New Stronger or Different Government Policies or Implementation Activities

Contentious and rancorous political debates concerning the some specific environmental policy have been experience in the past. The main question is whether to adopt new stronger or different government policies or implementation of activities. However, a more inclusive and conclusive solution to environmental challenges is needed (Engel, 2006). Environmental deregulation is a better option because it will bridge the gap between the state versus state environmental policies as well as versus federal environmental policies. There is a common belief that the creeping environmental policy controls has strangulated the US economy and undermined its economic competitiveness. This some parts of the country that may end up suffering because of environmental deregulation. Nevertheless, impending environmental deregulation related to economic gains might well be worth the price.

Need for New Stronger Government Policies

State versus federal rights fight is never-ending any day soon. However, the 10th amendment gives the states great power in a bid to deals with excessive power from the federal government (Mic, 2015). However, not all powers that are purposely bestowed upon the federal government goes to the states. Thus, it is not a surprise that whenever the government proposes countrywide laws, the state governments and federal government issues arise and they start to fight (Levinson, 2003). People need to promote rights of the states. Nevertheless, people need stronger government environmental policies and not an all-powerful central government. However, in rare cases, there is a necessity of national law and environmental policy is certainly one of them.

The existing policies are more specially targeted that benefit some states to a great extent, but others would suffer greatly from insufficient rules. Without federal policies, there is no authority that would supervise the disadvantaged states to ensure the laws are strict enough across the country. Additionally, there are numerous environmental issues that travel across the borders of the states (Engel, 2006). For instance, mercury emissions have been noted to pass over various states. Similarly, pollution originating from factories located in Philadelphia travels over borders to infect the nearby states (Mic, 2015). In the same way, waterways go beyond the state lines. For example, rivers, streams, and lakes flow from one state to another which allows water polluted by industry wastes from the Rio Grande in Colorado, to infect others like Texas, and New Mexico. Thus, if one state is hesitant on the issue or adopting strong policies or falters on stronger laws, the others states will all suffer.

Relinquishing old policies for new stronger policies would benefit habitats and the inhabitants. For instance, there was a nation-versus-state case where building roads past national forests caused a big argument in Idaho and Colorado (Levinson, 2003). They had created their own road creation rules. The decision that allowed the states the opportunity to tailor laws that suited their situations directly contradicted the roadless rule, by President Clinton (Mic, 2015). This rule restricted building of roads in the national forests. However, environment managers of state claimed that the state rules were to remain very strict as before and Colorado had to solve the problem caused by economic dip by considering industries and jobs and using the specific rules available. However, in such situations, the locals will are likely to receive less protection but eventually allow for the destruction of the countrys most treasured national resources. This issue calls for new stronger rules because leaving the mandate to the states or relying on old rules will lead to the destruction of this planet because old policies will fail to prioritize environmental protection.

The heavy urbanization and industrialization that has been witnessed across the country requires improve regulation/legislation and control. The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act are some of the federal environmental policies which were derived from the concern that the patchwork of varied environmental standards for the states that evolved from the 1970s might wreak havoc on the interstate commerce as well as generate competitive disadvantages for the state that were striving to make the environmental quality better (Hughes, Chu, & Mason, 2018). However, although the same national environmental policies succeeded in raising the environmental standards, after more than four decades, significant differences exist between states, but the environmental policies remain (Engel, 2006). Both state and federal laws/policies on disposal of hazardous waste, water and air pollution, wildlife protection, and wetlands filling vary significantly between Massachusetts and Louisiana, New Jersey and Mississippi, and California and Idaho. However, these differences depend on need, (Mic, 2015). The more urbanized and heavily industrialized states face the more serious environmental issue, and thus, they need more stringent policies and controls. According to Davies (2014), political cultures in the states also bring about such differences, for instance, the leave our people be is an attitude meant to be enjoyed by the residents but destroy the environment.

