|
|
Cleaning Up--What Works
| Article
# : |
11000 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
6 / 1986 |
2,146 Words |
| Author
: |
Jane S. Shaw and Richard L. Stroup
|
For the past 15 years, the United States has relied heavily on governmental intervention to clean up the environment, and in some cases this has been the only appropriate course. How ever, other approaches to environmental problems do exist. Let us look at the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Government regulation
Virtually all economists agree that when it comes to controlling air and water pollution, governmental regulation is probably essential. Since air and water are common resources, there is no private ownership forcing accountability, and the government must act as a policeman.
Sadly, however, the actual results of regulation are costly to the taxpayer and their effectiveness is unclear. Taxpayers can't police the policeman since they are understandably ignorant of most regulatory activities--all, perhaps, except a few highly publicized incidents.
In the case of controlling air pollution, regulations are so complex, with different policies for the different kinds of industries, different parts of the country, and old and new plants, that one must be an expert in the law to understand what is going on. And those with a direct interest in the matter do take the time to become experts in the law. Polluting companies lobby Congress to reduce the impact of the laws, while environmental groups lobby for the toughest rules, regardless of their impact on the treasury or economic growth. The result is often a cumbersome and costly compromise.
In a recent book on pollution control, Brookings Institution economist Robert Crandall noted how unequally the law is applied "More stringent standards have been legislated for new sources than of older ones. Copper smelters have been given explicit dispensation in the form of more lenient timetables… Small firms and industries have been exempted altogether. Coal miners have been given protection even when they produce high-sulfur, polluting coal." He also concludes that the Clean Air Act won political support from the Northeast and Midwest because it promised to slow down transfer of growth to the highly competitive "Sunbelt" states by increasing the cost of building new plants there.
Economists in general argue that the most effective way to control pollution is to charge an emissions or effluent tax. This approach would encourage companies to apply imagination and creativity to reducing their emissions because they would thereby increase their profits. However, this approach is completely missing from the Clean Air Act. Instead, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must identify the "best" control technology for various kinds of pollutants and industries and require new plants to be built according to that technology. This means that the EPA has enormous control over plant design and construction. Says economist Edwin S. Mills: "In principle, almost nothing an industrial firm does is outside the purview of EPA."
Bubble of air
Starting with the Carter administration in the late 1970s, the federal government began to take a few steps to reduce the cost of pollution control while achieving the same or better control. The main feature of this approach is the "bubble" concept. Instead
...
Read Full Article
|
|
