Environmental policy, any measure by a government or corporation or other public or private organization regarding the effects of human activities on the environment, particularly those measures that are designed to prevent or reduce harmful effects of human activities on ecosystems.
Environmental policies are needed because environmental values are usually not considered in organizational decision making. There are two main reasons for that omission. First, environmental effects are economic externalities. Polluters do not usually bear the consequences of their actions; the negative effects most often occur elsewhere or in the future. Second, natural resources are almost always underpriced because they are often assumed to have infinite availability. Together, those factors result in what American ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968 called “the tragedy of the commons.” The pool of natural resources can be considered as a commons that everyone can use to their own benefit. For an individual, it is rational to use a common resource without considering its limitations, but that self-interested behaviour will lead to the depletion of the shared limited resource—and that is not in anyone’s interest. Individuals do so nevertheless because they reap the benefits in the short term, but the community pays the costs of depletion in the long term. Since incentives for individuals to use the commons sustainably are weak, government has a role in the protection of the commons.
History of environmental policy making
Public policies aimed at environmental protection date back to ancient times. The earliest sewers were constructed in Mohenjo-daro (Indus, or Harappan, civilization) and in Rome, which date back some 4,500 years and 2,700 years ago, respectively. Other civilizations implemented environmental laws. The city-states of ancient Greece created laws that governed forest harvesting some 2,300 years ago, and feudal European societies established hunting preserves, which limited game and timber harvesting to royalty, effectively preventing overexploitation, by 1000 CE. The city of Paris developed Europe’s first large-scale sewer system during the 17th century. When the effects of industrialization and urbanization increased during the late 19th and early 20th centuries and threatened human health, governments developed additional rules and regulations for urban hygiene, sewage, sanitation, and housing, as well as the first laws devoted to protecting natural landscapes and wildlife (such as the creation of Yellowstone National Park as the world’s first national park in 1872). Wealthy individuals and private foundations, such as the Sierra Club (founded 1892) and the National Audubon Society (founded 1905), also contributed to efforts to conserve natural resources and wildlife.
People became aware of the harmful effects of emissions and use of chemicals in industry and pesticides in agriculture during the 1950s and ’60s. The emergence of Minamata disease in 1956 in Japan, which resulted from mercury discharges from nearby chemical companies, and the publication of Silent Spring (1962) by American biologist Rachel Carson, which highlighted the dangers of pollution, led to a greater public awareness of environmental issues and to detailed systems of regulations in many industrialized countries. In those regulations, governments forbade the use of hazardous substances or prescribed maximum emission levels of specific substances to ensure a minimum environmental quality. Such regulative systems, like the Clean Water and Clean Air acts in the United States, succeeded in effectively addressing point sources (i.e., any discernable discrete location or piece of equipment that discharges pollution), such as industrial plants and utilities, where the cause-and-effect relationship between the actors causing the negative environmental effect could be clearly established.
Nevertheless, some environmental problems persisted, often because of the many nonpoint (diffuse) sources, such as exhaust from private automobiles and pesticide and fertilizer runoff from small farms, that contributed to air and water pollution. Individually, those small sources may not be harmful, but the accumulation of their pollution can exceed the regulative minimum norms for environmental quality. Also, the increasing complexity of chains of cause and effect has contributed to persistent problems. In the 1980s the effects of acid rain showed that the causes of environmental pollution could be separated geographically from its effects. Pollution problems of all types underscored the message that Earth’s natural resources were being depleted and degraded.
From the late 1980s, sustainable development—(i.e., the fostering of economic growth while preserving the quality of the environment for future generations—became a leading concept in environmental policy making. With nature and natural resources considered as economic drivers, environmental policy making was no longer the exclusive domain of government. Instead, private industry and nongovernmental organizations assumed greater responsibility for the environment. Also, the concept emphasized that individual people and their communities play a key role in the effective implementation of policies.
Over the years, a variety of principles have been developed to help policy makers. Examples of such guiding principles, some of which have acquired a legal basis in some countries, are the “polluter pays” principle, which makes polluters liable for the costs of environmental damage, and the precautionary principle, which states that an activity is not allowed when there is a chance that the consequences are irreversible.
