Chapter 3

Environmental Regulations

Learning Outcomes 52
Key Concepts 52
3.1 Need for Environmental Regulations 52
3.1.1 Tragedy of the Commons 52
3.1.2 The History of Environmental Regulations 54
3.1.3 Implementation of Environmental Regulations in the United States in Europe 54
3.2 Environmental Policy-Making Process 57
3.2.1 Overview 57
3.2.2 Policy Making Process 59
3.2.3 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 60
3.2.4 The Policy Cycle 61
3.3 Environmental Politics and Policy 62
3.3.1 Environmental Politics 62
3.3.2 Interest Groups in Environmental Politics and Policy 63
3.3.3 Environmental Groups and Their Roles in Environmental Politics and Policy 64
3.3.4 Litigation, Regulation, Legislation, and Negotiation in Environmental Politics 66
3.4 Environmental Regulations 67
3.4.1 Environmental Regulation in the United States 67
3.4.2 Environmental Regulation in the European Union 68
3.4.3 Environmental Regulation in China and other Developing Countries 69
3.5 Environmental Justice 70
Further Reading 71
Web Resources 72
Questions and Exercises 72

51
52  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

Learning Outcomes
•• Knowledge of major environmental laws and regulations
°° Air quality laws
°° Water quality laws
•• Understanding of the intent and origin of environmental policies and regulations
°° Understand the concept of “the tragedy of the commons”
•• Knowledge of the environmental policy making process (6 steps);
•• Knowledge of the concept of “policy cycle” (i.e., life cycle of a policy)
•• Understanding of the differences and linkage between environmental policy and politics;
­regulations, and examples of major environmental policies in the world.

Key Concepts
Tragedy of the Commons; game theory; law; regulation; policy; politics; policy
making; policy cycle; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (environmental) politics; interest groups; United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); European Environmental Agency
(EEA); environmental justice

Environmental regulation is an important part of the environmental field. This chapter

will start with discussing the issue of “Tragedy of the Commons” that, without envi-
ronmental regulations, will result in disastrous damage of our environment. The
­billion-dollar environmental industry and millions of jobs in the field of wastewater
treatment, remediation, environmental consulting, and so on, would be drastically dif-
ferent or even be nonexistent if there were no environmental regulations that prescribe
requirements for environmental protection. In this chapter, we will examine the need
for environmental regulations, the process and practice of developing and implement-
ing environmental regulations, environmental policies and politics, and associated
issues and challenges. Important environmental regulations in the United States,
­European Union, and China will be introduced, and the issue of environmental justice,
which is a socioeconomic issue with environmental nexus, will be briefly discussed.

3.1 Need for Environmental Regulations

3.1.1 Tragedy of the Commons
“Tragedy of the commons” is a concept brought up by Hardin in 1968, in which
­individuals, acting independently (not necessarily selfishly) according to their best
interest, behave contrary to the common good of the others by depleting or
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  53

spoiling the shared resource through their collective actions. A good example is
grazing lands, where an individual cattle owner will likely use the land as much as
possible for g ­ razing for his cattle. If there are too many of such users and there is
no regulation limiting the use, the grazing land will eventually be overexploited
and cannot be used for grazing any more, hurting everyone involved. There are
many other examples such as water resources, water quality, air ­quality, forest, and
other publicly owned properties. Everyone suffers when a common resource is
depleted or harmed because when a resource belongs to everybody, it also belongs
to nobody.
In an ideal world, a nation would be governed by a philosopher king, and its citi-
zens would behave rationally.1 The economy would be strong, its citizens would enjoy
high quality of life, and the environment would be clean and sustainable. However,
there is no philosopher king in this world. There are some rational people, but collec-
tive rationality is hard to achieve when people act at his/her best interest even without
intentionally harming other people’s interest. This can best be explained by game the-
ory, which is the study of strategic interactions among rational decision-makers in a
zero-sum game that each participant tries to maximize his or her gain at the expense of
others. In the scenario of the tragedy of the commons of the grazing lands, the partici-
pants would consider how other cattle ­owners would do in order to figure out the best
strategy of his/her own. One likely outcome, if the participants are cooperative and
rational, is that they probably will establish a set of rules to enforce the sharing of com-
mon resources without hurting everyone. Each environmental legislation has a differ-
ent story, but the overall rationale has been consistent and can all be traced back to the
tragedy of the commons. The most eminent examples are probably international trea-
ties in the protection of common resources, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), green-
house gases, protection of endangered species, conservation of wetlands, etc. Before
the treaties were established, every nation, as a member of the “commons,” tried to
develop its economy at the expense of global environmental resources. As a result,
global warming, ozone depletion,2 crashing of ocean fisheries, rapid loss of global bio-
diversity, and other global environmental issues are becoming increasingly acute.
Some nations may have realized the issues earlier than others, but without binding
international treaties and enforcement, these T ­ ragedy of the Commons issues cannot
be effectively addressed.

