{
  "id": "RL30760",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30760",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 102034,
      "date": "2000-12-11",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:31:35.496941",
      "title": "Environmental Protection: New Approaches",
      "summary": "In recent years, the interest in alternatives to the nation's \"command-and-control\" approach to\nenvironmental protection has heightened. Driving this interest are concerns that the current approach\nis inefficient and excessively costly, and that it is ineffective in addressing certain problems such as\nnonpoint source pollution and global climate change. Several blue-ribbon panels have issued reports\non environmental protection needs for the next century, including one headed by former two-time\nAdministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, William D. Ruckelshaus --  The\nEnvironmental Protection System in Transition: Toward a More Desirable Future  (1998) --\nand one\nby the National Academy of Public Administration --  environment.com: Transforming\nEnvironmental Protection for the 21st Century  (2000).\n  Alternative environmental protection approaches range from proposals that would replace the\ncurrent system to ones that would supplement it. Elements of the proposals include enhanced\ninformation processes, greater reliance on market mechanisms, devolution of federal responsibilities\nto state and local decisionmakers, and substitution of private markets for public actions. The\nproposals for the most part represent a mix of techniques, and few are really new. Most of the ideas\nhave been developed and promoted for some time; many have been incorporated to some degree in\nexisting programs. \n  This report summarizes briefly a number of \"new approaches,\" grouped under the following\ncategories:\n    Information:  Approaches to improve the quantity and quality of\ninformation\nto enhance the knowledge base underlying environ-mental decisions (e.g., risk assessment, cost-\nbenefit analysis).  \n    Public Sector Processes:  Approaches to restructure governmental\nprocesses\nfor making environmental decisions (e.g., devolution).  \n    Incentives:  Approaches that emphasize incentives as opposed to\nregulatory\nor financial penalties for achieving environmental ends.  \n    Market Mechanisms:  Approaches that rely on markets and common\nlaw for\nenvironmental decisions to the extent possible.  \n    Management Principles.  Approaches to inculcate environmental\nvalues in\npublic or private managerial decisions (e.g., sustainability).  \n  Each approach seems to have some useful applications. Each has some disciplinary,\nideological,\nor institutional proponent; but none commands the multi-stakeholder commitment necessary for truly\ntransforming environmental programs. There may be consensus that environmental protection\nprograms could and should be improved, but beyond modest iterative steps, there is as yet no\nconsensus on what that would entail nor on how to achieve those steps. Critical to this lack of\nconsensus is an apparent split in proponents' goals -- those most focused on improving the efficiency\nof the current process, versus those most focused on finding new ways to address so-far intractable\nenvironmental problems such as global climate change.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30760",
          "sha1": "588ee739cc3320ae64e068c5730c21c4889a14ec",
          "filename": "files/20001211_RL30760_588ee739cc3320ae64e068c5730c21c4889a14ec.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20001211_RL30760_588ee739cc3320ae64e068c5730c21c4889a14ec.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy",
    "Science and Technology Policy"
  ]
}