1) Values framework
The Superfund, also known as CERCLA, is a mash of strongly held and somewhat contradictory values. Americans value freedom and private property, a value called into question by pollution in general, but also specifically toxic waste. Toxic waste cannot be contained within one lot, meaning that what I dump in my yard could affect my neighbor, and his neighbor, and so on down the line depending on what carries the toxin. "What we consider discrete 'pieces' of property are, in fact, interdependent components of ecological systems" (Pg. 83). Pollution knows no bounds and challenges Americans faith in someone's ability to do what they want on their property. Related to the idea of private property is the anti-regulation argument. Government should not meddle in private or business affairs. However, without incentives, there is no reason for a business to not pollute because it may be cheaper for the company. No business is going to self-regulate at a detriment to its bottom line (assuming that it would be a detriment, of course, which isn't necessarily true).
Both of these values exist in the "polluter pays" debate. Passage of a polluter pays bill would reinstate the tax on petroleum and chemical companies that expired in 1995. Ultimately, its a regulation that costs companies money, and those costs could be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher cost of goods. Do Americans value the environment enough to pay the offsetting price increase? Maybe not. The anti-tax atmosphere is pervasive and the perceived improvement in toxic waste management create fewer lobbying groups with the zeal of those affected by the Love Canal. However, new discoveries on par with past toxic waste discoveries could awaken the sleeping giant to the extent that protection of public health, not the value of property and low taxes, dominated the debate and increased popularity for a polluter pays tax.
2) Political framework
Intertwined with the values on Superfund and the polluter pays tax are the politics of the issue. Yes, there are issues with anti-government, but also issues with where the pollution exists -- i.e. is there significant pollution in a legislator's district. Because toxic waste is generally caused by a local source, "addressing toxic waste is a matter of serving one's constituency, and elected representatives ignore such issues at their own peril" (Pg. 87). However, it may be possible for representatives and senators to ignore toxic waste and the current polluter pays issue if their constituents are not overly worried about its effects. The political ramifications of environmental policies "lie dormant" unless there is serious cause for public concern (Pg. 23).
Despite the anti-tax sentiment, there is a question about who pays for a clean up, and the
answer is certainly political. The Polluter Pay's Act is an excise tax on petroleum and chemical
companies. The intent of collected funds is to put the money toward "orphan sites," clean ups where the government was unable to locate a liable party. Since the excise tax phased out in 1995, the money has to come from somewhere else. Funding for these sites now comes out of the general fund, or in other words, the American public's tax dollars. In April last year, The New York Times reported that the federal government spent $600 million worth of stimulus funds for toxic waste clean up. “Ultimately, however, it should be polluters that pay for these cleanups, not taxpayers, which is why we will work to restore the ‘polluter pays’ principle," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., the Polluter Pay's sponsor.
3) Science and technology
The Superfund is greatly affected by advancements in science and technology because new methods and machines could help the government clean up sites at a more efficient rate. However, the link between science and technology and the Polluter Pays Act is less important than the link to values or politics. If technology improves, the Polluter Pays Act could be less vital to funding the program because, at least in theory, over time toxic waste cleanup would be less expensive. It seems, however, that such a reality is a long way off. Despite three decades cleaning up our past waste, "we still lack an adequate command of the science and engineering of toxic waste cleanup" (Cohen, 93).
4) Policy design framework
Clearly, it takes money to be able to do a toxic waste cleanup. Past government efforts show the activity comes with a high price tag. However, given the values and political reality, not taking action is not a long-term option. An excise tax on petroleum and chemical companies is a punitive tax for the industries' long history of polluting. But some toxic sites across the country, especially orphan sites, were caused by small businesses, not large industries. The tax does not provide any incentive for companies to not pollute. You could argue there is an incentive to stop any polluting activities now because you may have to pay for them later through these taxes, but since it is unlikely that the government will collect enough funds during the set time frame of this tax, the government could reinstate the tax again -- even if companies alter their behavior. It may be beneficial to include companion legislation that provides incentives for either donating to toxic cleanups or improving waste disposal technologies to encourage a change in behavior.