1
According to Plato, a philosopher king is a ruler who possesses both a love of wisdom, as well as intelligence,
reliability, and a willingness to live a simple life.
2
Ozone depletion is caused by many chemicals, especially CFC because one single CFC molecule can
destroy on average 100,000 ozone molecules before it is removed from the atmosphere. Frank Rowland of
UC Irvine won the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on this issue. The 1987 Montreal Protocol is credited
for the global effort on CFC emission that has resulted in significant reduction of the ozone hole over
Antarctica.
54  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

3.1.2 The History of Environmental Regulations

The same tragedy has happened to every nation and around the world along with pop-
ulation growth and economic development. The earliest “environmental regulation”
perhaps took place in the 1300s, when the English King Edward I briefly banned coal
fires in London due to extremely poor air quality. In the United States, one such rule is
the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, the oldest federal environmental
law in the New World. This Act set a number of rules to protect the nation’s navigable
waters against dumping of waste; dredge/fill/dam, or otherwise alter such navigable
water without a permit. This Act is the precursor of the monumental Clean Water Act,
arguably the most successful and influential environmental law in the history of the
United States. In European Union (EU), the Paris Summit meeting of heads of state and
government of the European Economic Community (EEC) in October 1972 marked the
beginning of the EU’s environmental policy. China’s first environmental protection law
was passed in 1979, but significant effort on environmental protection did not start until
the 2000s. In many cases, environmental regulations were spurred by worsening envi-
ronmental quality, sometimes by environmental disasters. Environmental groups have
also been important in raising the public awareness of these issues. Examples will be
given in the discussion later in this chapter when specific regulations are described.

Knowledge Box
Laws and Regulations: In the United States, Federal laws are bills that have
passed both houses of Congress, been signed by the president, passed over the
president’s veto, or allowed to become law without the president’s signature.
­Individual laws, also called acts, are arranged by subject in the United States Code
(U.S.C.). Regulations are rules made by executive departments and agencies, and
are arranged by subject in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Regulations
are the ongoing process of monitoring and enforcing the law. Essentially, regula-
tions are the extension of the law. For example, the U.S. Congress sets the laws
such as the Clean Water Act, and federal agencies such as United States
­Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sets environmental regulations to
implement the Act by adopting water quality standards and issuing discharge
­permits in the spirit of the Clean Water Act. In this book, these two terms are not
always ­distinguished from each other and they are collectively termed “policies.”

3.1.3 Implementation of Environmental Regulations in the

United States in Europe
It takes a legislative body such as a congress to enact environmental laws, and it
takes large agencies or bureaucracies to implement environmental regulations.
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  55

USEPA Administrator

Deputy Administrators Inspector General

Chief of Staff

Office of the Office of Air and Office of Air and

Administrator Radiaon Radiaon

Office of the Chemical Office of Land and Office of Enforcement

Safety and Polluon Emergency and Compliance
Prevenon Management Assurance

Office of the General Office of Internaonal Office of Mission

Counsel and Tribal Affairs Support

Office of Research and Office of Water

Development

USEPA Regional
Mission Support Air and Radiaon Regional Counsel Water
Offices (10 Regions)

Land, Chemical, and Enforcement and Compliance Superfund and Emergency Laboratory Services
Redevelopment Assurance Management and Applied Science

Figure 3.1 The organization chart of USEPA.

Source: Created by Jian Peng based on information from USEPA website [Link].

In the United states, USEPA is one of the major federal agencies that, though not a
cabinet department (such as the Department of Agriculture or the Department of
the Interior), enjoys tremendous clout and the administrator is routinely treated as
a cabinet member. With a large staff of more than 14,000 full-time employees as of
2018 and a budget of more than $8 billion, USEPA is one of the most influential
federal agencies, and certainly is the governing agency that oversee nearly all envi-
ronmental issues. Figure 3.1 shows the organization chart of USEPA. The 10
regional offices of USEPA enjoy significant autonomy and can implement environ-
mental policies more tailored to each specific region. Different regional offices may
differ significantly in terms of progressiveness in how they manage environmental
issues. For example, USEPA Regional 9 oversees the states of Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, Samoa, and Navajo Nation (a Native American tribe) and
is perhaps the most progressive region among the 10 regions. In the EU, the gov-
erning environmental agency is the European Environmental Agency (EEA) estab-
lished in 1990. EEA’s task is to provide sound, independent information on the
environment and to support sustainable development by helping to achieve
56  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

Knowledge Box
CalEPA—California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is the environmen-
tal agency for the State of California. Working with USEPA Region 9, CalEPA’s
mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment, to ensure public health,
environmental quality and economic vitality. It has the following six major depart-
ments: ­ California Air Resources Board; Department of Pesticide Regulation;
­California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery; Department of Toxic
Substances Control; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; and the
State Water Resources ­ Control Board. Of these agencies, the State Water
Resources Control Board is the largest and has nine regional boards that govern
different regions within the State.

