Environmental Policy

MAKING GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE means . . . protecting the environment and our natural resources in a responsible way . . . balancing the need for environmental protection and against the cost of protecting and preserving the natural environment . . . addressing world-wide environmental policies in co-operation with other countries . . . promoting the most cost-effective solutions to environmental concerns.

POSITION SUMMARY:

We must address global environmental problems in cooperation with other nations with full respect for their views and national concerns.

Environmental considerations cannot be allowed to dictate policy in such areas as economic development, but we also cannot ignore environmental considerations.

Government regulations need to be limited to setting environmental standards while leaving business free to determine the most cost effective ways of achieving those standards.

Environmental regulations should ALL be made subject to a cost-benefit analysis.

[Related issues are discussed in separate sections on “Energy Policy,” “Economy and Jobs” and “Foreign Policy and Trade.”]

DISCUSSION:  

Environmentalists and business interests have been in conflict for almost half a century.  Each side has clung to an absolutist position.  Both sides are right.  And both sides are wrong.

Everyone wants a clean, healthy environment.   Nobody wants to deprive wildlife of their natural environment or deny future generations of the opportunity to enjoy the wonders of our natural heritage.  And this is about all we can agree on.

Protecting the environment is important.  No doubt about it.  But we need to go about protecting the environment in a reasoned and rational way.  We need to find the proper balance between environmental concerns and economic interests. 

We do not now have a consistent national policy on how we go about legislating and regulating environmental issues.  For instance:

The Clean Air Act requires the federal government to set air quality standards for six pollutants, while States are required to develop implementation plans and share enforcement responsibilities.  However, under the Clean Water Act the States are required to set their own water standards.  Therefore, while there is one national standard for clean air, there are 50 different standards for clean water.

Even the standards that must be applied by the Environmental Protection Agency in establishing environmental regulations are inconsistent.  For example:

The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act virtually prohibit taking cost into consideration in formulating regulations.  On the other hand, the Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act require a balancing of costs and benefits.

I believe that responsibility for “environmental” regulation must be shared by the states and the federal government, as follows.

“Migratory” environmental issues, such as water and air quality, that cross state boundaries, should be addressed at federal level. HOWEVER, federal legislation and federal regulation should be limited to establishing the real minimum standards for environmental health [not the politically expedient standards] and allowing the states to establish more stringent standards as they deem appropriate.

“Local” environmental issues, such as habitat preservation, land management and related issues that are principally concerned with activities within a state, should be regulated by that States.

In some instances, the Environmental Protection Agency goes beyond merely setting environmental standards and specifies the particular technology that must be use to achieve its standards – regardless of their cost or the availability of alternative solutions.

Comments on Specific Issues:

I candidly plead ignorance on many environmental issues. At the present time, my principle concern is how we go about addressing the issues. Nonetheless, because some issues are of great concern to many voters, I offer the following comments on a few of the “hot” issues.

Global Warming:  The planet is getting warmer.  There is no doubt about that.  However, I remain uncertain about whether global warming is primarily the consequences of man’s activities or just a part of the cycle of nature.  There are arguments and evidence on both sides of the issue. I've read the studies, and I am not completely convinced either way.  But I do know this:  We ignore the problem at our peril, and acting on the problem in a reasonable manner can’t hurt. 

I also know that acting alone won’t make much difference.  If we are going to take the problem seriously, it must be addressed globally.  Therefore, combatting the problem of global warming must be an integral part of our foreign policy agenda.

Endangered Species:   Species have been evolving and disappearing for hundreds of millions of years.  The mere fact that a species is in decline does not mean that it has to be protected.  I just can’t get too excited about protecting every critter, everywhere and all the time.  If it’s cute and cuddly or large and magnificent, I’m naturally inclined to protect it.  If it crawls or slithers, it can fend for itself. If it tastes good, my opinion depends on the status of my diet.

Land Management:  The federal government now owns approximately one-quarter of the land in the United States, and it continues to accumulate more. Much of this land is wilderness.  However, except for the most remote wilderness areas, even this land has fire roads, hiking trails and camping shelters that require maintenance. Not even counting the maintenance needs of our National Parks, there is a multi-year backlog of maintenance needs on lands controlled by the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

I do not pretend to know where “the line” should be drawn.  I do, however, believe that in many (but not all) cases, these determinations are better made at the state level.  Therefore, I believe that there needs to be a complete reexamination of the government’s role as landowner.  I also believe that serious consideration needs to be given to transfers of property to states or outright sale — with nature conservancies given every opportunity to acquire these lands on the most favorable possible terms.  In those instances where there is a specific, identifiable need to limit the future use of land, appropriate restrictions can be included in deeds of transfer.  

To comment on this issue in the Issues Forum, click here

_____________________________
Was this helpful? [Optional]

No Very

Do you have feedback? (Optional)

Enter Word Verification in box below