Starting Point Environment

8/3/2019 Starting Point Environment

1/9

Should We Go Green?

Starting Point: The Environment

1. Curb pollution through sensible regulations See page 4

2. Putting environmental protection in perspective See page 5

3. Preventing further environmental destruction See page 6

Where Things Stand What Are Our Options?

Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge tooil drilling is expected to come before Congress.

The U.S. will likely face continued internationalpressure to take stronger action on global warm-ing.

Managers of national forests now have morepower to approve logging and other projects,while a new White House committee will coordi-nate ocean policy.

A nonpartisan issue guide from PUBLIC AGENDA and MTV

A key environmental debate has been how much logging and oil exploration should be allowed on federallands.(Bureau of Land Management photo. Photographer: J. Brende)


2/9

Public Agenda 2005


1 32 Preventing furtherenvironmental destructionPutting environmentalprotection in perspective

Curb pollution throughsensible regulations

Starting Point: The Environment 2

How to Use This GuideFor the past 25 years, PublicAgenda has helped stimulatepublic debate with its distinctiveChoicework discussion guides.With Choicework, were notclaiming to have the correctsolution to a problem. Whatyoull find here are some keyfacts along with three differentpoints of view about the environ-ment. Each point of view comes

with the arguments for andagainst, along with some poten-tial costs and tradeoffs, becausechoosing a course of actionshould involve honestly facing itsdrawbacks. We focus on whatthe problem means to theaverage person and because

Whats in This GuideAdditional Resources 2

Choicework: What Are the Options? 3

Approach One: Curb pollution throughsensible regulations 4

Approach Two: Putting environmentalprotection in perspective 5

Approach Three: Preventing furtherenvironmental destruction 6

Status Report: Where Are We Now? 7

Public Agenda isnt pushing aparticular solution, were notsugar-coating any options ortrashing other points of view.

The broad choices we presentare designed to be discussionstarters, not a political program.They arent the only ways ofdealing with the problem, nor arethe viewpoints mutually exclu-

sive. Many people would mix andmatch from different perspec-tives, and you may have yourown ideas we havent consid-ered. Our goal is to help peopleconsider where they want thecountry to go and what theyrewilling to do to get there.

Founded in 1975, Public Agenda is anonpartisan, nonprofit organizationdevoted to public opinion andcitizen education. Public Agendastwo-fold mission is to help Americanleaders better understand thepublics point of view, while alsohelping citizens know more aboutcritical policy issues so they can makethoughtful, informed decisions.

You can find out more about us at

our Web site, publicagenda.org.

For a more detailed look at theenvironment issue, visit the PublicAgenda issue guide.

For Public Agenda:Executive Editor: Scott BittleManager of Technology: David WhiteAssociate Editor: Nancy CunninghamManager, Public Engagement: Lara Saxman

Competitive Enterprise InstituteOrganization that is skepticaltoward governmental regulationon the environment.http://www.cei.org

Environmental Protection AgencyFederal agency charged withsafeguarding the environment.http://www.epa.gov

GreenpeaceOrganization that uses nonviolentconfrontation to expose globalenvironmental problems.http://www.greenpeaceusa.org

Heritage FoundationOrganization that says govern-ment regulation on the environ-ment will weaken the Americaneconomy.http://www.heritage.org

Pacific Legal FoundationLegal advocacy institution thatfights infringements on privateproperty and individual rights.http://www.pacificlegal.org

Additional Resources


Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service photo)

Sierra ClubMembership-supported, publicinterest organization that pro-motes conservation of the naturalenvironment.http://www.sierraclub.org

Worldwatch InstituteOrganization dedicated tofostering an environmentallysustainable society, one in whichhuman needs are met in ways thatdo not threaten the health of thenatural environment.http://www.worldwatch.org
http://www.publicagenda.org/http://www.publicagenda.org/http://www.publicagenda.org/http://www.publicagenda.org/http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.cei.org/http://www.cei.org/http://www.epa.gov/http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/http://www.heritage.org/http://www.pacificlegal.org/http://www.sierraclub.org/http://www.worldwatch.org/http://www.worldwatch.org/http://www.sierraclub.org/http://www.pacificlegal.org/http://www.heritage.org/http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/http://www.epa.gov/http://www.cei.org/http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.publicagenda.org/


3/9

3What should be done

Make environmental protectionour highest priority, and reducepollution and consumption to

levels that can be sustained.

