Statement of Purpose

Environmental regulation is more centralized and rigid than perhaps any other type of regulation.� Centralization is variously defended as a way of coping with the �complexity� of environmental problems; as a means of redressing cross-boundary pollution; or as a way of preventing a �race to the (environmental) bottom.�� These rationalizations, however, lack plausibility.� Centralized environmental controls are best understood as an accommodation to interest group pressures.

Sensible environmental regulation should start with a simple question:� is there any reason to believe that state or local jurisdictions will undervalue environmental benefits and amenities?� The books and articles listed here and the conference proceedings below criticize the ostensible justifications for centralized environmental controls and explore options for a more variegated, flexible, federal system of regulation.

Environmental Federalism? State Activism on Cleaning the Air (May 2003)

Environmentalism and Federalism Roundtable (Sept 2001)

�

news: Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts Sue EPA to Regulate Emissions of Carbon Dioxide� (June 6, 2003).

Supreme Court grants cert in Clean Air Act case. Will California's tough auto emission rules for vehicle fleets survive a� preemption challenge?

