The United States was one of the first countries where environmental concerns became a topic of public concern, leading to the development of public policy.[1] The publication, in 1962, of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring played a catalytic role in raising environmental awareness and the emergence of the environmental movement. The extent of environmental concern in the United States, also boosted by a significant oil spill in California in 1969, was reflected in the twenty million people around the country who were inspired into action by the first Earth Day on 22 April 1970.[2]
An early innovator
In 1969, the United States government introduced the National Environmental Protection Act, which came into force in 1970 and created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Among other things, the EPA was tasked with implementing a new environmental integration mechanism, known as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), also referred to as Environmental Impact Statement Review. The provision required federal agencies to assess the potentially significant environmental impacts of their proposals and to describe these in a statement subjected to review by the EPA and open to public scrutiny. Environmental impact statements were required to be rigorous and scientifically based. Thus, EIA is foremost an informational decision aid tool to identify significant foreseeable environmental impacts of decisions and assess how these can be prevented or mitigated.
The introduction of this new tool made the United States a leader in the development of knowledge-based environmental integration. This leadership role was not confined to EIA but extended to other forms of cognitive environmental integration, notably Risk Analysis and (Comparative) Risk Management. It was also the first country to develop and apply Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) systematically.[3] Each of these mechanisms has become a discipline in its own right, practised by professionals, generating extensive literature, its own journals, and training courses. This professional development has given these tools a solid standing and a science-like status. They have also been institutionalised in legislation, regulations, and executive orders, encouraging or mandating their use and further entrenching them as areas of professional practice and career opportunities. These developments have also encouraged the transfer and diffusion of these instruments to other countries, especially EIA and CBA, although the USA remains the primary centre for the application and development of these tools and disciplines.
Although the introduction of EIA and other mechanisms aimed at integrating environmental knowledge into decision-making was innovative and likely helped mitigate and/or prevent environmental impacts, the significance of these tools should not be overstated. As discussed elsewhere [4], such mechanisms are shaped by politically defined parameters (for instance, regarding the extent of public input in the process and the scope of the assessment), and their application is influenced by assumptions, interpretations, value judgements, decision rules, and political wrangling. While potentially mitigating the effects of (some) development projects, they have seldom led to halting them, and they have not stemmed the flow of environmentally damaging developments. Worse, they can be used to legitimate environmentally damaging development and/or to downplay the importance of or need for more stringent environmental regulation. There is no evidence that the use of EIA or any other tools mentioned has contributed to a change in the cognitive frameworks that guide economic policy or the development of science and technology, two key drivers behind the continuous streams of environmental pressure. Thus, at most, these tools are limited means for advancing environmental integration and must be accompanied by environmental integration in other areas to have a significant (mitigating) effect.
Lacking analysis and a big picture
The pioneer and leadership role of the United States in the cognitive-external area has not been matched by the development of an overarching cognitive environmental framework (cognitive-internal environmental integration). As discussed on the Environment Integration page, the development of such a framework requires two key elements: a thorough understanding of how the environment functions, including the relationships between problems, pressures, or drivers, and their causes; and the formulation of (inevitably values-based) goals and priorities. In some respects, the United States has been a leader in environmental science and the development of knowledge in some areas, like hazardous substances, environmental health, and climate change, and in making information available to the public, among others, by the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act and the Toxic Release Inventory.[5] However, thus far, no U.S. government has spent much time and effort developing an overarching view of the environmental challenge.
Regarding the creation of a solid information basis, the United States has a weak record in comprehensive and continuous reporting on the state of the environment. The EPA initiated its environmental reporting programme in 2001, produced a draft state of the environment report in 2003, and a final report in 2008. However, its capacity to produce comprehensive nationwide assessments has been hampered by the fragmentation of data collection and information systems, the absence of a nationally standardised set of environmental indicators, and data of mixed quality.[6] According to the OECD, the dominant focus at the federal level appears to be on mitigating specific pressures without an overarching framework or addressing the underlying causes.[7] While the EPA has gradually improved the set of indicators used and adopted the concept of sustainability as a unifying framework, its reporting efforts (now only online) still fall short of providing a comprehensive picture of environmental trends and developments at the national level.[8] Moreover, these efforts did not mark a beginning towards analysing and understanding environmental developments related to pressures, drivers and/or causes, which is essential to making environmental reporting more policy-relevant, a need highlighted by the OECD in its assessments of U.S. environmental performance.[9]
The weakness of the EPA’s and CEQ’s efforts in these areas can be attributed to the U.S. government’s lack of interest in gaining a deeper understanding of the environmental challenge, let alone in developing a vision for addressing it. One early and ambitious attempt at such an effort was undertaken by the Council on Environmental Quality, commissioned in 1977 by President Carter, which led to the publication of the Global 2000 Report to the President, which was said to “serve as the foundation of our longer-term planning”.[10] However, this initiative was not pursued further when President Reagan took office in 1981. Arguably, the closest the United States got to developing an overarching cognitive framework that could have functioned as a basis for environmental integration efforts was a report (Sustainable America) produced by the Council on Sustainable Development in 1999. However, the report did not catch the public’s imagination or trigger any policy changes, and the Council ceased to exist in the same year.[11] As noted by Bryner, it appears that American political leaders have generally taken the view that sustainability was not their problem.[12]
Similarly, the notions of ecological modernisation and environmental space, which gained considerable currency in European countries during the 1990s and 2000s, never established a strong foothold in the dominant political and environmental discourse in the United States. The concept of ecosystem management, which has also been touted as an overarching cognitive framework for environmental efforts and has garnered some support in academic and policy circles, has been applied primarily at the catchment and regional levels, mainly on an ad hoc and experimental basis.[13] Likewise, the precautionary and polluter-pays principles have also played a less significant role in guiding U.S. environmental policy than in some other countries. Although it has been suggested that the precautionary principle has played a role in American environmental decision-making, it has never functioned as a guiding principle for all environmental policy. Moreover, when applied, the principle has tended to be interpreted narrowly, as reflected in policy differences between the United States and the EU regarding genetically engineered organisms and the regulation of hazardous substances.[14]
These observations do not imply a lack of integrative or holistic environmental thinking in the United States. If anything, the United States has been a significant source of environmental thinking, propagating awareness of ecological interconnectedness, from David Thoreau and Rachel Carson to Fritjof Capra, to name just a few.[15] That such awareness needs to guide decision-making affecting the environment was a view also advanced in policy and government circles, as reflected in the work of Caldwell[16] and the adoption of EIA and the other tools mentioned above. Nonetheless, federal governments in the United States have never adopted an overarching, knowledge- and inherently values-based, cognitive framework to guide environmental integration.[17]
Green planning: not our thing
Concomitantly, it comes as no surprise that governments in the United States have never embraced green planning, the development of a comprehensive environmental policy, as a cornerstone of environmental policy development. Although the Clinton administration showed interest in the green planning experiences of the Netherlands, which led to the adoption of the report Sustainable America referred to above, the report did not result in or lead to the development of a comprehensive, long-term federal environmental policy. Although it put forward ten “ambitious goals”, it “lacked a sense of strategic purpose, of identifying opportunities, key players, and timing, and specifying policies to pursue”, and did not result in any changes in government policy.[18] No other president has even expressed an interest in developing a comprehensive and integrated environmental policy, which indicates that this is indeed very difficult, if not nearly impossible, in the United States.[19] Although the EPA adopted a strategic plan at some point, it was issue-focused and primarily concerned with setting its own priorities.[20]
Greening policies: a political football
U.S. government efforts aimed at policy-external environmental integration (the greening of policies for sectors from which most environmental problems originate) have been few and far between. The energy, transportation, industrial, and agricultural lobbies, among others, have ensured that their sector interests are well-heeded, making it very difficult for environmental advocates to gain a foothold in these policy areas.[21] Since policy gridlock has been the prevailing condition since the 1980s, environmental advocates have had to rely predominantly on the limited knowledge-based integration mechanisms discussed above (including EIA, Risk Assessment, and CBA) and on legal action to get their concerns recognised. Since the 1980s, policy developments in this area have been mostly regressive rather than progressive, as several presidents (notably Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush Jr., and especially Donald Trump) actively sought to minimise the impact of environmental policies and regulations on businesses and economic development.[22] The precarious status of many habitats and species in the U.S. reflects the limited integration of environmental concerns in agriculture, forestry, and land-use planning, among other areas.[23] In its 2005 review of U.S. environmental performance, the OECD understated that “room remains for further progress in integrating environmental concerns into economic policies and decisions”.[24]
