National Center for Policy Analysis

MONTH IN REVIEW

Environmental Policy
September, 1996

PAYING TO PLAY ON FEDERAL LAND

One of the most heavily subsidized uses of federal land is recreation; but policy analysts suggest it is time to make users pay to play -- for reasons of budgetary and environmental health.

Recreational activities on federal land costs taxpayers $1.7 billion a year, while the government only collects $159.7 million annually in recreation user fees.
For instance, in 1993 the Forest Service got only $49.3 million from recreationists, but estimated the market value of the benefits to users at $6.8 billion.
This is a far greater imbalance than the benefits received by ranchers, miners and timber companies in exchange for the fees they pay.

Underpricing recreation services encourages overuse, causing roads and facilities to wear out sooner and increasing the cost to taxpayers. For instance, the combined repair backlog for the National Park Service and the Forest Service is $5 billion.

Other federal agencies that run recreational services include the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers. Some of these agencies have had wide latitude in setting fees but have had no incentive to set them high enough to cover their costs, since their agencies do not benefit from the revenues.

Source: "Recreation Subsidies," in Jonathan H. Adler, ed., Environmental Briefing Book 1996, Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 331-1010.

For more information on Environmental issues, visit the NCPA's Environment page at http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/pi/enviro/envdex.html

RADICAL ENVIRONMENTAL BRAINWASHING

Some parents are concerned about what their children are taught in school concerning the environment. While few would question the need for students to approach environmental subjects in a scientifically sound way, some educators -- caught up in the latest environmental scare or fad -- are apparently panicking their young charges.

Students at a Tucson, Arizona, elementary school were encouraged to write essays deploring the construction of a nearby housing development -- with one student objecting that "they're using that land just for people to live in homes they don't really need."
One mother was prompted to look into what her child was being taught when the six-year-old lamented, "they killed trees to make my bed."
Human activity is described in some textbooks with words like "menace, catastrophe, collapse, shortage, disaster, breakdown, alarm, degradation and deadly."

Environmental researchers Michael Sanera and Jane S. Shaw, authors of the forthcoming, "Facts, Not Fear: A Parent's Guide to Teaching Children About the Environment," assessed over 140 textbooks and nearly 170 environmental books written for children. They found that, on major environmental issues the "education" was strictly one-sided.

Children were encouraged to mix water and vinegar to obtain "acid rain," not told that research proves acid rain has harmed only a very small number of lakes.
They are not taught that recycling can also waste energy and create its own pollution -- and that it can't save trees.
They are taught that there will eventually be too many people on the earth for it to support, not that the world's population growth has already decreased dramatically.

Critics charge that the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Education Division has reinforced this anti-scientific bias.

In a recent report to Congress, the division -- which has received $34.9 million in appropriations over the past five years to promote environmental learning -- complained about a "disproportionate emphasis on science-oriented activities" in environmental education today.
EPA makes clear that teachings from its "Environmental Science Education Materials Review Guide" are to "reflect EPA policy on the topics explored."
To assure that its views are taught as gospel, it has funneled nearly $2 million to the North American Association for Environmental Education to fund teacher training programs.

Environmental activists are reportedly quietly pushing for a reauthorization of the 1990 act which created the division. Reauthorization has already passed the Senate and will soon face a vote in the House.

Source: Michael Sanera and Jane S. Shaw, "The ABCs of Environmental Myths," Wall Street Journal, September 4, 1996.

FLAWS IN ASSESSING SOIL CONTAMINATION RISKS

Cleaning up many chemically contaminated sites may be more extensive and costly than necessary, according to a new study by a former chairman of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board.

Raymond C. Loehr says the risk assessment models used by the EPA fail to take into account chemical and physical processes that reduce the concentration of toxic chemicals and alter them in ways that render them harmless to living organisms.

Currently, EPA risk assessments rarely take into account chemical availability (or bioavailability) in soils, which are affected by the chemicals' leachability, mobility, rate of release and relative toxicity. Yet Loehr says there is increasing evidence that:

Chemical concentration alone is insufficient to determine the actual risk posed by toxic chemicals.
Organic chemicals may not be readily available for up-take by organisms, and may not have an adverse impact on human health or the environment.
Where chemicals have weathered for decades, they may be tightly held by the soil and unavailable for transport.
Thus they may not require costly remediation, such as the removal, washing and chemical treatment of many tons of soil.

According to 123 laboratory and field studies reviewed by Loehr, naturally occurring bioremediation rapidly reduces the concentrations of contaminants, and in most cases gradually reduces the concentrations to near zero. Other studies show that where concentrations remain stable, it is because the chemicals are so tightly bound to the soil that micro-organisms can't reach them, indicating they are unlikely to spread further.

Source: Raymond C. Loehr (University of Texas at Austin), "The Environmental Impact of Soil Contamination: Bioavailability, Risk Assessment, and Policy Implications," Policy Study No. 211, August 1996, Reason Foundation, 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90034, (310) 391-2245, and National Environmental Policy Institute, 1100 17th St., Suite 330, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-4784.

