Freeman, A. Myrick, III

English

University of New Mexico

Volume 11 
Issue 2 Marine Pollution Symposium 
Spring 1971 
Davies, The Politics of Pollution and Vice Versa; Esposito, The 
Ralph Nader Study Group on Air Pollution 
A. Myrick Freeman III 
Recommended Citation 
A. Myrick Freeman III, Davies, The Politics of Pollution and Vice Versa; Esposito, The Ralph Nader Study 
Group on Air Pollution, 11 Nat. Resources J. 390 (1971). 
Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol11/iss2/9 
This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has 
been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For 
more information, please contact amywinter@unm.edu, lsloane@salud.unm.edu, sarahrk@unm.edu. 
BOOK REVIEWS
The Politics of Pollution
By
J. CLARENCE DAVIES III
New York: Pegasus. 1970.
Pp. xiii, 231, $1.95
Vanishing Air: The Ralph Nader Study Group
Report on Air Pollution
By
JOHN C. ESPOSITO
New York: Grossman. 1970.
Pp. xiv, 328, $.95.
When the Nader Task Force Report on Air Pollution, Vanishing
Air, was released to the press last May, it received headline attention
and some editorial rebuke for its criticism of Senator Muskie's leader-
ship in developing federal air pollution control legislation. The pub-
licity given to this relatively minor part of the report unfortunately
diverted attention from its major contribution, a description of the
failure of the federal air pollution control effort. Anyone interested
in the making or carrying out of environmental policy should read
the report for its detailed descriptions of the barriers, pitfalls, frustra-
tions, and occasional official ineptitude involved in governmental
efforts to control air pollution. In fact, I wish that Clarence Davies
could have read the report when he was writing The Politics of
Pollution. His book contains a clear description of present policies,
an explanation of the economic rationale for the various approaches,
and an examination of the political factors that influence the choices
of policies. But in contrast to the negative appraisal provided by the
Task Force, Davies concludes with an endorsement of the present
approach to federal air and water pollution control policies. I wonder
how Davies would reconcile the evidence presented by the Task
Force with the conclusions he draws from his own analysis,
Because the two books differ in their assessments of the present
federal approach to pollution control policy, it is worth going into
this matter in some detail. The principal feature of the present fed-
eral air and water quality legislation is that responsibility for devising
and implementing pollution control plans is assigned to the states.
BOOK REVIEWS
The states are required to set standards governing the minimum
allowable instream water quality and the maximum levels of pollu-
tants in the atmosphere (air quality standards) and to develop and
carry out programs for attaining these standards. After making
choices concerning the desired environmental quality standards, the
states must determine the maximum allowable discharges of pollu-
tants consistent with those standards and find some means of
inducing or forcing polluters to limit their discharges accordingly.
The Task Force opposes this approach, at least as it is embodied in
the Air Quality Act of 1967. It argues that the real effect of the
1967 Act has been to delay any meaningful action by the states
during the past three years. States are not required to establish air
quality standards under the Act until the federal government has
issued air quality criteria documents describing the known effects of
pollutants and has designated areas of the states as air quality control
regions. The issuance of documents and designation of regions have
been behind schedule and the resulting delays have worked to the
benefit of polluters. Second, the Task Force argues that the arts of
measuring ambient air quality (to see if the standards are being met)
and of calculating the maximum emissions consistent with an air
quality standard are so poorly developed that they cannot be relied
upon for making rational or reasonable decisions. It argues instead
for a policy of uniform national emissions standards limiting the
quantities of discharges from each source. The emissions standards
would be based upon the best available technology for controlling
emissions. The Task Force argues that had these standards been
adopted in 1967 and enforcement begun immediately, we would be a
lot further along toward our clean air goals than is the case right
now.
But I am not so sure. In my view the question of national
emissions standards versus air quality standards set by the states is
not as important as the Task Force thinks. Both books miss an
important point about the political aspects of the two approaches.
The most important political decision concerning the environment is
the effective division of property rights in the environment between
those who would use it for disposing of wastes and those who would
use it for other purposes such as breathing. At present there is
political conflict over the division of these property rights. The
politics of pollution is about where and how these conflicts are re-
solved. The important point is that both approaches tend to
perpetuate these conflicts and to reduce the role the public can play
in resolving them.
Consider first the air quality standards approach. As Davies points
April 19711
NA TURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL
out, the choice of a standard is open and explicit. The question is
