National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years

Abstract

We review major developments in national environmental policy during the Clinton Administration, defining environmental policy to include not only the statutes, regulations, and policies associated with reducing pollution, but also major issues of public lands management and species preservation. We adopt economic criteria for policy assessment -principally efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and distributional equity. While the paper is primarily descriptive, we highlight a set of five themes that emerge in the economics of national environmental policy over the past decade.

The Science-Policy Nexus: U.S. Policy and International Environmental Governance

“…At the domestic level, "environmental targets were made more stringent, and environmental quality improved" in the Clinton years [29] (p. 2). Among the successes were the administration's ability to strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and its initiative to reduce subsidies for resource extraction on public lands [29] (p. 2).…”

“…At the domestic level, "environmental targets were made more stringent, and environmental quality improved" in the Clinton years [29] (p. 2). Among the successes were the administration's ability to strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and its initiative to reduce subsidies for resource extraction on public lands [29] (p. 2). Congress, however, actively promoted the use of benefit-cost analysis for assessing environmental regulation which became a major point of controversy between the executive and legislative branches of government.…”

“…Legislative reform initiatives that focused on economic efficiency and lowering regulatory costs became a dominant feature of U.S. environmental legislation. The focus on cost-effectiveness heightened the interest in market-based instruments, particularly in tradable permit systems [29] (p. 3). The Congressional emphasis on economic efficiency was met with skepticism at the EPA which saw its mandate to protect to human health as more important than the costs of new regulatory policies.…”

“…The Congressional emphasis on economic efficiency was met with skepticism at the EPA which saw its mandate to protect to human health as more important than the costs of new regulatory policies. EPA downgraded the role of its economic policy staff within the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) and ultimately eliminated that office in a 1999 reorganization [29] (pp. [8][9].…”