• Op-Ed
The environmental policy of the United States has changed through the process of an understanding, conflict, and adjustment by various policy participants such as Presidents, Congress, Courts, interest groups, and so on. This relative policy dynamics was determined by the period’s context including economic, political, and social situation. In the big-long mainstream that the environmental quality is important to modern citizens and most people are increasingly craving for good environment and the quality of life, short-term flow to reflect a special political, economic, and social situation affects the long-term stream. If any historical event or policy context such as president election, economic cycle, and energy supply problem was suited to the long-term trend, the environmental policy quantitatively or qualitatively more developed in terms of budget, environmental program, staffing, and other administrative styles. If it is vice versa, the environmental policy rolled back as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administration (Vig, p.79)
A large number of important federal environmental laws have made, and the role and intervention of federal government about the environmental problems has grown much bigger since 1970s (Vig, p.11). On the first Earth Day in 1970, people’ concern about the environmental quality more mounted, and President Richard Nixon to proclaim the 1970s as the “environmental decade” and congress leaded by Democratic Party established the National Environmental Policy act (NEPA) to compel all agencies of the federal government to integrate environmental concerns into their planning and decision-making. To create the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Air Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) is also epoch-making. New various laws including the first pesticide regulation, endangered species protections, control of hazardous and toxic wastes and ocean and coastline protection means also marvelous development of the environmental policy in the era. Nearly all of these achievements reflect that the federal government had ample authority to enforce polluters or potential polluters to adhere to national direct pollution control and command (Vig, p.12).
On the other hand, the president Ronald Reagan in the 1980s pursued the mitigation of environmental conservation because he recognized the government intervention including the environmental regulation as inherent factor to hamper the United States’ economic growth and prosperity (Vig, p.79). He was trying to transfer central responsibilities to the states and more rely on the private sector (Vig, p.13). Reagan’s great budget cuts that Congress initially cooperated to had substantial negative effects on the capacity of environmental agencies to implement previous grown policy order (Vig, p.80). Particularly, Reagan appointed new people to environmental agencies in order to procure compliance with his policy goal and representative example is his selection of Burford to head of EPA. This presidency endeavor focused on the administrative style such as executive order, budget, and staffing cuts rather than new bill establishment of 1970s (Vig, p.79). However, his lukewarm attitude about environmental problems instead motivated environmental groups and environmentalists’ organizational action and concern about the environment. Therefore, George H. W Bush, republican was eager to adopt a more positive environmental policy than Reagan. However, his policy also was inherently accorded with his predecessor’s ideological goal to pursue economic growth and market competition (Vig, p.81).
Bill Clinton as democrat to appoint Al Gore, passionate environmentalist to vice-president propelled environmental policy reform as his intention to “reinvent government”. He tried to restore many of the Reagan and Bush period executive actions regarding to environmental problems in the way to increase the budget for the programs and encourage alternative energy and conservation research (Vig, p.15). His endeavor can be summarized in harmonizing environmental protection and economic development through the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (Vig, p.2). On the contrary to the Clinton, George W. Bush, republican more emphasized economic growth rather than environmental concern like his father, Bush, for example, as knowing through withdrawal of the United States from the Kyoto Protocol on global climate. Bush exercised the executive powers of the presidency such as appointment, budget, and rulemaking to build an antiregulatory and pro-business plan such as “Clear Skies” throughout most of his tenure (Vig, p.85-88). This economic-centered perspective benefited further unlike previous trends, after the terror event of September 11, 2001, invasion to Iraq, and great economic crisis of 2008 (Vig, p.15).
Barack Obama emphasized that his stance would be significantly different from his antecessor’s environmental policies by proclaiming that “combating global warming is a top priority and to reinvigorate the EPA, actively interchange with environmental experts, respect scientific integrity, be responsible steward of our natural treasures, and reverse the Bush administration’s attempts about the environmental concerns…” His selection for cabinet and top White House staff positions for the group to be called as “a Green Dream Team” by the League of Conservation Voters mean that he is promoting the designated agenda (Vig, p.91). He promised to restore a proper balance between the executive and other branches of government on the base of democratic participation and hearing unlike the Bush to abuse executive power. Also, Vice-president to show strong relationship to the Democratic Senate leadership and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress will make it possible the Obama administration well to maintain the original environmental plan. The passage of greatly increased budget for climate change, clean energy, and other environmental programs will be another important factor to ensure the actual activity of the Obama administration (Vig, p.91-92).
However, given that we now is in 2012, Obama partially accomplished all original environmental policy agenda to focus on sustainable development through long-term strategy even though the positive condition for developing environmental policy had been well set up. Unfortunately, he could not help but concentrate on overcoming urgent economic crisis as Clinton had did so in the latter half of his term, which made it difficult to maintain consistency of the policy. The long-term plan such as environmental policy will need continuous support. Also, the complex and strict separation of authority between federal and state government, and within central government as well as between government, congress, and courts, and various dynamics connected to the environmental policy made the rapid implement of the policy tardy.