posed: "How far do we want to go?" The decisions are made at the
state or local level with public hearings, debate, and some degree of
political accountability. However, setting environmental quality
standards is a meaningless exercise unless effective mechanisms are
developed for achieving the standards. Without exception states have
placed primary reliance on some form of licensing of discharges with
emissions or discharge limits, and judicial enforcement of the license
terms. The adoption of a licensing system does not resolve the
political conflicts inherent in pollution policy. Rather it transfers the
political conflict to the licensing and enforcement stage. As Davies
points out, enforcement is still essentially a political problem. It pits
the power of the pollution abatement authority against the power of
the polluter in the process of licensing, establishing regulations, and
in the courts where some issues must be taken for resolution. This
means that the real decisions concerning the rights of polluters are
made outside of the normal political arena, where the public has the
least access, and where there is the least political accountability.
Furthermore, the issues are likely to be framed in highly technical
terms which will not be widely understood. In effect this approach
permits the battles to be fought on the polluters' home terrain.
If air pollution policy is based on national emission standards, the
question of goals-how far to go-is never confronted. Two questions
are left: who sets the standards; and how will they be enforced? In
general, the emissions standards would be set so as to require the
adoption of the best feasible technology for treatment of control.
This criterion is open to differences in judgment and interpretation.
Generally, a legislative body would not want to involve itself in
determining specific numerical standards. (Although the recently
passed National Air Quality Standards Act does legislate specific
emission standards for automobiles for the first time.) Yet if respon-
sibility for setting the standards is delegated to an administrative or
regulatory body, this approach is subject to the same criticism as the
air quality standards. The political conflict is shifted to a battlefield
where the polluters have the advantage because of diminished public
access and political accountability. As for enforcement of the
emission standards, the political problems are similar to the air
quality standards approach. As the Task Force makes clear, national
emission standards have not been notably successful in curbing auto-
motive emissions.
The nature of the political system encourages politicians to duck
basic issues, especially when they can do this while giving the appear-
ance of action. If they can pass laws which postpone the resolution
[Vol. 11
BOOK RE VIEWS
of the political conflict over the environment, they can have their
cake and eat it, too. They will have certified their credentials as
environmentalists by voting for anti-pollution laws. And they will
have avoided alienating the industrial and commercial interests who
recognize that the real issues have not been settled against them.
If this assessment is correct, is there no hope? Does the politics of
pollution really mean just pollution? I don't think it has to be so.
There are some lessons to be learned from these two books. First, I
would argue that the environmental debate must be refocused on the
means for achieving environmental goals. The debate must help us to
distinguish between the illusion and the substance of action. Second,
we must adopt policies which minimize the scope for further
political conflict because if the real issues are left unresolved, the
continued conflict will almost always take place on terms unfavor-
able to the public interest in environmental quality. Specifically, new
approaches must reduce or minimize the scope of judicial and
administrative discretion and judgment rather than increase it. And
new approaches must minimize the burden placed upon administra-
tive agencies and bureaucracies. I believe that such an approach can
be developed through much greater reliance on economic incentives
such as effluent or emission charges.
In Senator Muskie's introduction to the Davies' book he quotes
Davies with approval: "There must be a new way of looking at
pollution problems ... ." Few could disagree after reading the Task
Force Report. Yet Senator Muskie's latest effort in pollution legisla-
tion, the national Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, is at best a
mixed bag in this respect. The proposed legislation breaks new
ground in giving citizens court standing to seek judicial redress, in
legislatively establishing emissions standards for automobiles, and in
requiring public hearings on states' implementation plans. But in
almost every other respect the the new law increases the scope for
administrative discretion and for hidden political conflict over the
means of and pace of implementation of society's pollution control
goals. This perpetuates the errors of past policies. The "new look"
has yet to be taken.
A. Myrick Freeman IIIt
tProfessor, Department of Economics, Bowdoin College.
April 19711


Davies, The Politics of Pollution and Vice Versa; Esposito, The Ralph Nader Study Group on Air Pollution

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3156&amp;context=nrj

Davies, The Politics of Pollution and Vice Versa; Esposito, The Ralph Nader Study Group on Air Pollution

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of New Mexico