Management Board

Execuve Director Internal Audit

Capacity
Administraon
Coordinaon and Services (human
Strategy resources, legal, and
finance)

Data and Informaon Natural Capital and Integrated Assessments

Services: Informaon Ecosystems: for Sustainability:
Systems, Data Biodiversity and Knowledge Development;
Management, GIS Nature; Water and Socioeconomic Analysis
Marine

Health and Communicaons: Wring

Sustainable Resource Climate Change, and Publishing; Media
Use: Air Polluon, Energy and Transport Relaons, Social Media
Environment and and Web
Health

Figure 3.2 European Environmental Agency (EEA) Organization Chart.

Source: Created by Jian Peng based on the information from EEA website: [Link].

significant and measurable improvement in Europe’s environment. The organiza-

tion chart for EEA is shown in Figure 3.2. Compared to USEPA, EEA put more
emphasis on sustainability, biodiversity, and climate change. This reflects the
increasing push of these global environmental issues by EU’s 32 member nations
and 6 cooperating nations.
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  57

3.2 Environmental Policy-Making Process

3.2.1 Overview
Similar to other public policies, environmental policy making process could be mod-
eled in several different ways.3 These models, unfortunately, largely assume that the
policy-makers are fully informed, rational, and intelligent, which obviously is not
the case. The more pessimistic view of the policy making process is the so-called
­“garbage can model.”4 Somewhere in the middle, the most plausible is the model pro-
posed by John Kingdom (1984), where policy making is made up of three streams:
problem, political, and policy. In the problem stream, environmental issues are defined
as problems and receive regulatory attention. In the political stream, events, trends,
institutions, and interest groups determine which problems will receive attention on
the governmental agenda. In the policy stream, the agenda turns into an environmen-
tal policy after exchange and collisions of ideas, analyses, arguments, and participa-
tion of bureaucrats, congressional staff, think tanks, etc.
In terms of the administrative process, environmental policy making takes the
­following steps: start-up and planning; issue development, options analysis, and
­drafting; review and drafting of the proposal; public comment and evaluation;
drafting and review of the final rule; and promulgation and implementation
(­Figure 3.3). Usually, the entire process for a typical environmental policy takes
around 2 years in the US, but it could be much longer if the policy is controversial
or complicated. Federal laws usually take longer than state laws. This is not
­surprising—there are at least 20 senate and house committees that have oversight
on environmental issues. Because federal laws cover national issues, they usually
generate more widespread public and institutional attention and need more time
for public participation and to address the comments.5 Emergency rule-making
could take much less time.

3
They include institutional model (laws are made by institutions as their formal responsibilities); system model
(laws are set up to regulate entities coexisting in equilibrium in a system); group process model (laws are products
of struggles and collaborations among different interest groups, and the most powerful groups win out); and
net-benefit model (laws are set up to achieve the best overall benefit to the society).
4
According to a poignant paper by Cohen et al. (1972), a “garbage can” organization is a “collection of
choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which they might be
aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be the answer, and decision makers looking for
work.”
5
One good example is USEPA’s Clean Water Rule that aimed at revising the definition of navigable water in 2015.
One of the versions of the draft law received more than a million public comments. By law, all of these comments
need to be addressed. Therefore, it is not surprising that it took a very long time to move forward (only to be a
victim of partisan politics 4 years later, in 2019).
58  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

Startup and
Planning

Promulgaon
and
Issue
implementaon development

Final rule dra Proposal dra

and review and review

Public review
and comment

Figure 3.3 Policy making process.

Source: Created by Jian Peng based on Fiorino, 1995.

Knowledge Box
Policy Making Process: Based on Fiorino (1995; see Figure 3.3), the policy mak-
ing process has the ­following steps:
• Start-up and planning: work on a rule is initiated in response to a legal require-
ment (for example, a law requires that certain regulations be established by a set
deadline) or a program need (for example, an emerging environmental issue that
needs to be addressed by new regulation but under the current legal framework).
• Issue development, Options analysis, and Drafting: the issue to be addressed
is defined and organized, analyzed, including the cost benefit analysis and
­economic analysis.
• Review and publication of the proposal: the draft proposed rule is published for
public comments.
• Public comments and evaluation: public comments are received and addressed.
• Drafting and review of the final rule: public comments are addressed and the
rule revised and republished for further comments. This process could repeat
several times depending on level and significance of the comments.
• Promulgation and implementation: the rule is finalized, officially adopted, and
implemented.
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  59

3.2.2 Policy Making Process

Figure 3.4 shows a typical policy making process for USEPA. If we apply the above
model for policy-making process, the start-up and planning does not show in Figure 3.4
because this process could take many years, and many issues will not make it through
the policy making process. Steps 1 through 9 will be the second bullet above (issue
development, options analysis, and drafting) where a workgroup, usually consisting of
technical experts in the specific field of the issue, USEPA officials, and sometimes envi-
ronmental group members, takes the bulk of the work on issue and policy analysis,
options evaluation, and drafting of the document. The drafted policy will undergo
agency review before it is externalized to other federal government agencies such as the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)6 or the United States Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vices (USFWS)7 before being published for public commenting. The comments are then
compiled and addressed in the final rule. The promulgation and implementation of the
rule usually take some additional administrative steps. On the state level, this could
involve review and approval by federal agencies. On the federal level, the policy mak-
ing process could take on either legislative or agency pathways. Interestingly, both fed-
eral and state environmental laws or policies, before they can be developed, must go
through environmental review process. This will be addressed in the next section.