Ratify the Kyoto treaty to fightglobal warming. Impose strictlimits on greenhouse gases thatcause the warming effect.

Raise taxes on coal, oil, gaso-line, and pesticides to discouragetheir use, and encourage peopleto resort to products that are lessdamaging to the environment.

Arguments for this approach

We may lose some jobs as wemove toward environmentallyfriendly technologies andlifestyles, but well create newones in green industries.

The United States, which pro-duces a more than its share ofglobal pollutants, has a specialresponsibility to take the lead inenvironmental protection.

Arguments against this approach

This choice ignores the fact thattechnology can solve many of theproblems it creates. Cars andindustries can be made cleanerand more efficient, crops can bebred or even engineered to dealwith changing climates.

Global warming advocates callfor measures that would seriouslyhurt worldwide economic growth.

2What should be done

Replace government regula-tions with what works best: thefree-market system, which relies

on individual responsibility andfinancial interests to protect theenvironment.

Use incentives, not regulations,to encourage property owners topreserve land as habitats for rareor endangered species.

Re-examine environmentalprotection laws to eliminateexcessive or unreasonableregulations.

Arguments for this approach

Individual property owners arethe best environmental stewards,because they have a keen self-interest in protecting the value ofwhat they own.

Environmental regulations oftenlead to lost jobs and economicdevastation for communities.

Arguments against this approach

When it was left unchecked, thefree-market system led to all kindsof dangerous environmentalpractices, such as clear-cutting offorests and strip mining.

Environmental regulations canencourage businesses to be moreefficient and less wasteful. In manycases, jobs lost in some industriesare made up in others.

1

Choicework In Brief: What Are the Options?

Public Agenda 2005

Approach One

Curb Pollution Through Sensible

Regulations

Approach Two

Putting Environmental Protec-

tion in Perspective

Approach Three

Preventing Further Environ-

mental Destruction


What should be done

Government must strengthen itsenforcement of environmentalregulations, and increase funding

for environmental protection.

To cut fuel consumption andreduce greenhouse gases, thegovernment should set higher fuelefficiency standards.

To reduce air pollution frompower plants, government shouldtake additional measures toencourage better energy use.

Increase fines and other penal-ties for environmental violations.

Arguments for this choice

You fight pollution by goingafter polluters, not by blaming theaverage person and forcing themto change their lifestyle.

Where environmental progresshas fallen short, its been becauseregulations have been inad-equate and unevenly enforced.

Arguments against this choice

This doesnt go nearly far enough the only real environmentalsolution is to take far less from theplanet and that means fundamen-tal changes in peoples attitudesand lifestyles.

Forcing businesses to spend thetime and money to comply withenvironmental rules is a drag onthe economy.


1 32 Preventing furtherenvironmental destructionPutting environmentalprotection in perspective

Curb pollution throughsensible regulations



4/9

1Choicework: Approach One

Curb Pollution Through Sensible Regulations

Public Agenda 2005

Weve made progress on environ-mental protection, but we cantlet up now. Growing awarenesshas led to sensible limits on our useof natural resources and pollutantsthat are side-effects of industrialsociety sometimes by govern-ment and sometimes by businessesthemselves, who understand thatits in no ones interest to commitenvironmental suicide. Yet its

unrealistic to expect people tomake dramatic changes in theirlifestyles or give up their jobs.Whats needed now are morestringent guidelines on pollution,and stepped-up enforcement ofthe laws. Through prudent regula-tion, we can achieve a balancebetween environmental protec-tion and economic growth.

