{
  "id": "94-213",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "94-213",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 303346,
      "date": "1994-03-07",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T21:04:53.783941",
      "title": "Market-Based Environmental Management: Issues in Implementation",
      "summary": "The acid rain title of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments authorizes the first nationwide system\nfor\ntrading the regional location and method of pollution control. This market-type mechanism, if\nsuccessfully implemented, could reduce the cost of compliance of meeting new limits on sulfur\ndioxide emissions, the main precursor of acid rain.\n Successful passage of the sulfur dioxide trading mechanism has invigorated efforts to add\nsimilar mechanisms to the regulatory regimes for other environmental management areas. \nLimitations of current regulatory approaches, complexity of remaining and emerging environmental\nproblems, and the attack on the Federal budget deficit make greater use of incentive-type approaches\nto environmental management an attractive option, in some cases.\n While existing regulatory systems have made measurable reductions in common air and water\npollutants, most observers agree that they have been less successful against complex problems\ncaused by toxics and by transformed or transported pollutants. As supplements to established\nregulatory systems, market-based options often offer cost saving potentials, enhanced flexibility, and\nincreased effectiveness. Options include trading of permitted discharges or other types of resource\nconstraints or over control credits among sources; pollution taxes, fees, and charges; deposits and\nrefunds; and liability assignment and information disclosure. Particularly in situations where total\npollution loadings or other resource management objectives rather than ambient health standards\nare the issue, greater consideration of regulatory financial burdens may be warranted. More\nimportantly, many environmental problems are too intertwined with everyday economic activities\nto be managed effectively through highly centralized regulatory systems. \n Proposals by the Clinton Administration for market-based environmental protection build on the\nearlier efforts of Congress and the Bush Administration. The 103rd Congress is considering\nmarket-based approaches in reauthorization for the Clean Water Act. Some in Congress also\npropose market-type mechanisms for dealing with the potential threats of global warming, for\nencouraging the recycling of solid waste, and for improving management of some natural resources.\n As attractive as these mechanisms may be in concept, their implementation occurs within a well\nestablished regulatory context involving all three levels of government, international treaty\nobligations, agency capabilities, and the private sector. It is the implementation concerns that will\nlargely shape the debate in Congress and help determine which innovations ultimately become public\npolicy. For example, the political consensus for taxing pollution rests more on raising revenue than\non any attempt to charge for the external costs of pollution. Similarly, emission reduction credit or\nallowance trading systems may offer politically attractive ways to share the financial burdens of\npolicy changes while also reducing compliance costs.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/94-213",
          "sha1": "335afc1c3147821680a46e6588ef5df666ce8627",
          "filename": "files/19940307_94-213_335afc1c3147821680a46e6588ef5df666ce8627.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19940307_94-213_335afc1c3147821680a46e6588ef5df666ce8627.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy",
    "Legislative Process"
  ]
}