Figure 3.4 The USEPA’s rule making process.

Source: Created by Jian Peng based on [Link]

6
OMB review is required if the rule is deemed “significant” due to its budget impact (>$100 million), significant
inconsistency with other federal policies or agencies; or it raises new legal or policy issues.
7
Pursuant to Endangered Species Act (ESA), USFWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Services review or
consultation will be required if the rule may impact endangered or threatened species.
60  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

3.2.3 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, was established in 1970 as the
first of a series of significant environmental laws including the Clean Air Act, Clean
Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and many other envi-
ronmental laws that completely changed the environmental landscape in the United
States. NEPA is a foundational environmental law that requires environmental
reviews for all federal projects and federal policies8 very early in the process so that
their environmental impacts can be assessed and the public be notified of these
impacts. A 2015 court document has the following elegant description of NEPA
(Byron, 2015):
“Following nearly a century of rapid economic expansion, population growth,
industrialization, and urbanization, it had become clear by the late 1960s that ­American
progress had an environmental cost. A congressional investigation into the matter
yielded myriad evidence indicating a gross mismanagement of the country’s environ-
ment and resources, most notably at the hands of the federal government. As a result,
lawmakers and the general public alike called for an urgent and sweeping policy of
environmental protection.”

Knowledge Box
CEQA, or California Environmental Quality Act, is the counterpart of NEPA on
the state level in California. Established in 1970 shortly after NEPA and signed
by the then-governor Ronald Reagan, CEQA requires state and local agencies to
follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of
­proposed projects and mitigate the impacts. The project mitigation requirement
significantly deviates from the federal NEPA, which is largely for public disclosure.
Therefore, CEQA process is much more extensive, slow, and costly, and is subject
to some controversies. For example, some large projects such as California’s High-
Speed Rail and Bay-Delta Project can take decades to go through the CEQA pro-
cess and have cost tens of millions of dollars. In California, the most common types
of environmental lawsuits are CEQA-related.

8
Note that NEPA applies only to federal projects and policies. For state and local projects and policies, local
NEPA-like policies apply. For example, CEQA applies to projects in California. Some projects may have both
federal and state interests. In that case, both NEPA and CEQA documentations need to be developed and
obligations fulfilled, making the project planning more challenging.
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  61

There are three levels of analysis for a project’s environmental impacts:

• Categorical Exclusion determination—this category requires no additional actions
or analysis if a project can be categorically excluded due to lack of environmental
impact or lack of applicability.
• Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact—this category includes
projects that cannot be categorically excluded but it does not cause significant environ-
mental impacts.
• Environmental Impact Statement—this category applies to projects that have sig-
nificant environmental impact; therefore the project will be subject to more detailed
and rigorous requirements, including alternative consideration and plans for miti-
gation and monitoring if necessary. This information will be included in the Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement document that is subject to public review, commenting,
and official adoption. It is also a legal document that the project owner has to abide
by to avoid legal challenges.

3.2.4 The Policy Cycle

Based on Rosenbaum (2005), who took on a more holistic view of the entire policy
making process and life cycle of a policy, the “Policy Cycle” includes the following
steps: agenda setting, formulation and legitimation, implementation, assessment and
reformulation, and termination. Of these processes, the first two are part of the policy
making process, and the last three steps are part of the entire life cycle of a policy. The
following Knowledge Box explained these steps.

Agenda seng

Terminaon Formulaon and

legimizaon

Assessment
and Implementaon
reformulaon

Figure 3.5 The policy cycle.

Source: Created by Jian Peng based on Rosenbaum (2005)
62  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

Knowledge Box
The Policy Cycle—Based on Rosenbaum (2005), the Policy Cycle has the
­following steps:
• Agenda setting: the process of getting an issue urgent and significant enough
to the official government agenda to be considered. Not all of the issues will be
taken up, or be agendized, for further policy making.
• Formulation and legitimization: for those issues that are agendized, policy goals
will be set, plans will be created, and plans and proposals be prepared to imple-
ment the plans. Policies, once created, will then be legitimized to become effec-
tive through voting, public hearing, presidential orders, etc.
• Implementation: this is the step where a series of actions are required to be
taken in order to realize the intent of the policy. (For example, a discharge per-
mit is one of the mechanisms to implement Clean Water Act and related policies
to improve water quality.)
• Assessment and reformulation: the impact of a policy will be monitored and
assessed by the court system, media, and governmental agencies. A policy
may be reformulated to address emerging issues.
• Termination: deliberate conclusion or succession of a policy after its intent has
been fulfilled.