New stronger environmental policies will not only stand up to the federal-versus-state argument but will also combat a large American population that wishes to ignore the environmental issues and policies completely. For instance, sometime back, there was a campaign that was started which aimed at spreading the message terming the United Nations attempts to preserve open space and conserve energy a conspiracy. The campaigners stressed that the initiative was part of the UNs conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens towards cities, (Mic, 2015). Additionally, the members of the movement reject everything that pointed to global climate change. The movement also refused to adjust their lifestyles in the effort to make the planet healthier. These kinds of groups keep making it hard for the current laws, and it is another reason people need new stronger national policies (Hughes, Chu, & Mason, 2018). Groups like Tea Party might be too strong for state policies and the need for strict laws and that might call for new and stronger national policies or national intervention, such groups would have a minimal impact which would make it easier to come up with appropriate legislation.

Implementation Activities and Evaluate From an EMS Perspective

There are several implementation activities to in establishing environmental policy and that can help reduce environmental control and legislation. Such activities include telecommunication, recycling cartridges from printers, introducing or buying reusable containers, eliminating junk mails, applying screen savers in digital devices, encouraging online newspapers, and reducing commuting. Discouraging single-sided copying and switching off lights when not in use and proper and cheaper lighting in offices is an effective implementation activity. CTR computers should be abandoned and switching off machines instead of leaving them on standby could save the environment.

Evaluation of implementation activities aims at focusing on what is more useful. Techniques of evaluating the activities depend on the complexity, nature, and type of the institution. There are four steps used in evaluating an activity implementation. The first step is defining the EMS scope. An institution can apply ISO 14001 to a specific unit, product, location, or the entire organization (ISO 14001 Environmental Aspects, n.d.). The second step is identifying the environmental aspect of the activity. The aspect can be direct or indirect. Direct aspects are associated with services, products, and activities of an organization. The third step is the evaluation of significant aspects of environment. In this step, the organization considers the potential harm, size and frequency, and the importance of the aspect. The last step is managing the significant aspects of the environment. Getting the aspects right at the start of the activity is the key to realizing an effective EMS.

Conclusion

The environmental legislation is a tough challenge to most governments. New stronger environmental policies could work better in the environmental protection. Implementing activities that save the environment from different threats can save the human race from possible health hazards. However, whether at the local, institutional, state, or national level, both activity implementation and new strong policies are crucial. However, having new stronger policies at the national level will provide a strong and effective legislation base. Such laws will subject all the states to similar regulations. This step will ensure that everyone complies with the health standards that will benefit us by protecting the planet.

There is need to eliminate the existing specially targeted policies that benefit some at the expense of others. Additionally, relinquishing old policies for new stronger policies would benefit the habitat and the inhabitants. Heavy urbanization and industrialization across the country means new and stronger environmental laws are required to deal with the new challenges. New stronger environmental policies will both stand up to the federal-versus-state argument and combat a large proportion of the American population keeps on ignoring the environmental issues and policies completely.

References

Davies, J. C. (2014). Comparing environmental risks: tools for setting government priorities. Routledge.Engel, K. (2006). State and local climate change initiatives: what is motivating state and local governments to address a global problem and what does this say about federalism and environmental law. Urb. Law., 38, 1015.

Hughes, S., Chu, E. K., & Mason, S. G. (2018). Introduction. In Climate Change in Cities (pp. 1-15). Springer, Cham.ISO 14001 environmental aspects: 4 steps in identification. (n.d.). Retrieved January 09, 2018, from https://advisera.com/14001academy/knowledgebase/4-steps-in-identification-and-evaluation-of-environmental-aspects/

Levinson, A. (2003). Environmental regulatory competition: A status report and some new evidence. National Tax Journal, 91-106.

Mic (2015, October 25). Why the Federal Government, Not States, Should Regulate the Environment. Retrieved January 07, 2018, from https://mic.com/articles/4090/why-the-federal-government-not-states-should-regulate-the-environment#.RG9InKYCq