If you believe the current debate in Washington over many environmental
issues, America faces stark and unavoidable choices between
environmental protection and economic growth, between federal
micromanagement and local control of resources, and between
single-minded advocacy of the collective interest in clean water, air, and
land and single-minded protection of individual property rights.
Throughout these "green wars," New Democrats, moderate Republicans,
and a growing cadre of state and local community leaders and activists
have worked to create a "third way" in environmental protection. This third
way, the hallmark of the Progressive Policy Institute's Center for Innovation
& the Environment, recognizes the power of market forces and
administrative flexibility in producing environmental results, and
emphasizes local and regional stewardship as essential tools of an
effective national environmental policy. It also recognizes the importance of
giving the public easy access to accurate, understandable information
about environmental conditions in their communities--to hold those
responsible for pollution accountable and to judge the success of the
regulators.
The best examples of this third way can be found outside Washington, in
communities where environmentalists, local officials, businesses, and
citizens are ignoring the "green wars" and coming together to address local
and regional environmental problems with striking results. We believe this
"civic environmentalism" movement is the best news on the environmental
front in years, and a powerful example of where the debate in Washington
should go in the future.
In a new PPI report, Civic Environmentalism in Action: A Field Guide to
Regional and Local Initiatives, Mark Landy,
Megan Susman, and Debra Knopman analyze case studies of
"place-based solutions" to environmental problems, and examine the
implications for policymakers.
Civic environmentalism engages a broad band of citizens in solving the
problems that affect their own communities and regions. Thriving on
partnerships between the public and private sectors, civic leaders develop
and pursue "custom tailored" actions to solve environmental problems
particular to their place. Because the geography of environmental problems
rarely meshes with existing political boundaries, civic environmentalism
plays on a common interest in a shared environment, not on city, county,
or state lines.
Those closest to the problem piece together and implement solutions,
relying on legal tools, technical assistance, and financial resources
provided by the state and federal governments. The challenge for
government at all levels is to provide the tools and resources to let these
productive civic relationships flourish and allow locally or regionally grown
solutions to work.
Civic environmentalism is a clear departure from the first generation of
national environmental policies that tended to impose top-down and
prescriptive solutions on communities to address one problem at a time,
independent of the circumstances in a particular place. For yesterday's
problems, stemming mainly from large industrial sources of pollution, the
first generation policies worked (and continue to work albeit with
diminishing efficiency). The more complex and often diffuse environmental
problems of today -- like those brought on by sprawling suburban
development -- demand new tools of community engagement that cut across
bureaucracies, and harness rather than fight market forces.
Civic environmentalism's defining principles are collaboration, flexibility, and
accountability for environmental and economic outcomes. Its essential
ingredients are scientifically sound and clearly articulated environmental
standards; a concerned and active citizenry willing to talk with each other; fair access to technical expertise; and
market-oriented policy tools to make the exercise of private property rights
promote rather than block broad public needs. Successful examples of
civic environmentalism include:
The Chesapeake Bay Program, which has helped reduce the flow of
pollutants to the bay by leveraging the public's deep attachment to
the Bay to stimulate changes in local land-use practices, outside
the dominion of the federal Clean Water Act.
North Carolina's Sandhills Safe Harbor initiative, which has enabled
local landowners to voluntarily participate in long-range plans to
conserve the habitat of red-cockaded woodpeckers, avoiding the
controversial and expensive federal prescriptions normally required
for compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
The Gilbert-Mosley Brownfield initiative in Wichita, Kansas, in which
city leaders created a voluntary effort that cleaned up polluted sites
more rapidly and less expensively than would have been the case if
the site had fallen into the federal Superfund program.
All three examples show how federal policy can encourage civic
environmentalism (especially in establishing clear environmental goals) or
inhibit it. The key is in focusing on results rather than micromanaging
means, and in stimulating collaboration instead of confrontation between
affected parties.
There is a third way beyond the green wars that creates better
environmental outcomes, more rapidly, at lower costs, and with less
sacrifice in both community control and individual rights. But Congress
cannot explore this third way until its contending environmental factions
call a truce.
