Home >For Citizens >Issue Guides: Environment >Consider the Choices

ISSUE GUIDES: Environment

CONSIDER THE CHOICES

 

PERSPECTIVES IN BRIEF

Curb pollution through sensible regulations
Putting environmental protection in perspective
Preventing further environmental destruction

We've made progress on environmental protection, but we can't let up now. Growing awareness has led to sensible limits on our useof natural resources and pollutants that are side-effects of industrial society -- sometimes by government and sometimes by businesses themselves, who understand that it's in no one's interest to commit environmental suicide. Yet it's unrealistic to expect people to make dramatic changes in their lifestyles or give up their jobs.What's needed now are more stringent guidelines on pollution,and stepped-up enforcement ofthe laws. Through prudent regulation,we can achieve a balance between environmental protection and economic growth.
Human beings, just by going about their daily lives, inevitably affect the environment. That's all right so long as harmful pollution is controlled.But many people act as if environmental protection is our only concern. Environmentalists have become a special interest group who insist on unreasonable and costly measures, or ones which infringe on private property rights. We certainly should protect the environment, but we need to take a careful look at the laws we've put in place to see that they are not costing us too much in money or jobs for the benefit we're getting. A strong economy is just as important as a sound environment.
Because a safe and sound environment is the precondition for human life itself, environmental protection must take precedence over other public goals. And the fundamental problem is how Americans live -- we consume too much, waste too much and restore too little. Despite some gains, we're still making an unprecedented assault on the environment, leading to irreversible and perhaps catastrophic effects. Global warming, in particular, is a real threat that requires coordinated global action. The best option is to move toward a sustainable society where we make decisions based on how they impact future generations.Government has to go much further in reducing pollution.

PERSPECTIVES IN DETAIL

Curb pollution through sensible regulations
Putting environmental protection in perspective
Preventing further environmental destruction


What should be done?

  • Government must strengthen its enforcement of environmental regulations, and increase funding for environmental protection.
  • To cut fuel consumption and reduce greenhouse gases, the government should set higher fuel efficiency standards, particularly for sport utility vehicles.
  • To reduce air pollution from power plants, government should take additional measures to encourage better energy use, such as requiring household appliances to use less energy.
  • Increase fines and other penalties for environmental violations.
  • Use pollution credits to reduce the overall amount ofpollution without dumping too much of the burden on any one community. Work with other countries to limit greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
  • Replace government regulations with what works best: the free-market system, which relies on individual responsibility and financial interests to protect the environment.
  • Open more public lands for carefully managed mineral and oil production, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  • Require government to study the economic impact of proposed environmental regulations.
  • Use incentives, not regulations,t o encourage property owners to preserve land as habitats for rareor endangered species.
  • Re-examine environmental protection laws to eliminate unreasonable regulations.
  • Continue research into global warming and other environmental concerns. Weve got to be sure we understand what's happening before we jump into costly reforms.
  • Make environmental protection our highest priority, and reduce pollution and consumption to levels that can be sustained.
  • Make comprehensive efforts to prevent pollution rather than simply trying to limit it, or clean it up after pollution occurs.
  • Raise taxes on coal, oil, gasoline,and pesticides to discourage their use, and encourage people to resort to alternative products that are less damaging to the environment.
  • Ratify the Kyoto treaty to fight global warming. Impose strict limits on greenhouse gases that cause the warming effect.
  • Strengthen auto emissions standards, increase subsidies for public transportation, and encourage transportation technologies that don't require carbon fuels.


    • Arguments For This Approach

  • A rich nation like ours can afford to have both continued economic growth and environmental protection. We just need enough inspectors to make sure that the businesses that provide the economic growth follow the rules.
  • You fight pollution by going after polluters, not by blaming the average person and forcing them to change their lifestyle. Trying to cut air pollution by raising gasoline prices is like trying to improve airline safety by making it harder for people to buy plane tickets.
  • Air and water quality has improved considerably over the last three decades, largely because of regulatory efforts.
  • Where environmental progress has fallen short, it's been because regulations have been inadequate and unevenly enforced.
  • The goal of environmental regulation should be protection against clear threats to public health, not the reduction of pollution to an absolute minimum.
  • Individual property owners are the best environmental stewards, because they have a keen selfinterest in protecting the value of what they own. When government restricts the use of private land, it is only fair to compensate the owners.
  • You can't eliminate all the risk in life. High-priced environmental efforts often force us to make elaborate attempts to head off remote risks.
  • Environmental regulations often lead to lost jobs and economic devastation for entire communities.
  • It's our moral obligation to use natural resources in a way that can be sustained, generation after generation, and to protect endangered species. We need to leave a healthy planet for our children and our grandchildren.
  • Our consumer culture is incredibly wasteful and ultimately unsatisfying. We buy more and more stuff and yet we're not any happier -- and we're destroying the environment in the process.
  • Preventing environmental damage is more effective and less costly over the long run than trying to clean up pollution after it has occurred.
  • We may lose some jobs as we move toward environmentally friendly technologies and lifestyles, but we'll create new ones in green industries.
  • The United States, which produces more than its share of global pollutants, has a special responsibility to take the lead in environmental protection around the world.


