Pollution Prevention - Origins, Types, and Solutions

The federal Pollution Prevention Act was made into law to raise the level of interest in environmental protection and conservation by preventing pollution. This was done by enabling mechanisms that discouraged the production of polluting materials as a by-product of industrial processes. The other aim was to find environmentally friendly ways to dispose of waste that had already been produced and thus eliminate pollution at the source. The source reduction strategy was structured in a strategic way that would make the safe disposal more cost-effective compared with the previous practices (Civic Impulse, 2018). According to Ashby (2013), t he United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) initiated the proposal for pollution prevention on January 26th, 1989. This proposal removed the focus from the control of pollution to its prevention. The proposal policy began by analyzing the benefits that the control programs had realized in the past 18 years. The EPA continued by identifying that the control strategies were limited in their scope of carrying out environmental improvement. EPA then proposed the reduction of generated waste in addition to the elimination of the same pollutants. Source reduction was then recommended by sustainable means such as recycling. Other environmentally sound practices were proposed to deal with emissions and discharges. The EPA's proposal was eventually approved, and in 1990, the Pollution Prevention Act was finally enacted. Congress had enacted many laws before then in the time frame between 1970 and 1980. However, all these laws were controlled statutes that legislated against the introduction of pollutants into the environment. Ashby (2013) points out that the aim was to protect the environment through compliance orders, referral to civil and criminal tribunals, administrative penalty proceedings, and permits. These enforcement methods compelled compliance in the relevant quarters. They came to be known as "command and control." It was soon brought to the attention of Congress that these control measures were still affecting the environment through adverse side effects. This happened when pollutants were transferred during disposal from one habitat to another. The result was double pollution instead of the envisioned environmental protection. Policymakers within Congress came to see that the prevention of pollution, rather than the monitoring and enforcement of compelled compliance, was the least environmentally friendly option. Furthermore, this option cost the government and the taxpayer less concerning time management, evaluation, and monitoring. This was what prompted them to accept the proposal by the EPA and to enact it into law. William K. Reilly championed this cause as the administrator of the EPA. They changed the 1989 draft to shift its wording away from the similarities in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The amended Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 advocated source reduction, recycling, and environmentally friendly waste disposal and removal. This became the national policy on pollution prevention (Ashby, 2013). It was not an easy law to pass because the Republican Party initially opposed it. They defended the rights of the producers of pollution by claiming that the laws would curtail some freedoms and interfere with the business prospects of those involved. This was mostly in part due to their political allegiance to significant manufacturers who bankrolled them. They were inclined to support them even though they stood to gain from the laws. However, the Democrats used persuasion tactics to bring the Republicans over to their side. This included demonstrating the benefits of prevention of factors that led to situations such as acid rain. The bill was first introduced in the Senate on 25th October 1990. It was put to vote on 26th October 1990 and passed on the same day. There was no numerical vote count as the law was passed by a voice vote. It was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush (Oleson et al.., 2017). The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development was initiated in June 1992. This was done at The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. It was a follow-up to The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. This confirmed the validity of the document that had been formally approved in Stockholm on 16th June 1972. It is called the Rio Declaration because the UN conference was held in the city of Rio de Janeiro between the 3rd -14th of June in 1992 (Oleson et a., 2017). The birth of the Rio Declaration can be traced back to 1972 when the first Human Environment gathering was hosted by the United Nations Conference. Before this, no global movement or organization had collectively raised the issue of environmental protection or degradation to the nations of the world. The conference managed to create awareness of where the planet was regarding the impact of degradation. The participants from different countries were also able to see what this means regarding the future. It was clear to everyone present that the current direction was not sustainable or feasible. This is why it was said that the conference managed to unite the nations of the world so that they could fight the collective enemy of environmental degradation (Civic Impulse, 2018). Many international agreements on environmental protection had been passed between 1972 and 1992. They included agreements governing air pollution, sulfur dioxide emissions, protection of the ozone layer, and regulation of the movement of hazardous waste. Various nations officially accepted these agreements and some even adopted them as national guidelines and measurements. However, the UN general assembly realized that this agreement did not have the impact that they wished. It was not possible to coerce nations into participation or compliance. It was also not realistic to expect cooperation or obedience without understanding. The general assembly, therefore, embarked on a research study that was aimed at correlating the environment to the economy. Armed with the findings of this report, the World Commission on Environment and Development prepared a presentation on sustainable development. They then held a conference that rallied all nations behind this worthy cause (Ashby, 2013). The participants at the United Nations Conference were then able to create the Rio Declaration. This agreement was different from the one established 20 years ago in Stockholm. The Earth Summit as it is known in some circles was written with a greater sense of urgency and a more immediate call to action. Furthermore, some guidelines had been amended to accommodate the new changes that had occurred in the environment. Agreements were put in place to regulate the exploitation of forests, land, and stimuli species. Measures were also suggested to mitigate activities that led to ozone depletion, desertification, and rising sea levels. The agreements were then signed by 130 nations (Civic Impulse, 2018). The Rio Declaration is thought of as an iconic breakthrough in the gains for the environment. However, its excellent effects cannot be fully implemented because it is merely an agreement. None of the nations that signed it are legally bound to carry out its suggestions or obey its regulations. Additionally, a number of the countries that signed the agreement are unable to implement it because of the high cost of alternatives. The Rio Declaration is therefore like a wish list of all that the world would wish to look like. The Earth Council has tried to engage the participants in legislating the agreement, but it has not been successful. Divided opinion on the implementation continues to be the most significant risk to the Rio Declaration. 

References  

Ashby, M. F. (2013). Materials and the environment: Eco-informed material choice (2nd ed.). Waltham, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. 

Civic Impulse. (2018). H.R. 5931 — 101st Congress: Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/101/hr5931 

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp317-e.htm 

Oleson, K. L. L., Barnes, M., Waddell, J., Coral Reef Conservation Program (U.S.), & the University of Hawaii at Manoa. (2017). Evaluating management effectiveness for land-based sources of pollutants .