of the Congress. The final policy decisions (e.g. what to focus on, the allowable cost, who are the stakeholders) must constantly be made by elected legislators instead of political appointees and bureaucrats. The Congress should not mandate the ‘cleaning’ of air or water without clarifying what ‘clean’ means. Since these decisions are essentially political, they must be made by legislators representing the people. Several states, including Massachusetts, petitioned the EPA, urging the Agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions that aggravate global warming. These states claimed that EPA was tasked by the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. As stated in the Act, Congress is responsible for the regulation of “any air pollutant” (Rom 88) that could “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” (Rom 88). EPA turned down the petition, stating that the Act does not mandate EPA to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases. EPA further stated that even if the Act obliges them to do so, EPA had the prerogative to suspend a resolution until adequate research could be performed on “the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it” (Glicksman 565). This case shows that EPA should indeed conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation first before putting into operation any Congressional resolution. All aspects of the issue—political, economic, social, cultural—should be systematically and rigorously studied before fully implementing environmental measures. Conclusions Independent policymaking process may lead to the implementation of a smaller number of environmental policies, but those implemented would more likely represent the demands, needs, and ideals of the population the policies would have an effect on. In several instances, policies would be tougher, in others less. However, federal attempts should not be completely discarded. The important issue is not whether environmental quality has progressed or whether the existing federal regulatory approach merits a certain level of recognition for such developments. The crucial issue here is whether the current system is appropriate. A particular system cannot be considered ‘effective’ if other mechanisms could have attained the same or greater outcomes more efficiently. Protecting the environment is vital, but other objectives, such as economic goals, should also be taken into consideration. If centralized environmental regulations weaken the economy, hamper technological advancement, and limit the rights and liberty of the people, then other approaches should be taken into account. Therefore, the EPA should be given more leeway in making, changing, and implementing policies, since it has the specific knowledge needed to protect the environment. The agency should carry out investigations about the possible impact of governmental decisions on the economy and the overall health of the nation’s people before putting into action regulatory policies. The Massachusetts case and the ‘lead’ incident demonstrate how EPA exercised discretion over regulatory policies in order to avoid conflict with the government and possible damage to the economy. Works Cited Burns, James, J.W. Peltason, & Thomas Cronin. Government by the People, Basic Version. New York: Prentice Hall, 2000. Print. Glicksman, Robert. Environmental protection: law and policy. New York: Wolters Kluwer, Law & Business, 2007. Print. Heyes, Anthony. The Law and Economics of the Environmental. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001. Print. Rom, William. Environmental Policy and Public Health: Air Pollution, Global Climate Change, and Wilderness. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print. Schoenbrod, David. Saving our Environment from Washington: How Congress Grabs Power, Shirks Responsibility, and Shortchanges the People. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2006. Print. Read More