What Should Be Done?

Government must strengthen its

enforcement of environmentalregulations, and increase fundingfor environmental protection.

To cut fuel consumption andreduce greenhouse gases, thegovernment should set higher fuelefficiency standards, particularlyfor sport utility vehicles.

To reduce air pollution frompower plants, government shouldtake additional measures toencourage better energy use,

such as requiring householdappliances to use less energy.

Increase fines and other penal-ties for environmental violations.

Use pollution credits toreduce the overall amount ofpollution without dumping toomuch of the burden on any onecommunity. Work with othercountries to limit greenhousegasses that cause global warming.

Arguments For This Approach

A rich nation like ours can affordto have both continued eco-nomic growth and environmentalprotection. We just need enoughinspectors to make sure that thebusinesses that provide theeconomic growth follow the rules.

You fight pollution by going

after polluters, not by blaming theaverage person and forcing themto change their lifestyle. Trying tocut air pollution by raising gasolineprices is like trying to improveairline safety by making it harderfor people to buy plane tickets.

Air and water quality hasimproved considerably over thelast three decades, largelybecause of regulatory efforts.

Where environmental progress

has fallen short, its been becauseregulations have been inad-equate and unevenly enforced.

Arguments Against This Approach

This doesnt go nearly far enough the only real environmentalsolution is to take far less from theplanet and that means fundamen-tal changes in peoples attitudesand lifestyles.

This approach overstates mostenvironmental problems, which for

the most part have been ad-dressed adequately with environ-mental regulations that arealready in place.

Businesses should be enlisted aspartners in cleaning up theenvironment, not treated assuspects by a posse of govern-ment inspectors. We should beusing incentives to encouragebusiness to operate more cleanly,not punishing those who makemistakes.

Environmental standards haveto make some allowance for thecost to business and the potentialfor losing jobs. Forcing businessesto spend the time and money tocomply with environmental rules isa drag on the economy.



1 32 Preventing furtherenvironmental destructionPutting environmental

protection in perspective

Curb pollution through

sensible regulations



5/9


6/9

3Choicework: Approach Three

Preventing Further Environmental Destruction

Public Agenda 2005

Because a safe and sound envi-ronment is the precondition forhuman life itself, environmentalprotection must take precedenceover other public goals. And thefundamental problem is howAmericans live we consume toomuch, waste too much andrestore too little. Despite somegains, were still making an un-precedented assault on the

environment, leading to irrevers-ible and perhaps catastrophiceffects. Global warming, inparticular, is a real threat thatrequires coordinated globalaction. The best option is to movetoward a sustainable societywhere we make decisions basedon how they impact future gen-erations. Government has to gomuch further in reducing pollution.

What should be done?

Make environmental protectionour highest priority, and reducepollution and consumption tolevels that can be sustained.

Make comprehensive efforts toprevent pollution rather thansimply trying to limit it, or clean itup after pollution occurs.

Raise taxes on coal, oil, gaso-line, and pesticides to discouragetheir use, and encourage peopleto resort to alternative productsthat are less damaging to theenvironment.

Ratify the Kyoto treaty to fightglobal warming. Impose strictlimits on greenhouse gases thatcause the warming effect.

Strengthen auto emissionsstandards, increase subsidies forpublic transportation, and encour-age transportation technologiesthat dont require carbon fuels.

Arguments for this choice

Its our moral obligation to usenatural resources in a way thatcan be sustained, generation aftergeneration, and to protectendangered species. We need toleave a healthy planet for ourchildren and our grandchildren.

Our consumer culture is incred-

ibly wasteful and ultimatelyunsatisfying. We buy more andmore stuff and yet were not anyhappier and were destroyingthe environment in the process.

Preventing environmentaldamage is more effective and lesscostly over the long run than tryingto clean up pollution after it hasoccurred.

We may lose some jobs as wemove toward environmentally

friendly technologies andlifestyles, but well create newones in green industries.

