rothman5

Rothman 5

Environmental regulation expanded rapidly after 1960

reasons for government regulation

as the world gets more complex people don't have enough information to protect themselves so it is helpful for the government to protect them
businesses who want to do the right thing often can't afford to unless regulation requires their competitors to also minimize harm
the government's traditional role is to do things for the public good (or in the public interest)
issues that involve the problem of the commons are best solved by government regulation

First Earth day: 1970

idea caught on and grew beyond what was planned
not a protest march (like the ones against the Vietnam war) but a teach in and celebration
primarily a local event
compare Focus the Nation
lots of people turned out--proof that public opinion had become strongly concerned about the environment
thought something ought to be done

National Environmental Policy Act passed 1969 signed Jan. 1, 1970

created the Council on Environmental Quality
required environmental impact statements for all major new projects of the federal government
how did this work, say for a new dam

before construction starts you must study what the impact will be on the environment
the results of that study must be made available to the public
the law does not say what you have to do if the impact will be harm to the environment
but it gave opponents data to use
environmental organizations sued the federal government when proper environmental impact statements were not done

If a technology is possible is it inevitable it will be developed
Congress stopped funding for the Supersonic Transport (SST) in 1970

plan to build a commercial passenger plane that would fly faster than the speed of sound (supersonic planes for military use already existed)
the government funded background research and development of a prototype (test version) to show US leadership in the cold war
this research project was cancelled (Congress voted not to fund it any more) in 1970
why?

even with the government paying for the research, industry was not very interested--it wasn't clear it would be economical. Would cost more to operate--how many people are willing to pay twice as much to fly to Europe in 3 hours instead of six hours?
US version was faster and more expensive to operate than the French-British version
this was a time when there were increased protests about noise pollution around airports

SST will be fairly noisy taking off and landing
bigger problem--the sonic boom whenever flying faster than the speed of sound
because the public wouldn't put up with this you were only going to be able to fly supersonic over water, not over land

we can build this technology, but we don't want it--we said no to progress for environmental reasons
private industry could have still done it--this was just a defeat of government research and development
British and French built the Concorde

proposed US SST

in the SST case the environmental concerns of the public stopped progress

Also in 1970, creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

a single agency to enforce environmental regulations instead of scattered groups in different agencies
enforcement of pollution regulation required expertise and special equipment
define how pollution laws would be enforced and test to find violations
people though compliance would now be taken seriously
but there was a lot of controversy
Love Canal
PCBs in Lake Hartwell

Key example of a new law: Endangered Species Act of 1973

Tellico Dam and the snail darter (a small fish)
people tend to be concerned only with charismatic megafauna
didn't protect ecosystems but rather you might have to save the ecosystem so the animal wouldn't go extinct
is this the best kind of law to protect the environment? It is the kind most likely to get public support

but enforcing it proved more difficult

previous pollution laws had left enforcement to the states
Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 put responsibility on local government, Clean Water Act of 1960 was similar.
Even the Clean Air Act of 1963 let the states decide when to act
Endangered Species Act was enforced by the Fish and Wildlife Service

What do you need to do to have an effective law that sets limits on chemicals released into the air or water?

write a good law--get experts involved in writing the law
- you have to decided what kinds of pollutants to include
- how will you define the limits?--what amount of some chemical is safe?
- who is going to implement this
then the law has to be passed and signed (this where a lot of lobbying goes on)
the agency that is going to implement the law needs to figure out specific rules and procedures
if companies need to get permits you need a procedure to issue permits
set up an enforcement system--enforcement is not done by the police, but by special agencies who hire people with the necessary expertise
penalize the people who don't follow the law
you can end up in a court fight about any of these issues
regulations make a difference, but there are a lot of variables that go into how much of a difference

Public support began to divide as environmental regulations become more widespread

"Americans looked at the cost of their postwar prosperity and collectively determined that something had to be done to improve their living conditions as much as their standard of living." (p. 113)
other people began to question the cost, were annoyed by changes
some developed more radical views
early 1970s a wide range of people worked together for the environment, over time that got lost

Limits of public concern for environmental regulation are already coming clear

OPEC oil embargo of 1973

Late 1970s debates over environmental issues

This page written and copyright Pamela E. Mack
Hist 124
last updated 4/9/10