5) Management framework
We know the organizational capacity exists to collect a polluter pays tax since we did so until 1995. The more pertinent issue is the capacity to clean up sites efficiently so as not to waste the money the government collects. Our ability to clean up waste is better than 30 years ago, but it still remains a costly endeavor. A reasonable question to ask, then, is can this tax be put toward improving the cost factor? When Cohen writes about climate change as a management concern, he suggests that part of the issue it to invent new technologies that can assist in the problem. The same is true for toxic waste cleanup. Some money collected from the excise tax could go toward developing improved technology for cleaning soil and siphoning waste, as opposed to strictly for cleanup purposes. If successful, the measure could save significant amounts of money in the long term as we continue to deal with waste cleanup in the United States and abroad.
Intertwined with the values on Superfund and the polluter pays tax are the politics of the issue. Yes, there are issues with anti-government, but also issues with where the pollution exists -- i.e. is there significant pollution in a legislator's district. Because toxic waste is generally caused by a local source, "addressing toxic waste is a matter of serving one's constituency, and elected representatives ignore such issues at their own peril" (Pg. 87). However, it may be possible for representatives and senators to ignore toxic waste and the current polluter pays issue if their constituents are not overly worried about its effects. The political ramifications of environmental policies "lie dormant" unless there is serious cause for public concern (Pg. 23).
Despite the anti-tax sentiment, there is a question about who pays for a clean up, and the
answer is certainly political. The Polluter Pay's Act is an excise tax on petroleum and chemical
companies. The intent of collected funds is to put the money toward "orphan sites," clean ups where the government was unable to locate a liable party. Since the excise tax phased out in 1995, the money has to come from somewhere else. Funding for these sites now comes out of the general fund, or in other words, the American public's tax dollars. In April last year, The New York Times reported that the federal government spent $600 million worth of stimulus funds for toxic waste clean up. “Ultimately, however, it should be polluters that pay for these cleanups, not taxpayers, which is why we will work to restore the ‘polluter pays’ principle," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., the Polluter Pay's sponsor.
3) Science and technology
The Superfund is greatly affected by advancements in science and technology because new methods and machines could help the government clean up sites at a more efficient rate. However, the link between science and technology and the Polluter Pays Act is less important than the link to values or politics. If technology improves, the Polluter Pays Act could be less vital to funding the program because, at least in theory, over time toxic waste cleanup would be less expensive. It seems, however, that such a reality is a long way off. Despite three decades cleaning up our past waste, "we still lack an adequate command of the science and engineering of toxic waste cleanup" (Cohen, 93).
4) Policy design framework
Clearly, it takes money to be able to do a toxic waste cleanup. Past government efforts show the activity comes with a high price tag. However, given the values and political reality, not taking action is not a long-term option. An excise tax on petroleum and chemical companies is a punitive tax for the industries' long history of polluting. But some toxic sites across the country, especially orphan sites, were caused by small businesses, not large industries. The tax does not provide any incentive for companies to not pollute. You could argue there is an incentive to stop any polluting activities now because you may have to pay for them later through these taxes, but since it is unlikely that the government will collect enough funds during the set time frame of this tax, the government could reinstate the tax again -- even if companies alter their behavior. It may be beneficial to include companion legislation that provides incentives for either donating to toxic cleanups or improving waste disposal technologies to encourage a change in behavior.
5) Management framework
We know the organizational capacity exists to collect a polluter pays tax since we did so until 1995. The more pertinent issue is the capacity to clean up sites efficiently so as not to waste the money the government collects. Our ability to clean up waste is better than 30 years ago, but it still remains a costly endeavor. A reasonable question to ask, then, is can this tax be put toward improving the cost factor? When Cohen writes about climate change as a management concern, he suggests that part of the issue it to invent new technologies that can assist in the problem. The same is true for toxic waste cleanup. Some money collected from the excise tax could go toward developing improved technology for cleaning soil and siphoning waste, as opposed to strictly for cleanup purposes. If successful, the measure could save significant amounts of money in the long term as we continue to deal with waste cleanup in the United States and abroad.
Do you think that greater public awareness of the effects of toxic wastes will bolster public support for this kind of legislation? We have seen an increase in news stories about cancer clusters and other types of health impacts related to pollutants. In some cases, government entities seem to try to suppress information or deny that any link exists.
ReplyDeleteI find this issue very intersting, especially in relation to situations such as that faced by the Navajo people in dealing with uranium contamination. The federal government had significant involvement in promoting mining operations that left the reservation contaminated and people seriously ill. If you are interested in more information on this topic, I posted some on my blog.