Environmental policy of the United States
Also in the same year, America began celebrating Earth Day, which has been called "the big bang of U.S. environmental politics, launching the country on a sweeping social learning curve about ecological management never before experienced or attempted in any other nation.
[1] Partially due to the high costs associated with these regulations, there has been a backlash from business and politically conservative interests, limiting increases to environmental regulatory budgets, and slowing efforts to protect the environment.
[4] Since the 1970s, despite frequent legislative gridlock, there have been significant achievements in environmental regulation, including increases in air and water quality and, to a lesser degree, control of hazardous waste.
Due to increasing scientific consensus on global warming and political pressure from environmental groups, modifications to the United States energy policy and limits on greenhouse gas have been suggested.
The modern environmental movement was inspired in part by the publication of Rachel Carson's controversial 1962 book Silent Spring, which pointed out the perils of pesticide use and rallied concern for the environment in general.
The model was built mainly to investigate major trends of global concerns such as accelerating industrialization, rapid population growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of nonrenewable resources and a deteriorating environment.
In the international field, agreements with Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, the Soviet Union and several European countries included provisions to protect endangered species.
[22] A 1977 memo from President Carter's chief science adviser Frank Press warned of the possibility of catastrophic climate change caused by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations introduced into the atmosphere by fossil fuel consumption.
Before accepting the appointment, Reilly secured the President's agreement to support his pro-environment agenda and his access to the White House, but competing interests caused conflicts.
[36] This executive branch agency negotiated with EPA Administrator Reilly, leading to industry-favorable rulings such as the redefinition of wetlands and the allowance of untreated toxic chemicals in local landfills (this was later reversed).
[37] In 1992, Bush opposed international efforts at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil by refusing to sign the biodiversity treaty and lobbying to remove all binding targets from the proposal on limiting global carbon dioxide emissions.
Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development, signed the Kyoto Protocol[40] (although he did not submit the treaty to the Senate), and stood firm against Republican attempts after the 1994 elections to roll back environmental laws and regulations through the appropriations process.
[45] The Clear Skies initiative proposed by the Bush administration main intention was to remove the New Source Review provision and deregulate some of the standards that the Clean Air Act required energy facilities to meet.
[49] Bush's own Environmental Protection Agency head Christine Todd Whitman said the decision to walk away from Kyoto was "the equivalent to 'flipping the bird,' frankly, to the rest of the world".
The Guardian reported documents revealed Under-secretary Paula Dobriansky "sound out Exxon executives and other anti-Kyoto business groups on potential alternatives to Kyoto".
Democrat Barack Obama obtained a clear lead above his rival, Republican Senator John McCain, on the environment, winning the backing of 'all mainstream environmental groups'[55] and public confidence on the issue.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production, make federal buildings more energy-efficient, improve the electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.
Several of his cabinet picks, such as Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy and Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator, were people with a history of opposition to the agency they were named to head.
[10] The Justice40 Initiative is a policy framework that was launched in 2021 under Executive Order 14008 with the aim of reversing generations of environmental injustice by delivering 40% of the overall benefits of federal investments in climate, clean energy, and sustainable infrastructure to disadvantaged communities.
[96] Often low-income or historically marginalized, these communities have disproportionately carried the burden of pollution and climate-related hazards due to systemic inequities like redlining and underinvestment in public services.
[96] Under Justice40, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency's $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is supposed to catalyze public and private investments in equipping overburdened communities with clean energy.
[96] Additionally, other initiatives, like zero-emission school bus programs and the installation of advanced air quality monitors, directly tackle health disparities associated with environmental harm.
[96] The Biden Administration's 2023 Environmental Justice Scorecard makes sure transparency and accountability are present through tracking federal progress publicly in delivering tangible benefits to these vulnerable populations.
[97] The Build Back Better plan would have moved the U.S. toward clean energy by offering major consumer rebates and tax credits for electric vehicles, rooftop solar systems, and energy-efficient home retrofits.
[97] It further emphasized funding for climate resiliency, including those that improve public transportation and build out the electric vehicle charging network to protect against extreme weather conditions.
In addition to addressing environmental concerns associated with climate change, the Green New Deal aims to "fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice"[100] by ensuring that everyone has access to education, clean water, and employment with benefits.
[10] An editorial in The Washington Post on April 6, 2024, discusses the challenges faced by clean energy projects as caused by lawsuits filed in federal court by environmental activists.
The editorial concludes that Congress should reform the permitting process and preempt state and local rules that make it harder to build high-priority clean energy projects.
During the Carter administration, the United States undertook a risk-averse policy, acting through the EPA and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to research and control the pollutants suspected to cause acid deposition even in the face of scientific uncertainty.
Following the events at Love Canal, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) was enacted in 1980 to assist in the cleanup of abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites.
