The environmental policy of the United States is a federal governmental action to regulate activities that have an environmental impact in the United States. The goal of environmental policy is to protect the environment for future generations while interfering as little as possible with the efficiency of commerce or the liberty of the people and to limit inequity in who is burdened with environmental costs. Framing of environmental issues often influences how policies are developed, especially when economic concerns or national security are used to either justify or contest actions. As his first official act bringing in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon signed the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law on New Year's Day, 1970. Also in the same year, America began celebrating Earth Day, which has been called "the big bang of U.S. environmental politics, launching the country on a sweeping social learning curve about ecological management never before experienced or attempted in any other nation." NEPA established a comprehensive US national environmental policy and created the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement for "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment." Author and consultant Charles H. Eccleston has called NEPA the world's "environmental Magna Carta".
As a result of the environmental movement in the United States, environmental policy continued to mature in the 1970s as several broad environmental laws were passed, regulating air and water pollution and forming the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After some time, a split between the two parties was formed in regard to environmental policy. Democrats tended to support stronger environmental regulations, whereas Republicans opposed them because of economic concerns. 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 process is designed to forge federal policies, programs, projects, and plans.U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. Code of Federal Regulations, 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. However, design standards have sometimes been criticized for their high costs of compliance which delay environmental action, especially in energy-intensive industries. On the other hand, performance standards often give business flexibility-an incentive to find innovative ways to achieve program goals with as little waste and cost as possible.
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. These market-based approaches, primarily the Acid Rain Program, have been able to demonstrate measurable reductions of the pollutants and have stimulated the development of similar mechanisms for greenhouse gases. The trading of pollution permits in such schemes encourages business to seek out efficient ways to reduce emissions at low cost while meeting environmental goals. However, the market reform that worked for Acid Rain is called the Cap-and-Trade System, which is used throughout the US and globally. Cap-and-trade is one policy option for addressing carbon emissions and pollution. In a cap-and-trade system, the government sets an overall emissions cap, a definitive environmental goal or target for pollution levels. The government then issues tradable allowances that grant businesses the right to emit a set amount of the regulated pollutant. Companies that can reduce their emissions more cheaply than others can sell their extra allowances to companies that face higher costs to comply with the cap. This process establishes a market price for pollutants like carbon or sulfur dioxide, incentivizing polluting facilities to implement the most cost-efficient emissions reduction options. It also encourages investment in new low-carbon technologies. Yet there are concerns about equitable distribution and potential hoarding, which led the EPA to hold back 2.8% of allowances for auctions to promote market liquidity. There are many advantages of cap and trade. It sets a definitive emissions target, is flexible and can link to other systems, allows the market and firms to innovate and make choices, and is easier for politicians to support than a carbon tax. Yet there are disadvantages such as uncertainty for firms, the possibility that the market may not work as intended, the risk of special interests perverting the system, the potential for wealth transfer to large polluters if permits are given away for free, and debate over the benefits of allowing carbon offsets.
Power delegation and policy jurisdiction
Executive branch Governmental authority on environmental issues in the United States is highly fragmented at the national, state and local levels. While the EPA is the most comprehensive environmental agency, its authority on these matters is not absolute. Virtually all of the federal executive departments have some area of environmental authority. This fragmented system sometimes leads to inconsistent enforcement because different levels of government, depending on local and regional economic concerns, may prioritize environmental regulations differently. For instance, states heavily dependent upon the fossil fuel industries may start to use laxer enforcement policies than states with more diversified economies.
As chief executive, the President plays an important role in environmental policy. Presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. 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 also have the power to veto legislation or issue executive orders to influence administrative behavior. Federal AgencyEnvironmental ResponsibilitiesWhite House OfficeOverall policy, Agency coordinationOffice of Management and BudgetBudget, Agency coordination and managementCouncil on Environmental QualityEnvironmental policy, Agency coordination, Environmental impact statementsDepartment of Health and Human ServicesHealthEnvironmental Protection AgencyAir and water pollution, Solid waste, Radiation, Pesticides, Noise, Toxic substancesDepartment of JusticeEnvironmental litigationDepartment of the InteriorPublic lands, Energy, Minerals, National parks, Endangered speciesDepartment of AgricultureForestry, Soil and ConservationDepartment of DefenseCivil works construction, Dredge and fill permits, Pollution control from defense facilitiesNuclear Regulatory CommissionLicense and regulate nuclear powerDepartment of StateInternational environmentDepartment of CommerceOceanic and atmospheric monitoring and researchDepartment of LaborOccupational healthDepartment of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHousing, Urban parks, Urban planningDepartment of TransportationMass transit, Roads, Aircraft noise, Oil pollutionDepartment of EnergyEnergy policy coordination, Petroleum allocation research and developmentTennessee Valley AuthorityElectric power generationFederal Emergency Management AgencyCleaning up the natural disasters caused by climate changeUnited States Coast GuardMaritime and environmental stewardship, National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC)
Legislative branch Fragmentation within the executive branch is duplicated in Congress and within the states. Congress exercises a major role through legislative and oversight hearings. It also influences policy by publishing studies and reports. Individual members typically take announce positions and some make the environment one of their specialties. The EPA is the concern of over half the Congressional committees. 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.