3.3 Environmental Politics and Policy

3.3.1 Environmental Politics
Politics is a set of activities associated with the governance of a country, state or an area.
It could be a neutral word depicting these activities, but often it has negative connotations
because it often involves negotiation, compromise, policy making, and exercising force.
Politics, interest groups, and their agendas affect policy and the environment through
nearly every step in the policy making process and the “Policy Cycle” (Figures 3.3 and
3.5). For example, agenda setting is a process where a social issue becomes important
enough that it is written up and agendized (i.e., getting onto a legislative calendar) to be
presented before a legislative committee or authority. Within each agency, such as USEPA
(Figure 3.1) and EEA (Figure 3.2), they need to “play politics” with other a­ gencies within
the U.S. government or the EU to implement their agenda. Within these agencies them-
selves, different departments/divisions may need to play politics to exert influence and
fight for resources.
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  63

© Kenneth Sponsler/[Link]

Figure 3.6 Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio. During and before the 1960s, it caught
fire at least 13 times. The fire on June 22 was caught on camera and created a national
sensation and boosted the momentum of the environmental movement in the United States.

On the society level as a whole, the dynamics among different interest groups is criti-
cal to the way how environmental issues are handled. Most environmental issues need a
political propellent to survive the early stages of agenda setting. Had Rachel Carson not
published her seminal book Silent Spring, had the Cuyahoga River in Ohio (Figure 3.6)
not caught fire on June 22, 1969 and the shocking photo captured the nation’s attention,
the environmental movement in the late 1960s might not have been strong enough to
prompt a slurry of environmental legislations. Many environmental initiatives and legis-
lative agendas may be adverse to many other interest groups, and they cannot be easily
agendized due to lack of support or petition by these interest groups.

3.3.2 Interest Groups in Environmental Politics and Policy

Interest groups play an increasing role in both environmental policy making and poli-
tics. On environmental issues, four main interest groups can be called out (Figure 3.7):
legislature (congress), government, businesses/industries, and environment group.
The general public is often an important interest group, but due to its heterogeneity,
their positions can often be reflected in either the environmental group, or the busi-
nesses/industries group. Business groups are often viewed as the most influential
interest group with good reason, because their leaders manage much of a nation’s econ-
omy. Business groups can have their interests represented early and forcefully in the
policy making process. But they are far from the only interest group, and sometimes
64  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

Funding and
Polical Support
Congress Government
Policy Choice and
Execuon

s
ge
Ele

t
l a rsi g h

an
cto

Ch
Friendly Legislaon

ral

e
Electoral Support

on
Ov
Su

Congressional
Tax Revenue,
Regulaon
pp

Support
gu
or t

Re
Lo rt a nal
o
bb nd
pp ssi

Fri isla
Le
Su ngre

en o n
g
y
o

d ly
Co
Environmental Oversight Businesses
Groups Support and and Industries
Environmental
Iniaves

Figure 3.7 The Iron Quadrangle of Environmental Politics.

Source: Created by Jian Peng

not the dominant one on some policy issues. The business group sometimes are differ-
entiated into smaller sub-groups, each with different or even competing interests. For
example, in the automaker industry, electrical carmakers such as Tesla are a disruptive
force and they often have different priorities and political agendas (especially those on
environmental issues) than the traditional carmakers. Some technology firms such as
Apple, Google can be very environment-friendly. Even for companies such as Mon-
santo (the world’s largest pesticide manufacturer, now part of Bayer), ExxonMobil (one
of the largest oil companies in the world), and Rio Tinto (one of the world’s largest
mining companies), their website and public messaging could also appear to be envi-
ronment-friendly. However, they are often subject to severe environmental regulations
and have to treat the other interest groups carefully to maintain profitability.

3.3.3 Environmental Groups and Their Roles in Environmental

Politics and Policy
On the other end of the spectrum is the environmental groups (Figure 3.8), which had
little political influence until the 1970s. Compared to the business groups, environmen-
tal groups have little financial means to support their political agenda. However, they
have become more and more proficient in fundraising, grassroot mobilization using
media and social media, as well as maximizing their influence on environmental pol-
icy making process via public participation process and legal challenges. As shown in
­Figure 3.7, environmental groups exert tremendous influence on all other interest
groups by electoral support to the congress, lobbying and oversight to various
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  65

