Environmental Policy

1. Class 16: Environmental Risk Assessment CofC Fall 2010 Environmental Policy

2. Enviro Policy Making: Markets and Causal Stories

3. Conclusions “Causal Stories” 1. Causal argument is at the heart of political problem definition. Problem definition is centrally concerned with attributing bad conditions to human behavior instead of accidents, fate, or nature 2. Problem definition is the active manipulation of images of conditions by competing political actors. Conditions come to be defined as problems through the strategic portrayal of causal stories. 3. Actors seeking to define a problem attempt to push the interpretation of a bad condition out of the realm of accident and into the realm of human control. 4. Arguments based on probabilistic cause are increasingly successful 5. Competition over causal theories are bounded by law and science—social institutions that serve as arbiters 6. In the world of policy there is “always choice about which causal factors in the lineage to address, and different choices locate the responsibility and burden of reform differently.” (p. 297). There’s a range of places to locate control and impose sanctions. 7. They implicitly call for a redistribution of power by demanding that causal agents cease producing harm and by suggesting the types of people who should be entrusted with reform. And they can restructure political alliances by creating common categories of victims

4. Conclusion “Making EP” • US political system “suffers from serious institutional deficiencies when weighed against the imperatives of contemporary environmental policy needs.” • However, optimism for good enviro policy resides particularly at the “state and local levels of government where policy gridlock is less a problem than it is in Washington . Yet formulating and adopting effective environmental policies that can be broadly supported is not easy at any level of government.” • Markets, through incentives, are a powerful and effective way to guide action to induce action that protects the environment. Yet, this same market inhibits democracy (Lindblom) • Issue framing is a critical (if not most) stage of the policy process. There are two fundamental variables in this process: • 1) Values, which inform decision-making through alt preferences, and • 2) causal stories that are told in framing issues for public consumption

5. Environmental Risk Assessment Part II

6. History of Phthalates • 1998, Int’l Greenpeace raised concerns over phthalates in toys and their effects on children • Health risk debate (acrimonious) over exposure to ‘plasticizers’ while science uncertain • Causal stories develop trying to frame issue • Greenpeace & Nat’l Enviro Trust seek ban on plasticizers • Toy manuf publicly defend their use and safety  attack data/methods and conclusions on phthalates • Consumer Product Safety Comm (CPSC): uncertain of risks, so should avoid certain products (like nipples and pacifiers) • Toy Manuf Assoc advises members to eliminate phthalates • In 2003, CPSC DENIES petition to ban phthalates from products for children under age 5 • By 2006, opponents had rearmed with new “scientific studies” showing safety risks • In 2008, Nat’l Academy of Sciences urges Congress & EPA for new studies on phthalates. • Later in 2008, Congress passes the Consumer Product Safety Reform Act (CPSRA) mandating CPSC impose more stringent stnds on lead, prohibit many phthalates in kid’s products. • Unusual Step: Adopted the “precautionary principle”  usually requires establishment that “chemical or activity is dangerous to human health or environment before it can be regulated.” • Despite PP inclusion, controversy with litigation, political infighting, and disputed science still followed a policymaking pathway common to most environmental risk assessments.

7. ‘Acceptable Risk’ • Def’n: enviro regulation by statutory criteria—by standards written into law • Statutory standards are VERY inconsistent • Diff substances regulated according to diff stnds • Same substance can have diff stnd depending on where found • Criteria • Health Based: risks to human health from exposure • Usually ‘cost oblivious’ but still only “margin of safety” • CAA: “adequate margin of safety…requisite to protect human health” • Technology Based: must ensure pollution sources are ‘best available or max available technology” • Safe Drinking Water Act (1974): acceptable risks are defined residual risks exist after “prescribed control technologies employed” • Balancing: agencies must balance: costs, magnitude of threat to human health, and benefits of setting standard for human exposure. • Outcome: “enormous discretion to regulating agency”, and Congress often packs regulatory laws with so many criteria for risk assessment that it becomes extremely complicated.

8. ‘Risk Thresholds’ • Disappearing Threshold—3 Trends • During ’70s, most remained risk averse with potential hazards • Assumed some “threshold of exposure” was safe • Ignored costs/benefit analysis (econ costs) of reg • Economics and Technology provide unique challenges • tech permits highly accurate detection of hazardous substances, • Yet with increased levels of remediation increases cost • Trade off between costs/benefits of risk prevention?? • Who should govern this choice??

9. Reassessing Risk: Precautionary Principle • Def’n: Mandates preventive action in the face of uncertainty when clear sign of enviro damage • Adopted by CPSRA in US, widely adopted in EU, and Int’l Agreements • burden shifts to those responsible for the activity (not those that may be harmed). • Offers “middle ground” between no action save absolute proof, and all human activities contribute to environmental harm. • Promotes exploration of wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions • Costsof controlling effects vs. letting go (until full certainty)  ‘minimizing the maximum cost’ (reducing the potential ‘risk’)  But it comes at a distinct cost now.

10. Debating Precautionary Principle:Issue Framing • 1. Science: many enviro issues contain uncertainty • Environmentalists stress the Precautionary Principle • Cornucopians stress unnecessary restrictions without foreknowledge hurts economy and is unnecessary risk • 2. Costs/Benefits (Economics) • Cornucopians stress economic costs assoc with enviro regulation; • environmentalists stress enviro costs and longer term views of economic costs • Assumes gov’t should take enviro action ONLY when benefits outweigh costs. • 3. Risks (action or inaction)  important to “perception of risk” which underpins environmental decision-making • Cornucopians minimize enviro risks and focus on policy’s potential econ costs, • Environmentalists stress enviro or health risks of inaction.

11. Science & Risk in Policy • Science continues to play a critical role (e.g. DDT), and even when not definitive, it can show a “probabilistic outcome”. • Often, “reliability of data will be routinely challenged by those opposed…regardless of merit” • Defining “acceptable risk” therefore is a political matter. • Risk: has become a key strategic weapon for pushing a problem out of the realm of accident into the realm of purpose • the probabilistic association of harmful outcomes with human actions is widely accepted as a demonstration of a cause-and-effect relationship •  if predictable then responsible for consequences. • Increasingly courts are holding corps liable for ‘calculated risks’