One interesting point that arose while writing my last post was the relationship between the federal and state governments and how it affects the efficacy of our country’s environmental policy. I decided to explore this issue in a more in depth manner for this week’s post in order to better understand the dynamics of this system. The balance between the federal government and the states plays out differently for each area of law, but overall it has played a significant (and often contentious) role in United States policy.
There are benefits to leaving environmental regulation both to the federal government to the states. Proponents of federal environmental policy argue that it is necessary to set equal standards for all states in order to level the playing field (Larsen). Furthermore, it is much easier for large corporations to abide by one universal policy rather than having to deal with a variety of standards for their locations in different states. On the other hand, state regulations are thought to be more adaptable and quicker to get passed than federal legislation (Larsen). The geographical and population characteristics of any two states are likely to be very different. For example, wildlife conservation is much more of a concern for Alaska than for New York. New York, however, has much bigger air and light pollution issues than Alaska.
Because of all of these factors, it almost never ends up being an either/or situation in terms of environmental regulation. One of the few areas that is under complete federal control is the storage and disposal of commercial-level nuclear waste, most likely because the consequences of not properly dealing with it are more dire than for most environmental concerns (Larsen). States have greater regulatory freedom for areas like air and water pollution, presumably because they are not considered to be as high-stakes as nuclear waste.
Historically, one of the most significant pieces of federal environmental regulation has been the Clean Air Act, which was established in 1970 by Congress to address air pollution problems. The act gives the EPA the power to set air quality standards for pollutants like sulfur dioxide, lead, and carbon monoxide. Although the standards are national, each state is required to develop a plan to meet them. Basically, the EPA sets a national baseline, but each state has the ability to decide how it will meet or surpass that baseline.
One important point to note with the Clear Air Act is that when it was implemented in the 1970s and revised in the 1990s, greenhouse gases and global warming were not even a part of the conversation. Thus, the language of the act does not specifically give the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, in 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases fall under the category of air pollutants, giving the EPA the right to regulate them through the Clean Air Act (Massachusetts v. EPA).
According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 20 states and the District of Columbia have established greenhouse gas emissions targets (“Greenhouse Gas”). The states use varying target emission levels and varying target dates, but they all generally are looking to significantly reduce their emissions by 2050. Meanwhile, President Obama’s federal plan to cut carbon emissions that was submitted to the Paris Climate Conference back in December (see my first post of the semester) has been brought to a halt by the Supreme Court, which put a freeze on new rules that would clean up coal-fired power plants (Harvey).
Map showing states with greenhouse gas emissions targets in purple (“Greenhouse Gas”).
The regulation of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants is just one component of environmental regulation. Because the emission of these gases is fairly universal, it makes sense that the federal government has strong regulation in place that applies to every state. However, the states have more power in other areas where there is more variability between regions. According to Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, states have greater responsibilities in regards to the protection of groundwater (“U.S. Environmental Regulations”). This has become increasingly relevant for states like Pennsylvania where fracking has spread rapidly. Many environmentalists and concerned residents have criticized the state government for failing to keep up with the industry, especially as more data is beginning to come to light about the effects of fracking on groundwater.
The state of California actually has a law that prohibits the discharge of chemicals into drinking water unless the company wishing to discharge them provides concrete evidence that they provide no significant risk (“U.S. Environmental Regulations”). This law places the burden of proof on the industry, which would be interesting to consider for fracking states like Pennsylvania. The California law shows one of the advantages of giving states more regulatory power because new policies can be tested out and potentially adopted on a wider scale if they prove successful.
Works Cited
“Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets.” Climate Action. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
Harvey, Fiona, and Suzanne Goldenberg. “US Clean Power Plan Setback ‘will Not Affect Paris Climate Change Deal'” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 10 Feb. 2016. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
Larsen, John. “Bottom Line on State and Federal Policy Roles.” World Resources Institute. World Resources Institute, Aug. 2008. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U. S. 497 (2007)
“U.S. Environmental Regulations.” ChemAlliance. Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, 2016. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
3 responses to “Federal vs. State Environmental Policy”