Figure 3.8 Memberships in 13 major environmental groups (the World Wildlife Fund; the
Nature Conservancy; Sierra Club; National Wildlife Federation; National Audubon Society;
Natural Resources Defense Council; Environmental Defense Fund; Greenpiece; Friends of the
Earth; Wilderness Society; National Parks Conservation Association; Izaak Walton League).
Source: Created by Jian Peng

governmental agencies, and very strong oversight to the business groups. Without
these e­ nvironmental groups, the world would have been quite different, and most
likely for the worse.
Environmental groups themselves have evolved and differentiated over the years.
Environmentalism has recurred throughout human history in different forms and places
around the world.9 However, it was largely believed that environmentalism and envi-
ronmental activism did not start until after the industrial revolution. The first environ-
mental organization is probably the Commons Preservation Society in Britain in 1865,
which promoted rural preservation against industrialization and development. In the
United States, the earliest such organization is Sierra Club organized by John Muir in
1892 together with establishing the Yosemite National Park in northern ­California. Muir
believed in nature’s inherent right, especially after spending time hiking in Yosemite
Valley and studying both ecology and geology. Today the Sierra Club remains to be one
of the largest and most influential environmental groups in the United States, and its
conservationist principles are part of the bedrock of modern environmentalism.
Along with the mainstream environmental groups such as Sierra Club, there are
also other types of environmentalism (for example, School Strike 4 Climate rally led by
the Norwegian teen Greta Thunberg, as shown in Figure 3.9). One such type of groups
include those who espouse deep ecology or lifestyle transformation. Deep ecologists

9
Such as India’s Jainism (sixth century BC) and China’s Taoism (fourth century BC), both promoting harmony
between man and nature.
66  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

© Holli/[Link]

Figure 3.9 Sydney, Australia—March 15, 2019—20,000 Australian students gather in climate
change protest rally, School Strike 4 Climate, and demand urgent action on climate change.

believe that humans are only part of the nature10 and all forms of life have equal claim
on existence. They believe that the institutional structures and socioeconomic values
should all be fundamentally changed to promote global ecological integrity. However,
deep ecologists lack numbers, political leverage or influence that other mainstream
environmental organizations, but they make up by being more active and vocal, some-
times disruptive. Some environmental groups became radical when they are frustrated
by the mainstream. They general promote nonviolence and tolerance, but some may
resort to “ecotage” or “monkey-wrenching.” Chapter 8 will have more discussions on
deep ecology and other ecological issues.

3.3.4 Litigation, Regulation, Legislation, and Negotiation in

Environmental Politics
In environmental politics, there are several levels of engagement/interactions among
different interest groups. These levels of engagement/interactions include, from the
degree of hostility, litigation; regulation; legislation; and negotiation. Litigation takes
place when two sides have different opinions/interpretations of applicable environ-
mental laws and regulations, and the differences have to be resolved in the court of
law. This process is usually hostile, expensive, and can be time-consuming as well.
However, due to the complexity of the regulatory framework, environmental litigation
is fairly common in the US, and decisions of important cases often send shock waves
across the environmental field. On the other end of the spectrum is negotiation, in

10
See Chapter 12 of this book.
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  67

which two or more interest groups discuss the issues and try to resolve the differences
without formal regulatory actions or litigation. However, negotiation could be a signif-
icant part of the regulation/legislation and even litigation process. In the middle of the
spectrum, regulation is the process where regulatory agencies impose regulatory
requirements on regulated entities, and legislation is the process where environmental
laws are set up and promulgated, as discussed previously in this chapter. In short,
environmental politics is a mixed bag of various processes, strategies, and power plays
that permeate throughout every aspect of the environmental field.

3.4 Environmental Regulations

The tragedy of the commons makes it necessary to protect the shared environmental
resources such as air, water, natural resources, and biodiversity, through e­ nvironmental
regulation. There are three main mechanisms of environmental regulation. The first
method is to impose controls such as technology-based regulation, which focuses
on the pollution-control technologies, and environmental quality-based regulation,
which focus more on the environmental impact. Environmental regulation could also
be in the form of market incentives, such as effluent fees, marketable pollution rights,
subsidies, and so on. Thirdly, the publication of environmental impacts such as through
the aforementioned NEPA and CEQA processes could encourage or force a business or
a facility to consider alternatives to mitigate these impacts. Environmental regulations
are often based on ethical considerations aside from economic ones. This is often due
to the difficulties in quantifying monetary values of many factors, such as protection of
nature; protection of future generations; and environmental justice issues.
In addition to the above, environmental regulations often need to consider eco-
nomic burdens that it will bring to the regulated parties and the general public, and
ethics issues, such as human health protection (especially the protection of future gen-
erations) and conservation of nonrenewable natural resources.

3.4.1 Environmental Regulation in the United States

In the United States, the Congress sets the environmental laws, and the USEPA is the fed-
eral agency to interpret and implement these laws. USEPA was established by Congress
by passing NEPA in 1969. Then in 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act (CAA) and in
1972, the Clean Water Act11 and the Federal Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticides

11
CWA was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) when it was first adopted in 1972. Its
amendment in 1977 was commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act. Since FWPCA and CWA have the same
lineage, people often call both (and their subsequent amendments) Clean Water Act.
68  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

