[Timber Loftis]

Magic said:
As for ploicys enacted since 1990 you are wrong, I don't have the docs available but I do know Clinton passed sever environmentally friendly presidential orders (circumventing congress by the way) Not to mention the recent short sighted ANWAR vote. To say that the country is not doing anything for the envrionment is misleading and disengenuous. I will also point out that seeing as how this is a capitalistic society you cannot just confine your comments about the environment to the government, there are litterally hundreds of private organizations working on technology for cleaner safer products and others also activly cleaning up previous problems. As you yourself pointed out, there are $$$$$ to be made in the "cleaning up" business and there are companies that are making the $$$$.

Actually, Clinton's orders were not, as a rule, circumventing Congress, as more than anything they were orders as to how certain Agencies (which are in the Executive branch, controlled by the Pres.) would interpret the statutes that governed their behavior. It does not circumvent congress for the Pres. to order the EPA to read the Clean Air Act mandates in one certain way or another, as the EPA could have made that determination on its own and the Pres. is, quite literally, its boss/manager. Forgive me for speaking generally, but Clinton's orders were more to the tune of "now you will enforce this way rather than how you have been." Believe me, the language of most environmental laws is broad enough that the Executive Branch doesn't need a new law to decide it will undertake new actions under existing laws. As an interesting side note on this topic, the EPA could, on its own, declare the GHGs (CO2 and the five others listed in Kyoto) as "pollutants" under the existing Clean Air Act and begin regulating them tomorrow if it took a notion to do so. In fact, to combat this possibility, bills have been introduced in Congress trying to get it enacted into law that CO2 is not a "pollutant."

As for the people making the $$$ in the cleanup business, the companies I usually represent won't spend the $$$ and hire them unless they know: (1) a law or regulation exists that (more or less) makes them undertake the activity, and (2) that law or regulation is actually being enforced.

As for the country doing things about the environment, I do not mean to say nothing is being done. I do mean to imply that a lot less is being done now than in the heyday of environmental law (1970s-1990). I could be specific if you like, but it would be exhausting to my time. In brief, I will say that, regarding the big US Enviro laws and concerns:
1. The CLean Water Act, after much ado about dredge and fill and how for the government could regulate, suffered some bad court defeats in the past couple of years, limiting what waters the act applied to and creating certain exemptions that are very big.
2. While the US was very active in climate change early on, that has dwindled significantly. US was a huge participant in drafting the UN Framework Convention on CLimate Change (UNFCCC) and then the Kyoto Protocol that further defined the UNFCCC at the third annual UNFCCC meeting in 1997. Since then, we've poo-pooed it pretty much.
3. The Clean Air Act is really off-schedule, and it has been in the news a lot lately that the EPA is not keeping up with the findings mandated in the CAA regarding study and classification of pollutants. On the other hand, there has been a lot of work at USEPA to regulate a new pollutant, fine particulate matter of smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), which we just discovered this decade is a worse pollutant than those you can see (and is why what we though were "cleaner" technologies, such as natural gas plants, can also pose significant health hazards). PM2.5 3-year studies are due to be finished this year.
4. CERCLA has pretty much ended. Attorneys jumped to litigate the 100 million dollar cleanup sites, as no matter which side of the case you are on you can bill the shit out of your client. Now, though, cleanup sites worth more than 20 million are hard to come by, and really not much to waste our time litigating - not for 5 yrs like the other sites, at least. Best to settle these and sweep em under the rug.
5. The Endangered Species Act was given such wicked teeth in early litigation (e.g. Sierra Club v. TVA - stopping the completion of a multi-billion dollar dam that was 90% finished because the rare snail darter fish was found at the bottom) based on the ESA's strong language regarding how important a species is, that subsequent courts have reacted harshly, severely limiting its use now.
6. Citizen suit provisions are harder to pursue these days because of limits the courts have put on them. And, just so you know, an individual has NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION under an environmental law unless Congress puts one in it. Generally, we must wait for the government to pursue environmental actions. There are exceptions, such as the citizen suit provision of the ESA, but they are rather rare. Otherwise, citizens are left trying to sue the agency to make it enforce its own regulations and laws - a difficult battle to win.

There are other examples I have in my pocket if you like.

This affects me personally, as I do environmental law. Trust me, the market for my work has tanked in the last decade. And, I claim no side in these matters: I have worked on both sides of environmental issues. But, with lack of enforcement, no matter which side I'm on demand for my services goes down.

OK - I've rambled for too long, now.