Lessons from The Lorax
Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax presents readers with a choice: protect the land for future use, or develop the land for monetary gain. The story unfolds as a young boy attempts to understand what caused the extinction of the beautifully colored Truffula Trees. He discovers that the trees were cut down in order to produce Thneed needed for various products. Eventually, Thneed was overproduced, causing the natural landscape to become dark and dreary—a wasteland where no one wanted to live because of all the pollution . This story reminds us what happens when we make environmental choices; cutting down trees has costs and benefits.
The story of The Lorax struck a chord with former administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson ; she hoped that the book, which was turned into a feature film in 2012, would help us understand the importance of protecting the environment (Nakashima 2012). During her time at the EPA, Jackson always kept a copy of The Lorax in her desk to remind her of the importance of protecting the environment (Boyle 2010). Even though the Lorax is a children’s story, it serves as an essential lesson for modern-day environmental policymaking —“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not” (Suess 1998).
The United States continues to confront a host of environmental issues that range from protecting the gray wolf in Wyoming, preventing drinking water contamination in Flint, Michigan to endeavoring to preserve biodiversity and combating climate change . Although the environmental problems we confront are more complex than those in Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax , the choices they present are no less stark. The following pages unpack these challenges by exploring environmental policy in the United States.
We begin our conversation about environmental policy by defining key terms. First, a basic dictionary definition of “environmental policy” is necessary. The word “environment” encompasses our natural surroundings and includes how it is affected (e.g., pollution, water, sanitation). Here we define environmental policy as one area of public policy that the government is called to address by its citizens. More specifically, environmental policy is government action related to the natural environment .
Environmental policy is also about making tough choices. It is difficult because it can pit individuals against one another. The American public might be vehemently opposed to shutting down a coal company Colstrip, Montana that releases harmful pollutants because it means a loss of jobs for the community; however, that same public also wants a clean environment. Environmental policymaking is difficult because it brings together an enormous array of actors—institutional (Congress, the President, and the Courts ) and noninstitutional actors (media, interest groups , political parties , and the public ). All of these actors have their own perspectives and their own agendas .
In addition, environmental decision-making is challenging because the information age has brought us a deluge of material. Discerning fact from fiction can be frustrating and overwhelming. Historically, institutional actors , if they did not have the requisite information to make a decision, relied upon scientific or policy experts to inform and help them make the best, most informed choice. However, the temptation for institutional actors is to bypass outside expertise and advance their own decisions with information readily available from the click of a button from the first set of results from an Internet search. Moreover, for politicians, the temptation is to base choices increasingly on how they might help secure reelection (Jacobson 2012). For instance, if an elected member of Congress ’ congressional district has the highest unemployment rate in the United States , the goal is not going to be to shut down the local coal mining facility because jobs are needed; and this takes precedence over protecting the environment. However, what if this coal mining company’s chemicals end up in the local water supply and kill thousands of citizens? As this example suggests, environmental policy is about difficult choices.
The focus of this introductory chapter is, first, to present a few environmental dilemmas (e.g., air pollution , water contamination, garbage disposal, and species protection) in order to examine the choices that the United States has made about these issues. Then, we introduce the reader to the central theme of our book: we need to pay attention to the doers of environmental policy , as they are the people on the front-lines of environmental policy , implementing society’s choices.
With the term “front-lines,” we are referring to the people who implement or carry out environmental policy on a daily basis. These individuals on the front-lines include environmental rule-writers , who translate congressional statutes into actionable policy, and environmental inspectors , who ensure that your neighborhood waste management company is complying with federal law to ensure that your waste is properly stored. They also include members of advocacy groups who urge collective action as well as policy analysts who provide the important facts and analysis we need to make decisions. Further, we cannot overlook those businesses that cooperate with rule-writers and environmental inspectors to protect the environment (Pautz and Rinfret 2013). The argument we make in this book is simple: in order to understand environmental choices made in the United States, we need to pay attention to the doers of environmental policy , many of which occupy the so-called fourth branch of government (i.e., the bureaucracy).
Environmental Dilemmas and Choices
We offer a snapshot of environmental challenges (e.g., air pollution , climate change , hazardous and solid waste, etc.) and the choices the United States has made to address some aspects of these issues. These choices by no means indicate that these environmental issues have been resolved. The goal here is to introduce our readers to some examples, leaving the remaining pages of the book to fill in the details. So many of the challenges presented here continue to evolve and have no conclusion. After all, environmental policy evolves daily and with Republicans controlling the White House and the Senate and Democrats controlling the House of Representatives after the 2018 midterm elections , there will be even greater need for our institutional actors to bargain and compromise regarding the future of environmental policy .
Clean or Dirty Air?
Prior to the 1970s, the air quality in the United States was often defined as unhealthy or simply dirty because of the pollution that filled the air in many of our major cities, such as Los Angeles (Andrews 2006). Among the culprits of the dirty air were six major toxic pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide , particulates, lead, and ozone (Andrews 2006). These six pollutants are of concern because of their impact on the health and well-being of humans; but, what are the origins of these pollutants? For instance, carbon monoxide (the most common of the six) is colorless and odorless and is a product of burning fossil fuels (including running your car), and when there is too much of it in the air, it can cause an array of cardiovascular problems and even visual impairment.
Because of such concerns, Congress decided to establish air quality standards with the passage of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, which created National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA , in implementing the NAAQS , established limits for the aforementioned six pollutants and continues to enforce these standards across the country (Kraft 2017). Going back to our example of carbon monoxide, the NAAQS standards forced car manufacturers to devise ways to produce cars that are cleaner burning. The EPA suggests that, when examining these six areas of pollutants that lead to poor air quality, significant improvements have been made over time. The EPA reports that, from 1980 to 2017, air quality in the United States has improved because the agency set standards that were required to be met; if not, fines resulted (US EPA Air Quality Trends 2014). To demonstrate some of these improvements, the EPA’s longitudinal study of carbon monoxide from 1980 to 2017 reports a decrease by 77% (US EPA Air Quality 2014).
Cle...