Act (FIFRA).12 In 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was established. In the late
1970s, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) were passed. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund
Act. There are also many other lesser known environmental laws that USEPA oversees,
but they are not mentioned here. It is worth noting that few of these laws were brand new
when they were established in the 1970s. Their enactment during this time frame coin-
cided with the environmental movement in the 1960s marked by Rachel Carson’s Silent
Spring and several notable environmental incidents, including the Cuyahoga River fire.
These environmental laws created a complex network of legal settings for policy
making on both federal and state levels. Over time, these laws underwent further
amendments, notably the CAA Amendment of 1990; CWA amendments of 1977 and
1987; Superfund Act Reauthorization Act of 1986, and so on. With time, these environ-
mental laws became increasingly prescriptive and, in general, required more actions
and costs to comply. Of these environmental laws, CAA, CWA, ESA, TSCA, and
­CERCLA will be discussed in more detail later in this book when air pollution, water
pollution (and related endangered species protection), soil and ground water pollu-
tion, and remediation issues are discussed.
USEPA, as many other federal administrative agencies such as the Food and Drug
Administration, was set up by Congress to regulate complex issues that Congress ­cannot
do by itself. USEPA is a nonpartisan agency, but its head administrator and nine regional
administrators are all appointed by the President of the United States. Therefore, USEPA
is inevitably and profoundly influenced by politics and political partisanship.
For the most part, USEPA delegates its power to state environmental agencies and
provides oversight on significant issues or issues affecting federal interests. For exam-
ple, most of the states have been delegated authority to issue pollutant discharge per-
mits under the federal Clean Water Act. However, these permits still need to be
approved by the USEPA before they become effective. All state regulations that estab-
lish or change water quality standards also need USEPA review and approval.

3.4.2 Environmental Regulation in the European Union

EU is a political and economic union of 28 member states. With 6.9% of the world’s pop-
ulation but 24.6% of the global gross domestic product (GDP), the EU enjoys very high
human development index.13 The governance of the EU is based on a series of treaties, and

FIFRA was first passed in 1947 but was significantly amended in 1972; and the authority of implementing was
12

passed from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to USEPA.

13
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a statistical composite index of life expectancy, education, and per
capita income indicators.
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  69

there are three levels of competencies: exclusive competence (i.e., the power sits exclu-
sively within EU); shared competency (i.e., the power is shared between the EU and indi-
vidual nations), and supporting competence, where EU provides only supporting roles.
EU’s environmental policy is an example of shared competence. Similar to the United
States, environmental issues were not given sufficient attention until the 1970s in the EU.
EU has extensive environmental laws and its environmental policy is significantly
intertwined with other international and national environmental policies, especially
for its member states. The body of EU environmental law amounts to well over
500 Directives, Regulations and Decisions. EU’s environmental legislation addresses
issues such as air (including ozone and acid rain), water, noise, waste management,
and sustainable energy. Due to the various levels of competence as mentioned above,
the governance of these environmental policies and regulation is quite complex, and
implementation of these policies is often slow and controversial.
The Commissioner for the Environment is a member of the European Commission
responsible for EU environmental policy. The Directorate-General for Environment
(DG ENV) is responsible for the EU policy area of the environment. The European Envi-
ronment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the EU which provides independent informa-
tion on the environment. Its goal is to help those involved in developing, implementing
and evaluating environmental policy, and to inform the general public. The agency is
governed by a management board composed of representatives of the governments of
its member states, a European Commission representative and two scientists.
In EU, the law governing water pollution control is the EU Water Framework Direc-
tive. There are also Bird Directive and Habitat Directive to protect birds, natural habi-
tat and biodiversity. The Water Framework Directive is one of the most successful and
influential environmental regulations. For air quality, the EU has the 2005 Thematic
Strategy on Air Pollution (TSAP). This strategy established interim objectives for air
quality and also established measures to ensure progress toward the air quality goals.
Under EEA leadership, the air pollution issue is the second most important environ-
mental issues, with climate change being the most important. In general, the EU has a
more progressive stance on environmental issues and environmental regulation com-
pared to the United States and the rest of the world.

3.4.3 Environmental Regulation in China and

other Developing Countries
China provides a good example of environmental regulation in a developing country.
Environmental policy in China is set by the National People’s Congress and managed
by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE; formerly the Ministry of Environ-
mental Protection or MEP) of the People’s Republic of China. The central government
70  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

Table 3.1 Environmental Regulations

Category US European Union China United Naons
European
Naonal Environmental United Naons
General Commissioner for Environmental Polluon Control Act
Policy Act Environment Programme
the Environment
Air Clean Air Act Airborne Polluon Prevenon and Control Acon Plan
Water Framework
Water Clean Water Act Water Polluon Control Act
Direcve
Soil and
CIRCLA; RCRA Soil Polluon Prevenon Act
Groundwater
Convenon on
Wildlife and Birds Direcve; Rare and Endangered Species Protecon
Endangered Species Act Biodiversity; RAMSAR
Conservaon Habitat Direcve Act
Convenon
Secon 202 of Clean Air European Climate
Climate Change Paris Agreement Paris Agreement
Act Change Programme

Ozone Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone

issues fairly strict regulations, but the actual monitoring and enforcement is largely
undertaken by local governments that have greater interest in economic growth. The
environmental work of nongovernmental forces, such as lawyers, journalists, and
nongovernmental organizations, is limited by government regulations. China’s rapid
economic expansion combined with the country’s relaxed environmental oversight
has caused a number of ecological problems. In response to public pressure, the
national government has undertaken a number of measures to curb pollution in China
and improve the country’s environmental situation. Table 3.1 summarizes major
environmental laws and regulations in the US, European Union, China, and the United
Nations for comparison. Some of the regulations will be discussed in more detail in
subsequent chapters.