Such straightforward guiding principles do not work in all situations. For example, some environmental challenges, such as global warming, illuminate the need to view Earth as an ecosystem consisting of various subsystems, which, once disrupted, can lead to rapid changes that are beyond human control. Getting polluters to pay or the sudden adoption of the precautionary principle by all countries would not necessarily roll back the damage already imparted to the biosphere, though it would reduce future damage.
Since the early 1970s, environmental policies have made a shift from end-of-pipe solutions to prevention and control. Such solutions rely on the mitigation of negative effects. In addition, if a negative effect was unavoidable, it could be compensated for by investing in nature in other places than where the damage was caused, for example.
A third solution, which develops policies that focus on adapting the living environment to the change, is also possible. More specifically, measures that strengthen an ecosystem’s ecological resilience (i.e., an ecosystem’s ability to maintain its normal patterns of nutrient cycling and biomass production), combined with measures that emphasize prevention and mitigation, have been used. One such example is in Curitiba, Brazil, a city where some districts flood each year. The residents of flood-prone districts were relocated to higher and dryer places, and their former living areas were transformed into parks that could be flooded without disrupting city life.
Environmental policy instruments
Numerous instruments have been developed to influence the behaviour of actors who contribute to environmental problems. Traditionally, public policy theories have focused on regulation, financial incentives, and information as the tools of government. However, new policy instruments such as performance requirements and tradable permits have been used.
Regulation is used to impose minimum requirements for environmental quality. Such interventions aim to encourage or discourage specific activities and their effects, involving particular emissions, particular inputs into the environment (such as specific hazardous substances), ambient concentrations of chemicals, risks and damages, and exposure. Often, permits have to be acquired for those activities, and the permits have to be renewed periodically. In many cases, local and regional governments are the issuing and controlling authorities. However, more-specialized or potentially hazardous activities, such as industrial plants treating dangerous chemical substances or nuclear power stations using radioactive fuel rods, are more likely to be controlled by a federal or national authority.
Regulation is an effective means to prescribe and control behaviour. Detailed environmental regulations have resulted in a considerable improvement in the quality of air, water, and land since the early 1970s. The strengths of regulation are that it is generally binding—it includes all actors who want to undertake an activity described in the regulation—and it treats them in the same framework. Regulations are also rigid: they are difficult to change. That can be considered as a strength, since rigidity ensures that regulations will not change too suddenly. However, rigidity can also be considered a weakness, because it slows down innovation, as actors seek to stay within the letter of the law rather than creating new technologies, such as more-efficient emission scrubbers on smokestacks that would remove more pollution than what the regulation mandates. When regulations demand standards that are difficult or impossible to meet—because of a lack of knowledge, skills, or finances on the part of the actors or mismanagement by policymakers—regulations will not be effective.
One common improvement in environmental regulation made since the 1970s has been the development of performance requirements, which allow actors to determine their own course of action to meet the standard. For example, they are not required to purchase a particular piece of equipment to meet an emissions standard. They can do it another way, such as developing a technology or process that reduces emissions. The advantage of performance requirements is that actors addressed by the regulation are encouraged to innovate in order to meet the requirements. Despite that advantage, performance requirements cannot keep actors who lack incentives from achieving more than the minimum requirements.
Governments can decide to stimulate behavioral change by giving positive or negative financial incentives—for example, through subsidies, tax discounts, or fines and levies. Such incentives can play an important role in boosting innovation and in the diffusion and adoption of innovations. For example, in Germany the widespread subsidizing of solar energy systems for private homeowners increased the large-scale adoption of photovoltaic (PV) panels. Financial incentives or disincentives can also stimulate professional actors to change. A potential drawback of financial incentives is that they distort the market. When not used for a limited period, they can make receivers dependent upon the subsidy. A final drawback is that subsidies are expensive instruments, especially when they are open-ended.
