The U.S. can no longer afford to consider environmental protection in isolation from costs - our goals must be tempered with pragmatism. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the nation now spends more than $100 billion annually to comply with federal environmental laws and regulations.
The federal government spends over $1 billion a year on the Superfund, yet only 60% of these funds are being spent on cleaning up the environment. With fewer than 200 of the 2000 most hazardous sites having been cleaned up, common sense dictates that Superfund money be used to clean the environment and not line the pockets of consultants and lawyers.
Current government regulations offer little or no financial incentives for businesses to exceed their pollution control targets. For this reason, I favor an increased emphasis on market- based incentives, such as pollution charges and tradeable permits, because they provide freedom of choice for businesses and consumers to determine the best way to reduce pollution. If you let the marketplace work, people will be extremely creative in finding ways to make changes that are environmentally sound and economically sustainable.
As new environmental policies arise and old ones persist, the limited resources of government will be stretched further and further. Incentive-based instruments will offer the most economical way to improve environmental quality while maintaining economic growth. They will also empower individuals to preserve, enlarge and enjoy the environment; decrease burdensome and onerous regulations and help replace a system that presently benefits lobbyists and lawyers more than the environment.
I also support these other environmental positions:
"No net less" policy on wetlands. These biologically valuable lands contribute to wildlife, water purity, ease soil erosion and stop floods. If they are to be developed, they should be replaced at 1:1 ratio.
Continued use of nuclear energy. The federal government must take the lead in identifying and developing safe storage sites, while simultaneously pursuing the development of cost-efficient, alternative energy sources.
Realistic environmental standards that guarantee the public's safety yet expedite clean-up. Frequently, a significant portion of the regulatory cost comes from trying to get a 2 or 3 percent improvement in the environment.
Repeal retroactive liability. Holding companies liable for actions that were not illegal at the time they occurred serves no purpose because it does not positively affect behavior.
Prepared by the Joanell Dyrstad fof U.S. Senator Campaign Committee, 8100 Penn Avenue South, Bloomington, MN Telephone/Fax: (612)884-4552/884-4620