DANGERS OF GREEN TRADE

International treaties regulating or restricting trade under the guise of environmental protection represent a threat to the global trading system, say critics, but do little to safeguard the environment. They are simply another form of tariffs that allow governments to protect domestic industries from foreign competitors, and are just as harmful to the economy as tariffs.

Among these green barriers to trade:

The Basel Convention - which the United States hasn't ratified - bans most trading of hazardous materials between countries, even for purposes of recycling or disposal.
Its costly regulations apply to the byproducts of nearly all agricultural and industrial products.
The U.S. has signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) - which allows governments to impose trade barriers based on the domestic wildlife and trade policies of other countries.

Provisions of these treaties were incorporated into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The World Trade Organization (WTO) which enforces the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), is considering ways to enforce them through its trade sanctions.

Critics point out that developing countries are less able to afford costly environemtal regulations than developed ones. Hence such treaties favor developed countries over their competitors.

Source: "Trade and Environment," Environmental Briefing Book 1996, Jonathan H. Adler, ed., Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 331-1010.

TREE ORDINANCES' BITE WORSE THAN BARK

A century of development has turned vast areas of prairie and desert into urban forests as developers and landowners have realized the benefits of trees, according to NCPA environmental expert Sterling Burnett.

In the city of Dallas, open prairie has sprouted into about 213,000 wooded acres, and nationwide there are more trees now than 100 years ago.
Urban forests provide open space, improve drainage, reduce soil erosion, remove pollutants from the air and provide shade and windbreaks.
Studies have found urban temperatures are as much as 11 degrees lower in shaded areas than in less wooded areas.

Developers have long planted more trees in cities than governments, citizens or private groups, according to Dallas' chief arborist. Residential developers who leave trees on their land benefit from higher land values and lower landscaping costs.

Yet conflicts between landowners and tree preservationists are increasing, and worried landowners are cutting down their trees in some instances. For example,

Protests by tree preservationists persuaded a Dallas hospital to build a new power plant around older trees; although it had already satisfied Dallas' tree ordinance.
In the affluent Dallas suburb of University Park, residents used their cars to blockade two pecan trees that were to be felled for a new driveway.
For the sake of peace, the homeowner agreed to temporarily halt the saws --while neighbors lobbied the city to pass a tree ordinance.
While the city council in Allen, Texas considered a tree ordinance, one developer cleared several hundred acres, and others rushed to cut trees for fear that they would not be able to remove them once the law passed.

Tree ordinances are spreading across the country: A 1984 study found fewer than 100 tree preservation ordinances nationwide; but by 1989 there were 159 in California alone.

In some cities, the ordinances only affect commercial development; but other cities' ordinances require homeowners and farmers to get permission to cut down a tree or face hefty fines. In many cities, tree mandarins decide which trees are "good" and which are "bad." Cottonwoods and sycamores are on the "undesirable" list in some areas.

Source: Sterling Burnett (environmental policy analyst, National Center for Policy Analysis), USA Today, September 10, 1996.

For more information on the Environment, visit the NCPA's Environment page at http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/pi/enviro/envdex.html

MORE HEADACHES FOR PESTICIDE MANUFACTURERS

Even though the National Academy of Sciences says that the level of synthetic chemicals in foods is so low as to be "unlikely to pose an appreciable cancer risk, "Congress has passed another law which will even further reduce pesticide levels -- creating even more problems for manufacturers, food processors and farmers. And experts have no doubt that the new law will increase costs to consumers.

The Food Quality Protection Act will make it more difficult to register and use pesticides.
Heretofore, the Environmental Protection Agency established a theoretically acceptable daily intake level for each pesticide by totaling a number of factors, which resulted in a level so low that the risks of pesticide residues were negligible.
The agency then assumed that the pesticide was sprayed on all a farmer's acreage at full strength for all the crops he might use it on, which greatly overestimated the amount of residue on food.
Not content with these rigorous safeguards, lawmakers -- through the new law -- are forcing the EPA to further lower its acceptable daily intake levels.

It has been predicted that the new law will decrease tolerances on certain classes of pesticides by a factor of ten or more.

Manufacturers will now have to figure out a way to reduce their residue calculation -- which means canceling usage.
They are expected to drop usages with high dietary exposure and low acreage -- mostly fruits and vegetables.
The result will be what one observer called "a sort of triage process" that will increase the cost of food that's already safe.

Also, the law contains language that directs the EPA to determine if a tolerance is "safe," which is defined as "reasonable certainty of (causing) no harm." "No harm" could mean "zero harm," a short step from "zero risk." If EPA were forced by suits from environmental groups to interpret the statute literally -- almost a certainty in today's climate -- it would have to set tolerances for all pesticides at zero.

Source: Jonathan Tolman (Competitive Enterprise Institute), "The Real Pests Aren't in the Food," Wall Street Journal, September 18, 1996.

RISK-REDUCTION AND SUPERFUND

The Superfund program, designed to clean up hazardous waste sites in the United States, has expanded in size and cost since 1980. There are almost 1,300 Superfund sites, and General Accounting Office officials say that by some estimates, 3,200 additional sites could be added in the future.

The most cost-effective way to manage the program, says GAO official Stanley J. Czerwinski, is to attempt to reduce human health and environmental risks to the greatest extent possible within the available resources.

But that isn't what the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees Superfund, is doing.

Sites selected for cleanup and the order established for cleanup by regional EPA offices aren't determined by the degree of risk; priorities are set according to other factors, including the amount of work required to clean up a site.
Half the sites the GAO reviewed only needed cleanup because EPA always assumes land will be used for residential purposes, even if no one has ever lived on the site.
Risks can be reduced more quickly and economically using accelerated cleanup procedures; if applied consistently, GAO estimated the average time needed to clean up sites could be reduced from four years to two years, and federal and private-sector costs could be reduced by $1.7 billion.

The estimated cost for cleaning up the nation's hazardous waste problem has grown to $75 billion for nonfederal sites and up to $400 billion for federal facilities.

Source: Stanley J. Czerwinski (associate director, environmental protection - GAO), "Superfund: More Emphasis Needed on Risk Reduction," May 8, 1996, General Accounting Office, Washington, DC 20548.

ECONOMISTS URGE CAUTION ON GLOBAL WARMING POLICIES

"Stringent, near-term actions" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will reduce savings, investment and economic growth, but will not be effective, conclude the editors of Climate Change Policies, a collection of papers on the economic effects of global warming policies.

Greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by burning fossil fuels, may cause global warming. The 1995 Berlin Mandate calls for the industrialized countries, including the United States, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 -- and to even lower levels by 2100.

Some experts say the Berlin Mandate will impose unnecessary, high costs on industrialized economies, and will not accomplish the desired goals, for several reasons:

Reseach is not sufficient to determine to what extent global warming and climate change may occur and if any damage would be inflicted as a result.
The higher CO2 levels and warming effects that are predicted will not occur until late in the 21st century; thus severe short-term measures aren't needed.
Since it is projected that the countries to which the Mandate applies will account for only 25 percent of the cumulative CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2100, it will have little effect on global climate change.

Yet the cost of the Berlin Mandates could be high. A study by DRI/McGraw-Hill found that imposing enough energy or "carbon" taxes to reduce emissions to 1990 levels would reduce gross domestic product 2.3 percent by 2010 or $832 for every adult that year. It would also force lifestyle changes, such as reduced household electricity consumption.

But some economists estimate that the costs of reducing CO2 emissions could be cut by more than 80 percent through flexibility in where and how reductions are made, potentially saving the international community trillions of dollars in costs.

The best strategy for dealing with global warming, suggest the authors, is to continue research; allow CO2 emissions to continue rising until 2050; then gradually reduce emissions as new technologies and alternative energy sources are developed. This strategy would have the least economic cost and greatest chance of success, while protecting the global environment.

Source: Charles E. Walker et al., ed., "Global Climate Change: An Economic Perspective on Climate Change Policies," February 1996, American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, Washington, DC, 1750 K Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 293-5811.

CONGRESS ENCOURAGES ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS

Over the past 20 years, Congress has given environmental activists, acting as "private attorneys general," the legal standing to seek broad injunctions and heavy civil penalties in federal courts against alleged polluters, according to legal experts. It has also given them standing to use the courts to force regulatory agencies to write and enforce unworkable rules mandated by Congress.

Such "citizen suits" seeking to enforce public policies have put the courts in the position of micromanaging regulatory agencies, says former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh. Some attorneys believe this is unconstitutional, since Congress has the duty to oversee the execution of the laws by Executive branch agencies.

For instance, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required the Environmental Protection Agency to write minimum standards for state vehicle inspection and maintenance programs within 12 months.

Proposed regulations must be published in the Federal Register, revised after a comment period, cleared by the Office of Management and Budget and then printed in final form.
The EPA did not meet this unrealistic deadline, and was promptly sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental special-interest group.
As a result, a federal judge set the timetable for writing the regulations, told the EPA how to allocate its personnel and funds and supervised the process.

Other environmental statutes -- such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act -- include similar deadlines for regulatory action. And since any private group or local government can sue in any federal court, the EPA and other agencies are parties to hundreds of suits.

Researchers suggest that Congress uses citizen suits to expand the role of the courts in enforcing environmental laws because it distrusts regulatory agencies and because it doesn't want to use its limited time and personnel in oversight and investigative hearings.

Source: James T. Blanch et al., "Citizen Suits and Qui Tam Actions: Private Enforcement of Public Policy," 1996, National Legal Center for the Public Interest, 1000 16th Street, NW, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 296-1683.