The United States - Comparing Environmental Policies in 16 Countries - page 51

existing one, planted millions of trees, and worked to rehabilitate the
Dust Bowl. The most crucial presidential administration was that of
Republican Richard Nixon. He believed that the Republican Party fit
naturally with the environmental movement. He established the EPA
and asked Congress to pass the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Clean Air Act, and several other important laws. His Democratic succes-
sor, Jimmy Carter, continued to protect the environment. Republican sup-
port for the environment ended abruptly with Ronald Reagan, who stifled
pollution control and gave away protected land in the West and Alaska.
George H. W. Bush was not so hostile, but except for advocating the Clean
Air Act Amendments, neither did he do much to help. Since Reagan the
lines have been sharp with Democrat Bill Clinton returning to protection
and George W. Bush relaxing protection and opposing the Kyoto Protocol.
The Republican Party advocates helping business and industry, and has
denied that global warming is a threat. Obama returned EPA to an active
role in the Democratic Party tradition.
Governmental structure makes a difference. Congress is different from
most legislatures in European democracies in that it is separated from the
president, that is, the executive function. Moreover, congressional com-
mittees and even individual senators and representatives can be very
powerful, and don't shy away from interfering in the agencies. The US
government implements many environmental policies through its federal
system of two levels. Control of air and water comes from national laws and
regulations implemented by state agencies. EPA sets the standards, and
then delegates enforcement to the states. For mining, the national agency
is the Office of Surface Mining, which in turn delegates enforcement to
the states. On the other hand, many other programs do not operate in a
delegated fashion. Radiation, parks, land management, fish and wildlife,
and hydroelectricity are managed directly by the national government.
The influence of the diplomatic agenda as an avenue for environmental
events is limited because the United States is such a dominant country
on the world scene. Very seldom is it a follower. It is often a leader, such
as the Migratory Bird Treaty, CITES, and the Framework Convention
on Climate Change. An early example of the United States becoming
acquainted with an issue by following the diplomatic agenda was the first
Polar Year. More recently although the United States is seldom surprised
by items on the diplomatic agenda, it is not necessarily the greenest coun-
try in the world. The 1963 Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union elevated
concern with radioactive fallout. In preparation for the 1992 Rio Earth