Skip to main content

Conclusions

  • Chapter
  • 74 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in Risk Uncertainty ((SIRU,volume 1))

Abstract

The results of our analyses may come as a surprise to the various schools of environmental management in the United States. The utilitarian school, which reflects the concern of the public health profession, supports the use of ambient-based standards as a scientific and reasonable way to protect health and welfare [Rodgers. 1986]. The absolutist school, which reflects the interests of the environmental rights-oriented movement, supports the use of technology-based standards as a necessary and practical approach [Latin. 1985]. The rationalist school, which reflects the economist’s view of environmental management, supports the use of benefits-based standards as a balanced and sensible approach [Krier. 1974, Freeman. 1980, Pedersen. 1988].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ackerman, Bruce A., and Richard B. Stewart. 1985. “Reforming Environmental Law.” Standford Law Review, 37:1333–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, Robert W. 1983. Controlling Industrial Pollution: The Economics and Politics of the Clean Air Act. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Conservation Foundation. 1988. “The Environmental Protection Act.” Second draft. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, E. Donald, Bruce A. Ackerman, and John C. Millian. 1985. “Toward a Theory of Statutory Evolution: The Federalization of Environmental Law.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1:313–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Register (FR). 1990. “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Process Vents, Industrial Solvent Use, Benzene Waste Operations Benzene Transfer Operations, and Gasoline Marketing System.” 55:8292–8295. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, A. Myrick III. 1980. “Technology-Based Effluent Standards: The U.S. Case.” Water Resources Research, 16:21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, John A., David Harrison Jr., and Albert L. Nichols. 1984. “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Environmental Regulation: Case Studies of Hazardous Air Pollutants.” Harvard Environmental Law Review, 8:395–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneese, Allan. 1985. Measuring the Benefits of Clean Air and Water. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krier, James E. 1974. “The Irrational National Air Quality Standards: Macro and Micro Mistakes.” UCLA Law Review, 22:323–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latin, Howard. 1985. “Ideal Versus Real Regulatory Efficiency: Implementation of Uniform Standards and ‘Fine-Tuning’ Regulatory Reforms.” Stanford Law Review, 37:1267–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, Alan B. 1986. “OMB Interference with Agency Rulemaking: The Wrong Way to Write a Regulation.” Harvard Law Review, 99:1059–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, William F. 1988. “Turning the Tide on Water Quality.” Ecology Law Quarterly, 15:69–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, William H., Jr. 1986. Environmental Law: Air and Water. West Publishing, St. Paul, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, Robert E. “OMB Review of Environmental Regulations: Limitations on the Courts and Congress.” Yale Law and Policy Review, 4:404–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. December 11, 1987. “Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Revisions to Subtitle D Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” Report to the Economic Analysis Staff, Office of Solid Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987(a). “EPA’s Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis: 1981–1986.” EPA-230–05–87–028. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987(b). “Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems.” Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. “EPA Strategic Planning and Budgeting.” Memorandum of Administrator Reilly. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. 1989. Catching Our Breath: Next Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone. OTA-O-412. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water Related Resources: Implementation Studies. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Luken, R.A. (1990). Conclusions. In: Efficiency in Environmental Regulation. Studies in Risk Uncertainty, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0737-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0737-9_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6816-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-0737-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics