Reaction Paper
The main arguments of the authors (Vig & Kraft, 2016) include the limitations on various fields the EPA agency is confronted with. The agency is working with the limiting tools and tackles the problems separate and not as an integrated set of incentives and policies. Results are hindered because the EPA is not the final decision maker since every decision is being challenged in lawsuits, petitions, changes in the congressional legislation and budget provisions and only rarely remain settled. The companies are challenging and not complying with the decisions of the agency. EPA works separately on the areas that are interlinked and interconnected and do not solve complex problem comprehensively. The issues agency is dealing with are neither simple nor straightforward. The agency is confronted with continually updating of evidence, provision of proofs, constant research and studies which is resulting in increasing costs for the population and business. The authors point out the long period of time the agency needs to regulate specific areas on concrete cases and the lack of change in regulation substance-by-substance. The agency is confronted with the slow regulatory process, relying on the independent scientific organizations, and uncertainty in the staff constraints and budget. The decisions are influenced also from the small business and local government. The politicians’ views play an important role and can also be seen with the EPA dealing with the climate change. It all depends on the policy commitment, administration and support of the incentives and legislation by the president that can veto the actions.
In my opinion the writing is more focused on presenting the flaws and disadvantages in which the agency is working. Even though the author recognizes the positive accomplishment of the EPA in the area of air pollution, fuel efficiency, in the reduction of water pollution, more safely managing hazardous and solid waste, innovation in environmental policy and progress made in the toxic chemicals area it still seems that the agency has not achieved enough. The critique of the chapter is that more attention was given to the background and to the presentation of limitations of the agency and very little on specific positive results that the agency achieved through the history. The arguments are well represented with the cases mentioned and are not based solely on theory. The arguments have a good background and concrete information. The positive sides should be more equally represented.
The topic of the chapter fits with the week’s topic about the EPA and gives more insight of the past regulations of the environment with the limitations and achievements of the agency. It gives different perception about the agency, which should in my opinion also include more proposed solutions.
The questions about the reading that are regarded on the read chapter are:
Were there any suggestions made or proposals by this or previous administration to reduce the limitations the agency is confronted with?
Which are the most visible politicians and small business that are against the stricter regulation of the environment?
Work cited
Vig, Norman J., and Michael E. Kraft. 2016. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21st Century. 9th ed. Los Angeles: Sage. Ch. 7: Richard N. L. Andrews. “The Environmental Protection Agency”
