Concerns about the effects of pollution fuelled notably by the publication, in 1962, of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, sparked the beginning of the modern environmental movement.
Administrator Ruckelshaus was confirmed by the Senate on December 2, 1970, which is the traditional date used as the birth of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[21][22][23] Although particular environmental problems like soil erosion, growing resource scarcity, air and water pollution increasingly became the subject of concern and government regulation in the 19th century, these were seen and addressed as separate issues.
The rationale for governmental involvement in the environment is often attributed to market failure in the form of forces beyond the control of one person, including the free rider problem and the tragedy of the commons.
[31][32] The "market failure" rationale for environmental policy has been criticised for its implicit assumptions about the drivers of human behaviour, which are considered to be rooted in the idea that societies are nothing but collections of self-interested "utility-maximising" individuals.
To a large extent, differences in approaches have been influenced and shaped by the particular political, economic and social context of a country or polity (like the European Union or the United Nations).
[59][61] Vedung, based on Majone's classification of power, argues that the main difference underlying these categories is the degree of coercion (authoritative force) involved.
They share the aim of encouraging people to do "the right thing", to change their behaviour and practices, and to accept individual or group responsibility for addressing issues.
[83] More generally, the performance of economic instruments in dealing with environmental problems has been a mixed bag, referred to by Hahn as "not very impressive",[72] and has led Tietenberg to conclude that they are "no panacea".
While scientific analyses and (preferably) quantitative data provide knowledge of the more immediate sources or causes of environmental problems, such as forms of pollution and climate change, policy prescriptions are based on setting goals, objectives and targets and the identification of the most cost-effective and efficient means by assessing alternative options.
Technological innovation, more efficient management, and economic instruments such as cost-benefit analysis,[9][95] environmental taxes,[96][97] and tradeable permit schemes (market creation)[72][84] have been among the preferred means in this approach.
It commonly involves identifying a variable number of steps, including problem definition and agenda setting, the formulation and selection of policy options, implementation, and evaluation.
These studies show that policy development is more about the role of and interplay between conflicting interests than the result of rational analysis and finding and adopting (optimal) solutions to problems.
"[115][116][117] "Think tanks" and the media have been used to sow scepticism about the science behind environmental and other problems, to redefine issues, and to avert policies that threaten the interests of businesses.
[158] The role of intellectuals, opinion leaders, and the media in shaping and advancing the dominant views and ideologies in societies has been an important focus of Marxist and critical theory that has also influenced the analysis of environmental policy formation.
[185][186] Apart from efficiency and cost-effectiveness, many other important aspects of policy and criteria for evaluating them have been identified and discussed, including their knowledge (science) basis, their goals and objectives, ethical issues, distributional effects, and process and legitimacy.
[211] Although, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, many governments began to adopt a more comprehensive approach to environmental issues, notably in the form of National Sustainable Development Strategies and "Green Planning",[212][213][214] these efforts were largely abandoned during the 1990s due to the rise to prominence of neoliberal thinking, policies and reforms.
Although incrementalism has been critiqued for its underlying assumptions and conservative implications ("tinkering"),[230][231][232][233] and also for its failure to come to grips with environmental problems,[234][231][235] it is a very recognisable approach to policy "improvement" in many countries.
Much of the research and innovation sponsored by governments, businesses and international organisations under the heading of "transition management" is aimed at the gradual (incremental) development of new "transformative" technologies, for instance, in areas like energy, transport and agriculture.
[238] An example is the European environmental research and innovation policy, which aims at defining and implementing a transformative agenda to greening the economy and society as a whole so as to achieve "truly" sustainable development.
The EU strategies, actions and programmes promote more and better research and innovation for building a resource-efficient, climate-resilient society and thriving economy which are meant to be in sync with the natural environment.
[239][240] Also, Bucchi argues that the traditional technocentric approach no longer suffices as science has increasingly been commercialised and politicised and lost much of its image of neutrality that it enjoyed with the public at large.
Women found climate solutions that cross political or ethnic boundaries have been particularly important in regions where entire ecosystems are under threat, e.g. small island states, the Arctic and the Amazon and in areas where people's livelihoods depend on natural resources e.g. fishing, farming and forestry.
[244][245][246] However, the degree and kind of opportunities provided for public input and deliberation are seen as a key factor, both for improving the effectiveness of policies and for enhancing their support basis and legitimacy.
[255][256] Although a growing number of governments have adopted such legislation, a report by Privacy International notes that in many countries much work remains to be done on the implementation front and the creation of a culture, "leaving access largely unfulfilled.
[269][270][271][272][273] On the other hand, some analysts, notably based on Ronald Inglehart's work, argue that, with rising standards of living, comes a shift in societies, facilitated by generational change, from material to "post-material" values, including self-actualisation, belonging, and aesthetics.
[274][275] However, it is debatable to what extent this shift represents a move towards environmental values becoming dominant and whether the level of support for the environment depends on a high standard of living.
[281][282][276] Whether and how the dominant value systems and views on the environment can be purposefully changed by concerted social action aimed at assigning greater priority remains a matter of debate and uncertainty.
[22][297][222][298][299] Analysts have pointed out a broad range of factors that stand in the way of environmental issues being adequately recognised and/or assigned political priority, including the role, privileged access, power and influence, and even dominance of (non-environmental) interest groups, bureaucratic thinking and interests, the lack of openness and transparency, (very) limited opportunities for public input and participation, and the short political horizon linked to electoral cycles.
[329][330][331] However, the interrelatedness of these systems raises questions about whether and/or how such transformative change can be achieved,[158] which has led a growing number of environmental analysts, including scientists, to serious doubts and pessimism,[332][333][334] although others argue that it remains possible for societies to do so.