The United States, which pro-duces a more than its share ofglobal pollutants, has a specialresponsibility to take the lead inenvironmental protection aroundthe world.

Arguments against this choice

This asks us to take drasticaction against threats that maynot even exist.

This choice ignores the fact thattechnology can solve many of theproblems it creates. Cars andindustries can be made cleanerand more efficient, crops can be

bred or even engineered to dealwith changing climates.

Global warming advocates callfor measures that would seriouslyhamper worldwide economicgrowth. Here and abroad, eco-nomic growth, and not an abso-lutely pristine environment, is thekey to improved quality of life formost people.

Industrial societies inevitablyaffect the environment. Thats

always been the case, and peoplehave always adjusted. The impor-tant thing is to prevent clear andpresent dangers to the environ-ment.









7/9

Status Report: Where Are We Now?

Starting Point: The Environment 7Public Agenda 2005

Most green issues are pre-sented as choices betweenprotecting the environment andgrowing the economy: You canhave a logging industry orsavethe spotted owl. You can reducegreenhouse gases orhave indus-trial growth.

Much of the day-to-day politicaldebate centers on whetherregulation has gone too far or notfar enough whether standards fordrinking water, land use, endan-gered species protection andother rules are too loose andendangering wildlife and thepublic, or too tight and needlesslyburdening business. Environmentalgroups and the Bush administra-tion have fought fiercely overmost of these issues.

Most Americans, however, seemto be seeking a choice thatincludes and rather than just or.They tell pollsters they care aboutthe environment and fear it willget worse, yet seem torn on howto respond and unready to acceptthe sacrifices that some environ-mentalists believe are necessary.Theres a line (now a clich) fromthe Sixties: the personal is politi-

cal. Nowhere is that more truethan in environmental policy andnowhere else does that have suchan impact on possible solutions.

The Personal Touch

Both environmentalists and theircritics do agree that the realthreat to the environment ispeople: billions of small decisionsby millions of people that add up

to trouble. Its what to do about itthat causes the debate. Manyenvironmentalists argue thathumans, particularly Americans,just consume too much. The key tochange is making people behavedifferently, to consume morewisely and thus leave a smallerfootprint on the planet.

Environmental critics contend thisattitude is much the same ashanging out a keep off the grasssign on the planet. To these critics,the environment is one amongmany priorities, not least of whichis a robust economy. Besides, thecritics argue, technology cansolve many of the problems itcreates by coming up withcleaner alternatives.

For example, theres no question

that cars are a major source of airpollution and greenhouse gases.Many environmental groups saythe government should attack theproblem by raising fuel-efficiencystandards for cars (particularlysport-utility vehicles) and raisinggas taxes to encourage people todrive less or switch to smaller cars.The auto industry and others arguethat the government shouldinstead encourage research into

Fuel consumption is a critical factor in air pollution.Find our more in ourissue guide.






http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environmenthttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=environment


8/9

The Publics Viewpoint

Public Agenda 2005

Half of Americans say theyconsider themselves environ-mentalists, but thats down fromthree-quarters of the public in

1989. Yet most Americans,particularly younger people, alsotell surveys they expect theenvironment to get worse in the21st century. Although mostpeople say the environment is an

important issue, few rank it as high

as terrorism, the economy oreducation.

When surveys ask people to

choose between the environmentand the economy, answerschange depending on how wellthe economy is doing. When the

economy was doing well in 2000,two-thirds of Americans said theyfavored protecting the environ-ment even at the expense ofeconomic growth. But during thesluggish times of 1992 and 2003,less than half of Americans fa-vored giving priority to theenvironment. Even during theboom of the 1990s, however, mostAmericans said its not necessary to

choose between protecting the

environment and economicgrowth. There is a similar patternon questions about conserving

energy.

One possible explanation forthese mixed signals may be thatfew Americans believe pollutionhas touched their lives. Mostpeople tell pollsters they feelgood about the quality of theenvironment where they live andhavent been personally harmedby environmental problems.


fuel-cell powered vehicles, which

would be almost pollution-free butwont be ready for many years.