The election of President Obama, in 2008, raised hope and expectations that environmental concerns would be taken (much) more seriously. Early decisions under his presidency indicated that this was indeed the case. For instance, Obama introduced a raft of measures to increase energy efficiency, reduce air pollution from power plants, promote investments in renewable energy, and combat climate change. It can be argued that his focus was foremost on the greening of energy policy. However, it has been noted that he sold his proposals in this area on the grounds of national economic and security (energy independence) interests.[25] Much of the multi-billion-dollar energy programme was aimed at reducing the country’s dependence on imported oil, including by fostering the exploration of new oil and gas sources, boosting energy efficiency and conservation, and promoting renewable energy generation.[26] While it may be another understatement to say that Obama has not been very successful in achieving his stated objectives and/or meeting (unrealistic) expectations, notably in the area of climate change,[27] it is hard to overestimate the political-economic obstacles to the greening of non-environmental policy areas that are inherent to the American political system, especially in times of economic decline or crisis.[28]
While Obama disappointed many of his supporters, President Trump surely did not when it came to meeting anti-environmental expectations. Trump’s goal was to roll back environmental policies, and he did not linger in repealing a raft of environmental regulations that were introduced by Obama. He took every opportunity, including during the COVID-19 crisis, to attack and dismantle the U.S. regulatory environmental framework and administrative capacity.[29] As a climate sceptic, he continued to financially support the fossil fuels industry and took the U.S. out of the 2005 Paris climate agreement.[30] Trump’s anti-environmental measures and record amounted to arguably the most comprehensive efforts towards environmental disintegration undertaken by any American president, rolling back rules aimed at integrating environmental concerns across a broad range of policies.[31]
Although at the time of writing (December 2021), it is still too early to evaluate President Joe Biden’s environmental performance, it seems safe to say that, under his presidency, the United States is unlikely to become a leader in environmental integration. Thus far, many of Biden’s measures are aimed at rolling back the enormous damage done to the U.S.’s environmental institutions and policies by his predecessor. On the positive side, many of his efforts are focused on combating climate change, notably through (renewable) energy and infrastructure policies. But again, U.S. politics makes even modest progress on these fronts very difficult, let alone any significant moves towards a more comprehensive and integrated approach to environmental integration.[32]
Institutional integration: “No teeth”
Although the United States pioneered an environmental-institutional framework that held the promise of an integrated approach towards tackling a range of environmental problems (institutional-internal environmental integration), this potential was never realised. Initially, the EPA was tasked with viewing “the environment as a whole” and treating “air pollution, water pollution and solid wastes as different forms of a single problem,” and set out to take a systems approach. [33] Still, it did not take long before its many units started to operate more or less independently. This was a legacy of the fact that the EPA was created by merging a range of functions formerly located in different departments, each with its own culture and goals, and due to the fragmentation of responsibilities in environmental legislation assigned to various units. The EPA’s organisational structure remained a significant obstacle to a more comprehensive and integrated approach, even in pollution control alone. As a result, environmental policy continued to be made piecemeal by a “multiplicity of agencies implementing a growing number of largely uncoordinated statutory mandates that affect the environment in conflicting ways.”[34]
Given this lack of capacity for institutional-internal integration, it is also not surprising that the EPA has not been in a position to effect environmental integration in the institutional frameworks (organisations and laws) that guide the development of policies in non-environmental areas or sectors, including energy, transport, agriculture, economic, and science and technology policy. Apart from the usual resistance from government agencies to what tends to be seen as an intrusion on their terrain and power, the ability to meet this institutional-external integration challenge was not helped by the fact that the EPA lacks the status of a department at the Cabinet level (it is an independent agency), giving it less power and opportunity to counterbalance non-environmental interests at the highest level.[35] Despite the early promise, neither the EPA nor any other U.S. agency gained the capacity or even the responsibility for comprehensively dealing with environmental policy, let alone for greening non-environmental institutions.[36]
Accumulating environmental pressures
Given the lack of progress in environmental integration efforts in the United States since the early 1970s, it is no surprise that, although the environment has not deteriorated or even improved on many fronts, the problems and pressures have grown rather than decreased. Rather than offering a litany of those problems and trends, I refer here to some of the information sources and summaries of the state of the environment in the United States, such as the OECD’s review of the environmental performance of the U.S., the USEPA’s Report on the Environment website, and the overview provided by Gustav Speth.[37] Speth concluded that “Environmental deterioration in the United States remains surprisingly severe” and that although “environmentalists have been winning battles, [they] are losing the war.”[38] It is hard to disagree with this statement, apart from the “surprising” bit. What is perhaps surprising is that, despite the numerous publications on the environmental policy of the United States, it is hard to find an official, comprehensive assessment and analysis of the country’s environmental problems and trends. While the EPA Report on the Environment website, for instance, presents a large amount of data on specific issues, it does so in a fragmented manner, neither offering a summary discussion of the main trends nor providing any analysis or discussion of the underlying pressures and drivers. This appears to confirm that in the United States, the environmental challenge is still viewed and addressed as a largely disjointed set of issues rather than being considered holistically.