3.5 Environmental Justice

According to USEPA, environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. After observing the environmental policy making process
and how environmental politics works, one can easily understand why minorities,
low income citizens, and other disadvantaged or underrepresented groups are often
on the short end of environmental issues. Environmental justice ensures that everyone
enjoys the same degree of protection and have the same access to decision-making
process and environmental policy making process as described above. Environmental
justice issues are largely linked to the siting locally undesirable land uses such as high-
ways, landfills, hazardous material storage facilities, or even new developments.
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  71

It can also be more insidious issues caused by other socioeconomic or political factors
such as income inequality, property values, and political representation, therefore the
solution to this issue is often difficult and controversial. Common solution to environ-
mental justice is to compensate the disadvantaged ­communities impacted. Environ-
mental justice issues could be tackled by the equal protection clause in many
environmental laws. In the presidential order #12898, President Clinton ordered that
all federal agencies should make environmental justice one of their missions.
In the United States, environmental justice issues are partly addressed by the NEPA
process as described in Section 3.2.3. NEPA requires federal agencies to include mino­
rity and low-income populations in their NEPA-mandated environmental analysis.
The president’s Executive Order #12898 specifically requires that NEPA consider envi-
ronmental effects on human health and economic and social effects, especially within
minority and low-income populations, which are disproportionately impacted by
environmental detriment.
Environmental justice could also be an international issue and is often tied to other
socioeconomic issues. For example, China used to import a large amount of recyclable
materials (plastic, paper products, electronic wastes) from other countries. Some of the
recycling operations, especially those for electronic wastes, caused severe environmen-
tal impacts to some communities. The issue is complicated because it involves environ-
mental responsibilities of the foreign waste-generating country and China’s national
or local environmental regulations.14

Further Reading
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin Books, 1962.
Hague, Rod and Martin Harrop. Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduc-
tion. London, UK: Macmillan International Higher Education, 2013.
Fiorino, Daniel J. Making Environmental Policy. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA:
­University of California Press, 1995.
Rosenbaum, Walter A. Environmental Politics and Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press,
2005.
King, Anthony. “Review of Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies,” Journal of Public
Policy, 5, no. 2 (1985): 281–83.
Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olson. “A Garbage Can Model of
Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (1992): 1–25.

14
Nowadays nearly all imports of such wastes/recyclables to China have stopped.
72  Contemporary and Emerging Global Environmental Challenges

Hayden, F. Gregory. “Policymaking Network of the Iron-Triangle Subgovernment for

Licensing Hazardous Waste Facilities.” Journal of Economic Issues, 36, no. 2 (June
2002): 479.
Rowland, F. Sherwood. “Stratospheric Ozone Depletion.” Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B, 361, no. 1469 (2006): 769–90.
Molina, Mario J. and F. Sherwood Rowland. “Chlorine Atom Catalysed Destruction of
Ozone.” Nature, 249 (1974): 810–12.
Byron, P.G., 2015. Legal opinion on the court case: RB Jai Alai, LLC v. Secretary of The
Florida Department of Transportation, 112 [Link].3d 1301, 1307–1308 (M. D. Fla. 2015).
Malone, Linda A. Emanuel Law Outlines: Environmental Law. New York: Aspen Pub-
lishers, 2007.

Web Resources
USEPA website: [Link]
European Environmental Agency website: [Link]
CalEPA website: [Link]
Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC): [Link]
USEPA Organization Chart: [Link]
documents/usepa_orgchart_11x17.pdf. Access date: April 23, 2020
European Environmental Agency organization chart: [Link]
about-us/who/staff/chart
[Link]
[Link] (about differences between laws and regulations)
President Clinton Executive Order #12898 on Environmental Justice: [Link]
gov/fedfac/epa-insight-policy-paper-executive-order-12898-environmental-
justice#memo1

Questions and Exercises

1. List a few possible reasons why an environmental policy could have negative envi-
ronmental impacts.
2. Analyze a major project that you know and list at least five environmental impacts
that it may have.
3. Use the web resource, compare the similarities and difference between USEPA
and EEA.
 Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations  73

4. One of the most influential environmental groups is the Natural Resources Defence
Council (NRDC—please visit its website: [Link] List at least
three main reason why NRDC is influential and effective.
5. For a disadvantaged community (e.g., minority; low-income; tribe) that is estab-
lished AFTER known possible environmental pollution sources have been in
place, do they have a valid argument on the environmental justice issue? Why or
why not?
6. Why is it more challenging for a disadvantaged community to participating in
environmental policy making process?
7. Visit the website of your home state’s environmental agency and see how you can
participate in environmental policy making processes on issues you are concerned
about.