The Social Meaning of Environmental Command and Control
By Michael P. Vandenbergh
INTRODUCTION
The great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge.
The first generation of command and control environmental laws of the 1970s and 1980s achieved substantial improvements in environmental quality by focusing on the relatively small number of large, industrial polluters. Much of the low-hanging fruit among these large point sources has been picked, however, and attempts to extend command and control approaches to the sources of the remaining problems have provoked significant resistance. These remaining ‘second generation‘ sources are often not large point sources, but numerous, small, diffuse non-point sources, such as the many contributors to urban and agricultural runoff into waterbodies.
Second generation sources will present a significant challenge to environmental policymakers over the next twenty years, and these sources may require radically different prescriptions from the first generation command and control requirements. The challenge will be particularly great because the American public believes a number of environmental myths that incorrectly attribute the causes of many remaining environmental problems to industrial point sources, rather than to individual behavior. Although much has been written about the impact on environmental law of the mismatch between individuals' and experts' perceptions of the magnitude of risks to the environment, these myths suggest that an equally important mismatch may occur between individuals' and experts' perceptions of the sources of these risks.
This essay draws on the new social norms literature to examine one of the possible reasons for the public misperceptions about the sources of the remaining environmental problems. The essay suggests that one of the insights of the social norms literature, the influence of social meaning on social norms, may shed light on these misperceptions and may enrich our understanding of the difficulties encountered by efforts to control second generation sources. In particular, this essay examines two principal social meanings that appear to have been conveyed by the command and control system. The first social meaning is the conventional notion that pollution is bad. This social meaning may have been conveyed directly through the prescriptions of the command and control statutes, and it may have promoted the development of social norms against pollution. These norms may in turn have facilitated the development of the command and control system. In fact, fear that this social meaning will be undermined underlies much of the criticism of emissions trading systems.
Ironically, the command and control system also may have conveyed a second, more subtle, social meaning: ‘individuals‘ or ‘citizens‘ are distinct from ‘polluters,‘ and the former are not the source of environmental problems. Although this indirect social meaning may have further facilitated the development and implementation of the command and control system, it also may have reinforced public myths about the sources of environmental problems. As a result, this indirect meaning may have discouraged the development of social norms concerning individual responsibility, and it may be one of the factors contributing to sharp public resistance to controls on second generation sources.
The aim of this essay is not to provide a critique of the command and control system or an argument about the social meaning that environmental law should seek to create. Rather, this essay identifies the two principal social meanings that appear to have been conveyed by the command and control system and explores the implications of the second social meaning for the future of environmental law. Part I discusses the emerging understanding of the importance of second generation sources. Part II reviews recent surveys of environmental myths and explores the rejection of efforts to regulate second generation sources. Part III discusses the emerging scholarship on the expression of social meaning and the impact of social meaning on social norms. Part IV identifies the social meanings that may have been conveyed by the command and control system. Part IV also explores the role that these meanings may have had in shaping perceptions and norms about first and second generation environmental problems. Part V examines the types of empirical studies that could help confirm or disprove the social meaning hypothesis and explores the types of prescriptions for ‘meaning management‘ that may be available. The essay concludes in Part VI that the concept of social meaning may help identify new ways to think about and test the role that environmental law can play in steering the behavior of second generation sources.
The great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge.
The first generation of command and control environmental laws of the 1970s and 1980s achieved substantial improvements in environmental quality by focusing on the relatively small number of large, industrial polluters. Much of the low-hanging fruit among these large point sources has been picked, however, and attempts to extend command and control approaches to the sources of the remaining problems have provoked significant resistance. These remaining ‘second generation‘ sources are often not large point sources, but numerous, small, diffuse non-point sources, such as the many contributors to urban and agricultural runoff into waterbodies.
Second generation sources will present a significant challenge to environmental policymakers over the next twenty years, and these sources may require radically different prescriptions from the first generation command and control requirements. The challenge will be particularly great because the American public believes a number of environmental myths that incorrectly attribute the causes of many remaining environmental problems to industrial point sources, rather than to individual behavior. Although much has been written about the impact on environmental law of the mismatch between individuals' and experts' perceptions of the magnitude of risks to the environment, these myths suggest that an equally important mismatch may occur between individuals' and experts' perceptions of the sources of these risks.
This essay draws on the new social norms literature to examine one of the possible reasons for the public misperceptions about the sources of the remaining environmental problems. The essay suggests that one of the insights of the social norms literature, the influence of social meaning on social norms, may shed light on these misperceptions and may enrich our understanding of the difficulties encountered by efforts to control second generation sources. In particular, this essay examines two principal social meanings that appear to have been conveyed by the command and control system. The first social meaning is the conventional notion that pollution is bad. This social meaning may have been conveyed directly through the prescriptions of the command and control statutes, and it may have promoted the development of social norms against pollution. These norms may in turn have facilitated the development of the command and control system. In fact, fear that this social meaning will be undermined underlies much of the criticism of emissions trading systems.
Ironically, the command and control system also may have conveyed a second, more subtle, social meaning: ‘individuals‘ or ‘citizens‘ are distinct from ‘polluters,‘ and the former are not the source of environmental problems. Although this indirect social meaning may have further facilitated the development and implementation of the command and control system, it also may have reinforced public myths about the sources of environmental problems. As a result, this indirect meaning may have discouraged the development of social norms concerning individual responsibility, and it may be one of the factors contributing to sharp public resistance to controls on second generation sources.
The aim of this essay is not to provide a critique of the command and control system or an argument about the social meaning that environmental law should seek to create. Rather, this essay identifies the two principal social meanings that appear to have been conveyed by the command and control system and explores the implications of the second social meaning for the future of environmental law. Part I discusses the emerging understanding of the importance of second generation sources. Part II reviews recent surveys of environmental myths and explores the rejection of efforts to regulate second generation sources. Part III discusses the emerging scholarship on the expression of social meaning and the impact of social meaning on social norms. Part IV identifies the social meanings that may have been conveyed by the command and control system. Part IV also explores the role that these meanings may have had in shaping perceptions and norms about first and second generation environmental problems. Part V examines the types of empirical studies that could help confirm or disprove the social meaning hypothesis and explores the types of prescriptions for ‘meaning management‘ that may be available. The essay concludes in Part VI that the concept of social meaning may help identify new ways to think about and test the role that environmental law can play in steering the behavior of second generation sources.