The scoreboard
Environmental Integration – United States
| Domain Dimension | Cognitive domain | Policy domain | Institutional domain |
| Internal dimension | Innovative tools, but government efforts not guided by an overarching cognitive environmental framework; fragmented cognitive capacity | No serious efforts towards green planning | Some strong environmental institutions (NEPA, EPA), but stagnation & under threat, and weak integrative capacity |
| External dimension | Innovative tools for considering environmental concerns in non-environmental decisions, but no greening of the dominant cognitive economic framework and science and technology | Weak government efforts towards the greening of non-environmental policies: economic, energy, transport, agriculture, urban development, and science & technology policies | Few government moves towards the greening of non-environmental institutions (government agencies, economic and sector institutions) |
To conclude, although the United States has been, in some respects, an early leader in the area of cognitive-external environmental integration (aimed at the enhancement of the knowledge basis for decision-making, in particular on specific proposals and projects), it has been a laggard rather than a leader in most of the other areas of environmental integration. This assessment aligns with that of other analysts on the environmental performance of the U.S., who argue that, in the 1970s, the country was at the forefront of environmental policy and innovation, but has since lost its leadership status and become an environmental laggard.[39] Set against the broad framework for the analysis of environmental integration efforts, the assessment here is arguably even more damning as it shows no significant movement towards advancing environmental integration in four of the six areas where it is needed, and limited progress or stagnation in the two remaining areas, as summarised in the table above.
References
[1] Caldwell, Lynton K. (1963), “Environment: A New Focus for Public Policy”, Public Administration Review, Vol . 23, 132-139.
[2] Earth Day Network, The History of Earth Day, https://www.earthday.org/history/ (Accessed: 29 September 2015).
[3] Pearce, David W. (2000), “Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy”, in D. Helm (ed.) Environmental Policy. Objectives, Instruments, and Implementation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 48-74, 49.
[4] Bührs, Ton (2009), Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge, Albany: SUNY Press, chapter 2.
[5] Kraft, Michael E. (1996), Environmental Policy and Politics: Toward the Twenty-First Century. New York: HarperCollins, 42-44.
[6] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: United States. Paris: OECD, 27, 172-174.
[7] Ibid., 129.
[8] Office of the Administrator, Science Advisory Board (2015), Review of the EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment 2014, https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/80C3CDC88BF0552B85257DF900752F46/$File/EPA-SAB-15-007+unsigned.pdf (Accessed: 20 February 2017).
[9] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: United States, 173.
[10] Council on Environmental Quality and Department of State (1980), The Global 2000 Report to the President. Entering the Twenty-First Century. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Preface.
[11] Maurer, Crescencia, Rio+8: An Assessment of National Councils for Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: United States, 241.
[12] Bryner, Gary C. (2000), “The United States: ‘Sorry–Not Our Problem’”, in W. M. Lafferty and J. Meadowcroft (eds.), Implementing Sustainable Development: Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 273-302.
[13] Cortner, H. Hanna and Margaret A. Moote (1998), The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; Caldwell, Lynton K. (1970), “The Ecosystem as a Criterion for Public Land Policy”, Natural Resources Journal, Vol 10, No.2, 203-221.
[14] Christoforou, T. (2004), “The Precautionary Principle, Risk, Assessment and the Comparative Role of Science in the European Community and the US Legal System”, in N. Vig and G. Faure (eds.), Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union, 17-51; Bodansky, Daniel (1994), “The Precautionary Principle in US Environmental Law”, in T. O’Riordan and J. Cameron (eds.), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: The MIT Press, 203-228; Jasanoff, Sheila (2003), “A Living Legacy: The Precautionary Ideal in American Law”, in J. A. Tickner (ed.) Environmental Science and Preventive Public Policy. Washington: Island Press, 227-240.
[15] Thoreau, Henry David (1854), Walden, or, Life in the Woods. Boston: Ticknor and Fields; Carson, Rachel, Silent Spring. Harmondsworth: Penguin; Capra, Fritjof (2002), The Hidden Connections. Integrating the Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life into a Science of Sustainability. New York: Doubleday.
[16] Caldwell, Lynton K. (1963), “Environment: A New Focus for Public Policy”, Public Administration Review, Vol . 23, pp.132-139; Caldwell, Lynton K. (1970, 1st ed.), Environment: A Challenge for Modern Society. Garden City, New York: Published for the American Museum of Natural History by the Natural History Press.
