Chris has a master's degree in history and teaches at the University of Northern Colorado.
Environmental Issues & the U.S.A.
Though still a young century, the 2000s have already seen a number of important issues come and go, each occupying the national attention for a time. One issue that has consistently held our collective focus, however, is the environment. Environmental issues are among the greatest domestic debates in the United States today. Interestingly, nearly everyone agrees that it's crucial that the U.S. have a strong environmental policy, but the country tends to be divided on what that means. In fact, when we break down the general trends of the last few decades, here's what emerges:
- Outwardly, most politicians support strong environmental policies.
- Enacting environmental policies has become deeply attached to partisan divides.
- Partisanship focuses heavily on debates of regulation vs. free enterprise, as well as sources of energy.
So, what does all of this actually mean? Let's take a deeper look at U.S. environmental policies throughout the 21st century and find out.
The Rhetoric of Environmentalism
Let's be clear about one thing: Americans care about environmental issues. Or, at the very least, politicians believe they do. When we examine U.S. environmental policies since 2000, one of the first major trends that emerges is that nearly every major politician has striven to advance the idea that they're a champion of environmental issues. This stems back to the presidential election of 2000, in which George W. Bush (R) had to prove that he was as committed to maintaining a healthy environment as his opponent, Al Gore (D). Every president of the 21st century has claimed to have done more to support the health and well-being of the environment than his predecessor, and has attempted to make this part of a legacy that extends beyond his time in office.
Of course, not all of this is just rhetoric. The United States has been committed to not only domestic environmental policies but also to international ones since at least the 1980s. The U.S. still participates in a plethora of international treaties and agreements on everything from limiting pollution in major cities to fighting deforestation to eliminating the use of dangerous hull paints for ships. With each successive administration, the number of agreements that the U.S. participates in grows. It's clear that American politicians want the U.S. to be seen as a leader on an issue that's gaining global importance.
Promise Versus Practice
While environmental issues have been a major talking point for all U.S. presidents (and most members of Congress as well as state-elected officials), the records show that this rhetoric isn't always put into practice. In fact, every president of the 21st century has been criticized by environmental groups for either not doing enough or for flat-out seeking to undermine environmental health altogether.
President George W. Bush claimed that the country had to clean up the planet for future generations, but spent his time in office rolling back major safeguards meant to prevent major corporations from doing damage to the environment. President Obama preserved more lands than nearly any other president since Theodore Roosevelt, but was accused of not doing enough to guarantee their protection. President Trump claims to have done the most for the environment of any president, but was widely criticized for appointing leaders to top environmental agencies who actively supported anti-environmental policies. So, what's going on here? The struggle to maintain a consistent environmental policy between promise and practice has political dimensions to it, so let's take a closer look.
One of the key issues dividing promise and practice is the concept of regulation and, specifically, how much the federal government should be interfering with energy-producing corporations. Presidents Bush and Trump focused on deregulation, removing restrictions that impact the ability of coal and oil companies to extract resources from the land. These presidents claimed to still support the environment because they weren't actively destroying the ecosystem themselves; all they did was honor the values of limited government and allow America's industries the freedom to dominate economic markets and strive for energy independence. Both of these administrations have been heavily criticized for placing lobbyists for the coal and oil industries in top positions of environmental regulation industries.
By contrast, President Obama espoused the view that only regulation could force major corporations to behave in an environmentally responsible way. Obama's administration utilized regulatory policies to actively protect natural lands, promote air and water cleanliness, and search for forms of renewable energy. Because of his support of regulation and efforts to find new sources of energy, Obama's critics claimed he was trying to undermine the coal and oil industries and force the U.S. to accept a state-planned economy. Even Al Gore, candidate for the 2000 presidential election, was asked to prove that he wasn't too radical on environmental issues and that he wouldn't try to over-regulate and undermine American energy industries.
Partisanship & Global Warming
As we can see, U.S. environmental policy has been defined heavily by the country's policies regarding energy and regulation. Those issues have become part of the growing partisanship divide in American politics, as liberals tend to support more regulation and finding new sources of renewable energy, while conservatives tend to support less regulation and a commitment to traditional energy sources.
As the partisanship divide deepened throughout the 2010s, the debate became steadily more focused on distinct interpretations of the current global environmental situation and climate change. Basically, the question is this: Is human activity contributing to a rapid rise in the global temperature? Americans historically have debated whether this was even an important issue. The debate grew to have two distinct sides, with some politicians not believing that climate change is real. The efforts to delegitimize the science supporting climate change originated under Bush's administration, which sought to bury this data in fear that it would be used to prevent deregulation of the oil and coal industries.
This is the danger of partisan interpretations of science, as both sides have an agenda. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that human actions are causing a spike in the global temperature, which could reshape our coastlines and create conditions unsuitable for much of our food supply. However, even interpreting that data became attached to political infighting, with some refusing to accept this science simply because the other side does.
In the United States, environmental issues have been among the most important domestic policies of the last few decades. Outwardly, nearly every major politician has vocalized support for environmental protection, but the implementation of this is wrapped up in a debate on federal regulation of land usage and energy corporations, which quickly created a partisanship divide, with liberals tending to support more regulation and renewable energy and conservatives tending to support less regulation and strengthening existing extraction and energy industries. That divide has led to stark divisions on whether the science supporting climate change is valid, meaning that many environmental debates are focused around political ideologies and not data or evidence. U.S. environmental policy could change in many ways over the next several decades, and how it does will certainly have broad implications for future generations.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Register to view this lesson
Unlock Your Education
See for yourself why 30 million people use Study.com
Become a Study.com member and start learning now.Become a Member
Already a member? Log InBack