Entrepreneurial environmentalism: a new approach for the new millennium.

• Author: Blumenauer, Earl

In this Essay, Representative Blumenauer discusses the history of the United States's environmental movement and the laws it has produced. Given the current stalemate, where political pressure and shrinking economic resources prevent further environmental progress, he argues that the traditional environmental regulation model must be reevaluated. Representative Blumenauer suggests that an entrepreneurial approach to environmentalism is necessary to make our communities more livable in the years to come. An entrepreneurial model would craft comprehensive solutions to environmental problems, emphasize "cheap and green" solutions, focus on environmental results rather than regulations, and employ economic incentives to improve performance. According to Representative Blumenauer, the federal government should lead by example by requiring its own agencies to follow environmentally responsible policies. I. INTRODUCTION

"Our property seems to me the most beautiful in the world. It is so close to Babylon that we enjoy all the advantages of the city, and yet when we come home we are away from all the noise and dust."(1) This excerpt from an ancient letter to the King of Persia may be civilization's first articulation of our degradation of the environment. In the two millennia and more that have passed since then, we have sadly lost none of our ability to damage and degrade. In fact, the pace of degradation has accelerated, the nature of the threats have changed, and the issues and politics that surround them appear to be more complex than ever.

What has changed for the better is our growing awareness of the consequences of our behaviors and our understanding of the urgency of environmental problems. Now, at the end of the millennium, is a good time to take stock--to consider both where our environmental policy has been, and where it should go.

The purpose of this Essay is to comment on the nature, pace, and direction of our environmental policy and to propose a new approach to environmental regulation, one that is more respectful of the complexities of environmental issues and responsive to the needs of today's polity. With this new approach, the federal government has the opportunity to harness change and protect the environment more effectively in the next century.

2. THE ENVIRONMENT TAKES CENTER STAGE

   The modern environmental movement in the United States accelerated with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962.(2) Her powerful and insightful description of the toll pollution was taking on the natural environment spurred an entire generation to greater awareness and, more importantly, to greater public involvement.

   It was perhaps inevitable that the activism of the civil rights and antiwar movements would spill over into concern about the environment. That concern came into sharp focus on January 28, 1969, with the catastrophic oil spill off Santa Barbara, California.(3) It was not just the thought of tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil gushing into the pristine Pacific Ocean that galvanized the public. Nor was it the economic damage to the coastal economy or the deaths of thousands of waterfowl. It was the sheer visual impact of this devastating event. An eight hundred square-mile oil slick coated thirty miles of some of the nation's most beautiful beaches, and it all played out in a made-for-television spectacular just minutes from the media and entertainment capital of the United States.(4) Suddenly, environmental devastation became an undeniable reality. This catastrophe provided irrefutable, tangible evidence that our daily practices were placing our environment at great risk.

   Many feel that the media coverage of the Santa Barbara oil spill was the catalyst for the first Earth Day.(5) Dedicated environmentalists--including Barry Commoner, Jacques Cousteau, and other luminaries--brought these concerns to the national consciousness.(6) The April 22, 1970 Earth Day celebration helped alter the public consciousness and political climate forever and prompted President Richard Nixon to proclaim in his 1971 State of the Union address that restoring and enhancing the natural environment was one of the "great goals" for his administration.(7)

3. FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS RESPOND

   The first major national environmental measures, the 1948 Water Pollution Control Act(8) and the 1955 Air Pollution Control Act,(9) identified a federal role in what had previously been the exclusive responsibility of state and local governments. It was during the Nixon Administration, however, that federal environmental regulation exploded. Propelled by public events, Democrats in Congress joined forces with the Republican Administration to produce legislation that still serves as the backbone for the current environmental protection structure of the United States. The National Environmental Policy Act,(10) which created the Council on Environmental Quality,(11) the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,(12) and the Endangered Species Act(13) are all part of the environmental legacy of the Nixon era.

   State governments, too, embraced the environment. Oregon in particular has been acknowledged as a leader in adopting environmental regulations that in many cases surpass federal standards. Oregon'scomprehensive land use planning process was designed to harmonize government decisions regarding land and the environment.(14) The first in the nation, Oregon's Land Use Planning Program remains the most comprehensive and sophisticated approach in any of the fifty states.

   Oregon also pioneered legislation that had both symbolic and practical effect, such as the Bottle Bill,(15) which requires a deposit Oh bottles, and the Bicycle Bill,(16) which sets aside one percent of the state highway fund for construction of bike paths. The State of Oregon also established a state transportation commission and required a comprehensive, multimodal transportation plan(17) two decades before the federal government passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)(18) in 1991.

4. PUBLIC CONCERN CONTINUES

   While Oregon is justifiably proud of its environmental legacy, other states have enacted their own versions of land use planning and protection. Vermont and Florida were among the early pioneers.(19) More recently, we have seen new efforts in Maryland and Georgia, and even in states some would have thought unlikely, such as Tennessee and Arizona.(20) At the local level, the last two election cycles have seen a burst of environmental activism, with open space acquisition, transportation improvements, and growth boundaries being proposed in 240 state and local initiatives, of which 170--over 70%--passed.(21)

   The activism of the last twenty-five years on the federal, state, and local levels has been driven by the increased environmental awareness and activism on the part of American citizens. Survey research shows that environmental concerns consistently rank high with a broad cross section of the public. Even some of the most conservative and Republican constituencies support park and open space acquisition, environmental protection, and cleanup of polluted sites.(22) More than that, American voters are actually willing to pay for these things: the majority of the initiatives mentioned above involved the expenditure of money.

5. THE HARD REALITIES

   1. Political Stalemate

      Despite the progress over the last hall century, troubling signs have emerged. For most of the last decade, environmental protection at the federal level has reached an impasse, as increasing concerns about the economic and social impacts of environmental regulation have led to the extension of important targets and deadlines as well as growing resistance to new protective legislation. When the federal government does act, initiatives providing long-term environmental protection are often sidetracked by issues that are shorter-term, more tangible, and easier to accomplish. Comprehensive environmental approaches are too often laid aside as overly complex or even impossible to implement.

      Some of the responsibility for this impasse can be laid at the door of out democratic system. The separation of powers defined by the United States Constitution is designed to produce an inefficient government. With all three branches of the federal government--legislative, executive, and judicial--deeply involved with environmental issues, there are any number of ways to derail initiatives. In such a system, some argue, it would be wiser to scale back our aspirations and deal with these complex issues in an easier, piecemeal fashion.

      Add to this mix the rise of conservative elements in Congress who are eager to...