[17] Henning, Daniel H. (1974), Environmental Policy and Administration. New York: American Elsevier Pub. Co., 18-19; Guruswamy, Lakshman (1989), “Integrating Thoughtways: Re-Opening of the Environmental Mind?”, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol . 3, 463-537.
[18] Bryner, Gary C., “The United States: ‘Sorry–Not Our Problem’”, 296.
[19] Rabe, Barry G. (1986), Fragmentation and Integration in State Environmental Management. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation; Bryner, Gary C., “The United States: ‘Sorry–Not Our Problem’”, 302.
[20] United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014), Fiscal Year 2014-2018. EPA Strategic Plan. Washington D.C., https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100KB1L.PDF?Dockey=P100KB1L.PDF, (Accessed: 20 February 2017).
[21] McGrory Klyza, Christopher and David J. Sousa (2013, e-book ed.), American Environmental Policy: Beyond Gridlock. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[22] Cohen, Maurie J. (2004), “George W. Bush and the Environmental Protection Agency: A Midterm Appraisal”, Society & Natural Resources, Vol.17, No.1, 69-88; Vig, Norman (2000), “Presidential Leadership and the Environment: From Reagan to Clinton”, in N. Vig and M. Kraft (eds.), Environmental Policy. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 98-120; Giles, Jim (2008), “George Bush’s Parting Swipe at the Environment”, New Scientist, Vol . 200, 29 November, 14.
[23] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: United States, Chapter 4.
[24] Ibid., 121. [original emphasis]
[25] Bomberg, Elizabeth and Betsy Super (2009), “The 2008 US Presidential Election: Obama and the Environment”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 18, No.3, 424-430.
[26] Custers, Peter (2009), “Less Green Than He Promised”, Le Monde Diplomatique (English edition), June.
[27] Bailey, Christopher J. (2019), “Assessing President Obama’s Climate Change Record”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 28, No.5, 847-865.
[28] McChesney, Robert W. and John Nichols (2016, e-book ed.), People Get Ready: The Fight against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy. New York: Nation Books; McGrory Klyza, Christopher and David J. Sousa, American Environmental Policy: Beyond Gridlock. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[29] Eilperin, Juliet and Steven Mufson (2017), “Trump to Roll Back Obama’s Climate, Water Rules through Executive Action”, The Washington Post, 20 February; Popovich, Nadia, et al. (2018), “67 Environmental Rules on the Way out under Trump”, New York Times, 31 January.
[30] Friedman, Lisa (2019), “Trump Serves Notice to Quit Paris Climate Agreement”, The New York Times, 4 November; Holden, Emily (2020), “What the US Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement Means”, The Guardian, 27 July.
[31] Chang, Alvin, et al. (2020), “75 Ways Trump Made America Dirtier and the Planet Warmer”, The Guardian, 22 October; Environmental & Energy Law Programme (2020), Regulatory Rollback Tracker, Harvard Law School, Environmental & Energy Law Programme, https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/regulatory-rollback-tracker/ (Accessed: 22 October 2020).
[32] Wikipedia (2021), Environmental Policy of the Joe Biden Administration, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Joe_Biden_administration (Accessed: 16 December 2021); Milman, Oliver and Alvin Chang (2021), “How Biden Is Reversing Trump’s Assault on the Environment”, The Guardian, 2 February.
[33] Lewis, Jack (1985), “The Birth of EPA”, EPA Journal. https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/birth-epa.html.
[34] Andrews, Richard N. L. (1999), Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 11.
[35] Arnold, Richard and Andrew B. Whitford (2005), “Organisational Dilemmas of the US EPA: Why Structures Matter for Environmental Protection”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 14, No.1, 118-123, 121.
[36] Cohen, Maurie J. (2004), “George W. Bush and the Environmental Protection Agency: A Midterm Appraisal”, Society & Natural Resources, Vol . 17, No.1, 85.
[37] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: United States; United States Environmental Protection Agency (2020), EPA’s Report on the Environment (ROE), https://www.epa.gov/report-environment (Accessed: 20 October 2020); Speth, James Gustave (2008, e-book ed.), The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
[38] Speth, James Gustave, The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, Loc 44.
[39] Liefferink, Duncan, et al. (2009), “Leaders and Laggards in Environmental Policy: A Quantitative Analysis of Domestic Policy Outputs”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.16, No.5, pp.677-700; Schreurs, Miranda A. (2002), Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the United States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Knill, Christoph, et al. (2012), “Really a Front-Runner, Really a Straggler? Of Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union and Beyond — a Quantitative Policy Perspective”, Energy Policy, Vol . 48, pp.36-45.