The Elusive Middle Ground in Environmental Policy

By Clarke, David | Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 1995 | Go to article overview

The Elusive Middle Ground in Environmental Policy


Clarke, David, Issues in Science and Technology


Although Republican bills go way too far, major changes in the nation's environmental laws are long overdue.

Forewarned isn't always fore-armed. Despite numerous warnings last year, the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to prepare themselves for what has now become the most critical challenge to health, safety, and environmental regulation of the past 25 years: the effort by the new Republican Congress to make many proposed regulations subject to sweeping new risk-assessment and cost-benefit analyses.

During the past few years, risk assessment has jostled its way into the limelight of congressional attention. Both friends and foes of EPA acknowledge that regulatory demands to reduce already minuscule amounts of risk have grown exponentially, while funding struggles to keep up. State and local officials, business leaders, academics, and environmentalists have pressed EPA to use risk assessment as a tool for rationalizing its regulations. Time and again in the last Congress, risk-reform proposals won strong bipartisan votes in both the House and Senate.

Greater efforts to find middle ground last year might have assuaged eager reformers. But the Clinton administration and its top environmental official, EPA administrator Carol M. Browner, have until recently remained largely aloof from the debate. As a result, last year's momentum has become this year's juggernaut. The Republican proposals would radically alter the nation's regulatory system. If the worst predictions are right, the proposed laws could cast aside many of the successes of environmental policymaking during the past two and a half decades. This would be unfortunate, because a path can clearly be seen to a genuinely bipartisan middle ground, one that would provide reasonable protection of public health and the environment while removing many of the inflexibilities and idiocies of the current system.

A "modest" proposal

On February 28, 1995, the House passed the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 (H.R. 1022), which would establish specific guidelines for a broad range of agencies, including EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The guidelines require regulatory agencies to follow specific procedures to assess, characterize, and communicate risks. EPA has often relied on unrealistic worst-case assumptions in calculating risks-for instance, that an individual exposed to a particular air pollutant inhales it 24 hours a day for 70 years. The agency also uses a single numeric estimate to characterize a particular risk, rather than showing the range of possible adverse outcomes. A young healthy person may be less susceptible to a specific toxin than an older person or someone with particular health problems. By reducing the range of potential risks to a single figure, the agency tends to offer more absolute appraisals than are warranted.

The House bill provides a very detailed process for assessing risk, including greater reliance on independent scientific peer review. It requires agencies to characterize risks in terms of the range of possible effects and to communicate risks in terms that the average person can understand-specifically, by comparing the risk presented by one pollutant or activity to three risks with which the public is familiar (such as the risk of dying in a plane crash) and with the risks associated with three pollutants or activities already regulated by the agency. The bill would also force regulatory agencies to explain more clearly the underlying science on which policy decisions are based and make clear any gaps or uncertainties in the information available.

Next (and this is the more radical step) the bill states that the benefits of federal regulations, measured in health, environmental, social, and economic terms, must outweigh their costs. Right now, most environmental statutes require regulations to be based solely on considerations of potential damage to health or ecological systems, and they explicitly exclude cost-benefit balancing as a criterion for adoption. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Elusive Middle Ground in Environmental Policy
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.