Times Record "Sustain Maine" op-ed series
FROM PIECEMEAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES TO GREEN PLANS
4 January 2002
David Vail
US environmental policy has only about a thirty year history, but in that brief span we have cobbled together scores of laws and amendments plus thousands of regulations. Given this piecemeal evolution and a regulatory process open to interest group manipulation, it is not surprising that some policies are ineffectual or obsolete or conflict with each other. In our federal system, added complexities and inconsistencies result from the states' responsibility for much detailed policy design and enforcement.
Four defects in US environmental policy have become evident. First, many goals are not met because of incomplete compliance with regulations. Second, the "command and control" measures preferred by Congress inflate compliance costs. Third, enforcement is cumbersome and costly, partly because polluters have incentives to drag their feet. Fourth, as old problems are solved, new ones arise; for instance, tight controls on solid waste landfills encourage more incineration, increasing toxic mercury and dioxin emissions.
In the latter 1980s, a few nations -- notably the Netherlands and New Zealand -- replaced their piecemeal environmental policies with comprehensive green plans for sustainable development. Then in 1992, participants in the UN's "Earth Summit" adopted Agenda 21, calling on all nations to frame sustainable development strategies by 2000. Agenda 21 enshrined sustainable developments Three E's: Environmental quality, Economic development, and social Equity.
The Clinton administration started down the green planning path by creating a President's Council on Sustainable Development. Its 1996 report, Sustainable America, had the optimistic sub-title, A New Consensus. That was wishful thinking, given a Republican-dominated Congress inspired by the anti-environmental Contract with America. The Senate's repudiation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a plan to reduce greenhouse gases, confirmed Washington's resistance to farsighted environmental policy.
By all indications President Bush intends to follow an unsustainable "business as usual" path. Last spring, he walked away from the Kyoto process; and then V.P. Cheney's secret energy taskforce delivered a strategy prioritizing more extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Clinton era measures, such as tighter limits on arsenic in drinking water, higher air conditioner efficiency standards, and roadless area protection have been reversed, delayed, or watered-down. In short, nothing resembling a green plan can be expected from the Bush-Cheney team.
As so often over the past quarter century, leadership in overhauling environmental policies and forging sustainable development strategies must come from the states. This article highlights innovations in Minnesota, green planning's pioneer, adding insights from other vanguard states, New Jersey and Oregon. Comparing Maine's progress with theirs, we seem primed to follow their lead.
In 1990, Minnesota's Republican governor Arne Carlson brought stakeholders and public officials together to forge the value consensus that is a green plan hallmark. Their 30 year vision statement, Minnesota Milestones, had a Maine-like ring: "We do not want growth and change to overpower our quality of life" Milestones spawned the Sustainable Development Initiative, a 105 member group of business, environmental and community leaders who explored objectives and obstacles under seven headings: agriculture, energy, forestry, minerals, manufacturing, recreation and spatial settlement. Their report, Challenges for a Sustainable Minnesota, and follow-up 1996 legislation became a sustainable development roadmap, with an advisory Round Table of business, environmental, and community representatives keeping the strategy on course.
Minnesota charges every state agency to assess its programs against sustainable development criteria and modify programs as necessary. Among Minnesota's green plan highlights, and those of Oregon and New Jersey, are regulatory simplification; a shift from command-and-control to results-oriented and incentive-based measures; development and tracking of sustainability indicators; and integration of environmental protection and land use policies.
These states' experiences confirm that green planning is not a quick, one-time fix. From vision to strategic plan takes several years and strategies are flexible "works in progress." But green planners do not have to re-invent the wheel: all three states borrowed from the Netherlands' prototype plan, adapting ideas like formal inclusion of environmental organizations in policy design and government-industry covenants that set high environmental standards but free firms to find least cost solutions.
In a recent assessment of states' readiness for green planning, the Resource Renewal Institute placed Maine in a second tier behind the three leaders. Though we scored just 59 out of 100 on their "Green Plan Capacity" index, they observed that, "With a governor strongly supportive of environmental sustainability, Maine scores well across the board and appears poised to formally pursue green planning"
Three Maine initiatives are solid building blocks for a sustainable development strategy. First came the Economic Growth Council, with its broad stakeholder representation and annual monitoring of 50+ social, economic and environmental indicators. Next was the "Smart Growth" initiative to combat sprawl, combining State Planning Office leadership with a public dialogue facilitated by the Eco-Eco Forum. Most recently, pollution prevention and toxics reduction laws catalyzed the "Smart Production" initiative, with its Toxics Advisory Committee.
Our governor's green plan enthusiasm seems to have waned since RRI researched its report, yet Maine is blessed with many talented, environmentally dedicated legislators and an exceptional advocacy organization in the Natural Resources Council of Maine. If we are smart and elect an equally talented and dedicated governor in 2002, Maine may indeed be on its way to a green plan.
David Vail teaches economics at Bowdoin College and edits this "Sustain Maine" series. He is on Eco-Eco's steering committee and NRCM's board of directors. RRI's "The State of the States" can be found at www.rri.org.