Environmental reporting and ecolabeling
There are several instruments that aim to inform decision makers about the environmental effects of their actions. Decisions are usually based on a cost-benefit analysis of which environmental costs and benefits are not part. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an instrument that helps public decision makers to decide on initiatives with a certain environmental impact, such as the construction of roads and industrial plants. The EIA, which has become a legal requirement in many countries, requires that the environmental effects of a project, such as the building of a dam or shopping mall, be studied and that the actors be informed of how to mitigate environmental damage and what compensation they could receive for doing so. EIAs allow decision makers to include environmental information in a cost-benefit analysis. Although all EIAs cannot stop initiatives from taking place, they can reduce the negative environmental impacts.
Environmental management systems are comprehensive approaches that help organizations reduce their use of natural resources while reducing costs and—when certified—contributing to a positive image. The most commonly known standard for such systems is the ISO 14000 standards, first issued by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 1996. Such standards help an organization control its environmental impact, formulate and monitor environmental objectives, and demonstrate that they have been achieved.
Ecolabels and certificates applied to specific products and services inform consumers about their environmental performance. Sometimes governments require such labels and certificates, such as the “EU Ecolabel” marking in Europe, which certifies that a product has met minimum requirements for consumer safety, health, and environmental friendliness. To push organizations to develop products and services that perform beyond those minimum requirements, there are labels that specifically express the environmental friendliness of the product or service. For example, the Energy Star rating in the United States indicates the energy performance level of household appliances. Ecolabels are often applied in the food industry (such as for certified organic or fair-trade certified products) and for energy performance in buildings (LEED standards). The underlying assumption of ecolabeling is that informed consumers buying environmentally responsible products will stimulate industry to innovate and produce cleaner products.
Global policy agreements
From the early 1970s, the United Nations (UN) has provided the main forum for international negotiations and agreements on environmental policies and objectives. The 1972 Stockholm conference was the first international conference on environmental issues and was followed by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) summits in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and in Johannesburg in 2002. The UN also hosted special conferences on climate change, such as those of 1996 in Kyoto and 2009 in Copenhagen.
Those conferences and summits responded to the global character of some of the most-challenging environmental problems, which would require international cooperation to solve. Those conferences were effective in setting an international agenda for regional and national environmental policy making that resulted in treaties and protocols, also known as “hard law,” and in nonbinding resolutions, statements, and declarations, or “soft law.” Whereas the 1992 Rio conference agreement was a soft law, the Kyoto Protocol was a hard law, with clear-cut reduction targets of greenhouse gas emissions for regions and countries. Nation-states, in their efforts to meet the targets, could make use of three so-called flexibility mechanisms designed to lower the costs of compliance.
Joint implementation, the first mechanism, allowed countries to invest in lowering emissions in other countries that had ratified the Kyoto Protocol and, thus, had a reduction target to meet. For industrialized, developed countries that had already invested in emission reductions in their own economies, it was cheaper to invest in emission reductions in other countries with economies in transition, where the same investment would lead to greater reductions. In other words, the investing country could get credit for helping a country with an economy in transition to lower its emissions.
Clean development, the second mechanism, allowed industrialized countries that have ratified the protocol to meet their targets in any country where it is cheapest to invest—that is, in developing countries—even if that country did not ratify the protocol. That mechanism is not undisputed, since it involves questions of intervention in the economies of developing countries, which may have an impact on the economic development of those countries. To prevent industrialized countries from not reducing their own emissions, the mechanism can only be used in supplement to domestic reductions, but no definition of such supplemental action was given, which led some countries to achieve 50 percent of their reduction target through that mechanism.
The third mechanism, carbon-emission trading (which is also known as “cap and trade”), is a market-based instrument and can be applied in the form of voluntary markets or in a mandatory framework. Most trading schemes are based on a cap-and-trade model. A central authority puts a cap on the overall carbon emissions allowed in a country or region. Within that cap, emission rights are allocated to the polluters, and emissions produced beyond those rights are penalized. The idea is that polluters choose between investing in emission reductions or emission permits. By lowering the cap over time, total emission reduction can be achieved. The trade of permits will ensure that emissions reduction is achieved at the lowest costs.
The instrument of tradable permits has been applied to other emissions. The first emission-trading schemes date back to 1974, when the United States experimented with emissions trading as part of the Clean Air Act.
Written by Ellen van Bueren, Contributor to SAGE Publications’ Green Ethics and Philosophy: An A-to-Z Guide (2011).
Top image credit: Eric Vance/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency