Issue 81: How goes environmental regulation?

The 1970s have been called "the environmental decade." It is anyone's guess whether this designation will stand the test of time as well as, say, "the roaring twenties," but it is certainly apt. Starting with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a raft of environmental laws and regulations began to fill the nation's statute books—the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and their amendments, the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and more.

As significant was the diffusion among the American people of an enthusiasm for things environmental—outdoor sports, "natural" foods, neighborhood recycling centers. . ."ecology" became a household word.

But laws and enthusiasm are not sufficient unto themselves, however necessary they may be as starting points. The nation's primary interest lies in actual, long-term environmental results and the cost of those results to both government and the private sector directly.

A few months ago, RFF was approached by the EPA Journal for help in putting together an issue assessing a decade and a half of environmental regulation. We suggested a set of short essays by participants in and observers of the environmental policy debates, including business executives, politicians, environmentalists, journalists, and interested citizens. The articles would provide a platform from which to launch a slightly longer essay by two of us at RFF.

Ultimately, EPA bought the idea but decided to organize its own panel. We liked it well enough, however, to pursue it independently, with the results to be found in the following pages. We are grateful to Philip Shabecoff of The New York Times; U.S. Senator Bill Bradley; Lawrence Luchini, an investment advisor in Denver; the National Audubon Society's William Butler; former Science editor Philip Abelson; and Thomas Wheeler of the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company for agreeing to write down their thoughts while giving us the last word. Of course, no brief collection of opinions can cover every shade and nuance and we do not claim to present a perfectly balanced spectrum; neither heavy industry nor regulatory agencies are included, for example, and our choices doubtless are open to other criticism as well. Nevertheless, we believe these seven articles are broadly representative and we hope they stimulate some thinking about what has been and what remains to be accomplished.

— Susan R. Greene, Paul R. Portney, Clifford S. Russell