Op Ed: Who Are We and Where are We Going in Environmental Policy?

The development of environmental issues and public concern has become a major discussion over the last portion of the 20th Century and early within our current one. There are several actors within these debates and policy initiatives including federal, state, and local governments, policy organizations/interest groups, as well as those federal institutions such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Congress, and our U.S. Supreme Court. Each of these has played an important role within shaping environmental policy. What is vital to note is that in most cases those non-governmental entities, such as citizens, sometimes lack the ability and capacity to address these issues. Also, these actors within the policy debate seek to reduce and mitigate health concerns while maintain an equilibrium between economic aspirations and environmental needs.

Within the major actors such as the president, they have a variety of ways influential to the process including agenda setting, appointments, budgets, initiatives, executive orders and oversight (Vig, 76). Congressional authority sometimes becomes an obstacle to a president’s approach, by passing legislation and conducting oversight, however they often find themselves placed in a precarious position by not always taking the lead in these actions. In addition, the U.S. Supreme embodies its interpretation of the law, in determining proper suit, application of law, and proper resolve of the affected parties. In many cases, the US Supreme Court is instrumental in setting precedents for proper environmental enforcement and management (Vig, 128-133).

When we start examining issues that encompass environmental regulations and standards, we first discover the sluggishness of the government action. Merely four major policy actions were taken prior to what some deem as “the environmental decade,” with the exception for major land conservation and preservation by President Teddy Roosevelt. The 1970s witness’s great strides in environmental quality and assurance with policy such as the Clean Water Acts of 1970, ’72, ’77, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which would enforce policy on behalf of the federal government. President Jimmy Carter was most likely the biggest proponent for environmental issues seeking major advances, conversely only to be later characterized by some as a belated success. Nonetheless, early in the 1980s such policies as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act demonstrated America’s focus and shift towards important pieces that would improve our nation (Vig, 9-15).

Unfortunately, this period would end abruptly with the introduction of a Congressional time of policy gridlock and President Ronald Reagan with his mentality as an “administrative president.” He illustrated this by slicing environmental spending using a very investigative and scrutinized approach to how effective these programs and policies worked. The appointments of Anne Gorsuch & James Watt, whom both demonstrated history divergent of environmental policy, displayed Reagan’s stance on these issues. It was Reagan though who would ultimately lose this scuffle to popular public viewpoints on issues regarding the environment (Vig, 79-81).

Following Reagan, G.H. Bush, the “environmental president,” and strong Congressional environmental leadership, took a bi-partisan approach. Bush demonstrated this through appointments and the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Bush though would vacate the office with the perception of the nation being somewhat disengaged from a worldwide comprehensive environmental standpoint (Vig 81-82). Assuming his position in 1992, President Clinton had lofty goals in environmental issues with raising CAFE standards and green technology investments. Clinton though, witnessed defeat in his overall objectives with a powerful conservative legislative body stalling several of his objectives. However, his ability to preserve more public land, since the progressively thinking Teddy Roosevelt, was a satisfactory achievement in his two terms (Vig, 82-84).

G.W. Bush, often described in controversial terms, especially in other topics regarding the nation’s issues, pushed for traditional conservative efforts by freeing up regulatory policies in a pro-business manner. He also maintained the Republican platform, similar to that of Reagan, seeking to investigate scientific issues hovering around climate change, and was allegedly involved in more deceptive tactics regarding environmental issues. However, Bush was occupied with several other problems (war on terrorism, economic crises, and natural disasters) that defined his administration (Vig, 85-90).

The pattern or trend throughout these past forty years can be summarized in the movement of a pendulum to some degree, with progressive policy and implementation occurring, while just as quickly being scrutinized, frozen, or eliminated. However, over time we have seen the public perception, legislative policy, attempts at national energy policy reform, and enforcement move into a modern progression, even though the EPA’s budget has nearly stayed “flat” for three decades (Vig-16-20). This can be attributed most likely to state and local governments taking it upon themselves with limited resources and citizen participation, while the political banter has continued on Pennsylvania Ave and the Hill. Although not all states have identical ideals regarding environmental management, several improvements have been made with regional partnerships, higher water and air quality standards (above federal guidelines), and economic incentives like tax credits and “green taxes.” Also, over half the states have “renewable portfolio standards” (Vig 29-37).

Moreover the Obama Administration has taken measures to demonstrate the seriousness and significance of climate change, and its direct relation to the environment, energy efficiency, and “smart” or “green” growth. Also, Obama, like President Clinton, is seeking to drastically complete these objectives. In just one and a half months after being sworn in as Commander-In-Chief, Obama has allotted $80 billion renewable energy projects and initiatives, new tax incentives, and environmental enforcement and conservation efforts. As stated earlier, the budget for the EPA was frozen for nearly three decades, but that “glacier” has melted and seen a current operating budget of $10.5 billion (Vig, 91-92).

Obama has created new opportunities and a vision by taking an innovative initiative allowing people to understand the importance of sustainability through creating green projects not only nationally but in their home. The investment may have totaled more than anticipated financially, however Americans are appreciating and observing the effects on the globe. China and India, two of the largest pollution producers are developing new green technology to compete with the United States. The new grid being build throughout our nation has created jobs for nearly 100,000 Americans, and will create an efficient manner of transmitting wind and solar energy, as well as nuclear power to both the east and west coast. Obama’s Administration working with Congress in a bi-partisan fashion has also allowed clean energy competition to take place, allowing consumers to choose which source of energy they want to use. Lastly, the President’s program giving tax incentives to public-private partnerships to go towards efforts of green space development and water conservation/treatment, which has helped improve blighted areas and ease concerns of water quality for several large metropolitan areas.