Getting the Point

Environmental problems werenever simple, but 30 years ago,environmentalists could targetpoint sources pollution thatcould be tied to a specific source,such as smokestack industries,toxic waste dumping, and oceandischarge pipes. It was a waragainst pollution that people

could see (and frequently smell). Itwas also a war with significantvictories. Between 1975 and 1985,for example, lead emissions in theair were reduced by 90 percent.Substantial progress has also beenmade on other aspects of airquality. Water quality in manylakes and streams improved.

Those point pollution battles arestill there to be fought. The currentdebate over the Clean Air Act, forinstance, pits those who believe

older power plants should berequired to install new pollutionscrubbers against those whosupport cap-and-trade systems.Under trading systems, an overallcap on pollution is set. A powerplant can install new technology

to cut emissions, or it can buycredits from a more efficientplant, so long as the overall capon pollution is met.

But often it isnt so straightforward.Many environmental problems

dont have a single source andmay not have a single solution.

The oceans are a good example.A prestigious research effort, thePew Oceans Commission, recentlyreported that Americas oceans








9/9

Public Agenda 2005

Face the Facts


The amount of solidwaste, mostly made upof paper (35.7 percent),generated in the U.S.

has increased from 88.1

million tons in 1960 to229.2 million tons in2001. But the percent-age of waste recycledhas also significantlyincreased from just 6.4

percent in 1960 to 29.7percent thats 68

million tons - in 2001.

are in crisis. One of the basicproblems is runoff; pollutantswashed into the sea from farms,businesses and lawns.

Every eight months, the panelsaid, as much waste oil runs off theU.S. coastline as was spilled in the

notorious Exxon Valdez accident 11 million gallons. Also thanks torunoff, every summer a deadzone the size of Massachusettsappears in the Gulf of Mexico,

where no fish can live because ofa lack of oxygen in the water.

But theres no single polluter, oreven a group of polluters, that canbe blamed. Runoff comes fromthousands of sources, from largeindustrial and agricultural outfits topeople who change the oil in theircar and let it run into the sewer.And since no ones in charge ofthe ocean, there is no singlegovernment agency that can takethis problem on.

That doesnt mean theres nothingthat can be done. But it doesmean coordinating a lot of effortsby government, business andindividuals. The Chesapeake BayInitiative brings together sevenstate governments to cope withproblems affecting 64,000 squaremiles of watershed and roughly 16million people. That means workingon sewage treatment, fishing

regulation, farming, industry and

suburban sprawl. And the initiativehas halted the long-term declineof the bay but even so, thenonprofit Chesapeake Bay Foun-dation says the bay is only holdingits own and isnt getting better.

Global warming is perhaps thebest example of a potentiallycatastrophic problem that cantbe solved without coordinatedaction. In the worst-case scenario,air pollution in the form of green-house gases (like carbon dioxide)

could seal in the Earths heat,raising global surface tempera-tures from one to four degreesover the next 50 years.

That doesnt sound like much, butscientists say that could lead tomassive climate changes risingsea levels that would swampcoastal cities, the spread oftropical diseases and changes inagriculture. The vast majority ofscientists believe the climate isgetting warmer and that green-

house gases are to blame, al-though there is a skeptical minor-ity. Even so, deep differences existabout how urgent the problem isand who should bear the burdenof addressing it.

Global warming brings out all thedivisions underlying environmentalissues differences betweenskeptics and believers, haveand have-not countries, free-market proponents and environ-mental advocates. The KyotoAccord would require all indus-trial nations to cut their produc-tion of pollution gases below 1990levels. But the U.S. rejected thetreaty, saying it would cost toomuch and failed to limit emissionsby rapidly developing nations likeChina. The U.S. has proposedmeasures to slow the growth ofgreenhouse gases, but will likelyface continued pressure to enactmandatory restrictions to actuallycut emissions.







Starting Point Environment

Documents