    • Arguments Against This Approach

  • This doesn't go nearly far enough.The only real environmental solution is to take far less from the planet and that means fundamental changes in people's attitudes and lifestyles.
  • This approach overstates most environmental problems, which for the most part have been addressed adequately with environmental regulations that are already in place.
  • Businesses should be enlisted aspartners in cleaning up the environment, not treated as suspects by a posse of government inspectors. We should be using incentives to encourage business to operate more cleanly,not punishing those who make mistakes.
  • Environmental standards have to make some allowance for the cost to business and the potential for losing jobs. Forcing businesses to spend the time and money to comply with environmental rules is a drag on the economy.
  • This view is dangerously shortsighted.It represents the short-term interests of business, but not the public's long-term need for environmental protection.
  • When it was left unchecked, the free-market system led to all kinds of dangerous environmental practices, such as ocean dumping, clear-cutting of forests and strip mining. Government had to step in precisely because the environment deteriorated under the free market system.
  • Government has the authorityto require property owners to use their land in an environmentally sound way an authority that's been upheld by the U.S. SupremeCourt.
  • Environmental regulations can encourage businesses to be more efficient and less wasteful. In many cases, jobs lost in some industries are made up in others.
  • In seeking scientific certainty before acting, this choice would delay initiatives until it's too late to do anything about global warming.
  • This asks us to take drastic action against threats that maynot even exist.
  • This choice ignores the fact that technology can solve many of the problems it creates. Cars and industries can be made cleaner and more efficient, crops can be bred or even engineered to deal with changing climates.
  • Global warming advocates call for measures that would seriously hamper worldwide economic growth. Here and abroad, economic growth, and not an absolutely pristine environment, is the key to improved quality of life for most people.
  • Industrial societies inevitably affect the environment. That's always been the case, and people have always adjusted. The important thing is to prevent clear and present dangers to the environment.


    • QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: HOW THE PERSPECTIVES DIFFER

    Curb pollution through sensible regulations
    Putting environmental protection in perspective
    Preventing further environmental destruction

    Q: What costs and tradeoffs are associated with this choice?
    A:
    This approach requires a substantial government role, and a well-funded Environmental Protection Agency. In some instances, this approach requires restrictions on how individuals use the land they own. The regulatory approach doesn't try to eliminate all environmental risks, but rather to limit those that are potentially dangerous. Also, in advocating flexible regulations, this approach would allow regional differences in the ways industries meet pollution goals.
    A:
    This approach accepts the fact that as, as a normal byproduct of industrial society, the environment is affected in various ways. Certain risks, such as periodic oil spills, are a cost of doing business in a high-consumption industrial society. Also, this choice would shift much of the burden of protection to individuals and especially to individual landowners, who may or may be prudent in their use of resources.
    A:
    This choice would require restrictions on consumption patterns, and it would require giving up certain technologies over time, substituting higher cost technologies that are environmentally friendly. It calls for Americans to make lifestyle adjustments, to consume less, and change the products we buy and use.


    Q: How serious is the current environmental problem, and what's likely to happen in the near future?
    A:
    Progress has been made on many fronts. Although no catastrophic developments are currently foreseen, much remains to be done in protecting ourselves against the major sources of pollution.
    A:
    Many environmental concerns have been exaggerated, and some -- such as global warming -- are still speculative.
    A:
    As a result of an expanding global population which uses technologies -- such as cars that burn fossil fuels -- that are inherently harmful to the atmosphere, we're making an unprecedented assault on the environment. Overall, environmental threats are growing.


    Q: What role should government play, and what should its priorities be?
    A:
    Government has a crucial role to play in setting regulations to limit pollution, and in enforcing those regulations. In particular, its focus is to limit pollution from specific sources, such as power plants.
    A:
    Government's role should be limited to what is absolutely essential -- protecting the public from clear and present danger.
    A:
    Government has to expand its role from pollution control to pollution prevention, and it has to take the lead in advocating, and in some cases insisting on environmentally-friendly technologies.