Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Victoria Environment Protection Act 1970"

Protecting “wilderness” and removing human involvement in “nature” was a core pillar of the modern conservation movement through the 20th century. Conservation approaches and legislation informed by this narrative fail to recognise that Aboriginal people have long valued, used, and shaped most landscapes on Earth. Aboriginal people curated open and fire-safe Country for millennia with fire in what are now forested and fire-prone regions. Settler land holders recognised the importance of this and mimicked these practices. The Land Conservation Act of 1970 in Victoria, Australia, prohibited burning by settler land holders in an effort to protect natural landscapes. We present a 120-year record of vegetation and fire regime change from Gunaikurnai Country, southeast Australia. Our data demonstrate that catastrophic bushfires first impacted the local area immediately following the prohibition of settler burning in 1970, which allowed a rapid increase in flammable eucalypts that resulted in the onset of catastrophic bushfires. Our data corroborate local narratives on the root causes of the current bushfire crisis. Perpetuation of the wilderness myth in conservation may worsen this crisis, and it is time to listen to and learn from Indigenous and local people, and to empower these communities to drive research and management agendas.

ABSTRACT Federal notification requirements represent the first step in ensuring that the federal government is available to provide valuable oversight, resources, and expertise during responses to potentially dangerous releases of oil or hazardous substances into the environment. Beginning with the Clean Water Act of 1970 (CWA), and followed by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), Congress has enacted provisions that direct responsible parties to notify cognizant federal, state, and local authorities as soon as possible about releases of oil or other substances that may pose a hazard to public health, welfare, or the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has had primary responsibility for developing reporting triggers that ensure that potentially dangerous releases are reported promptly, but at the same time do not overwhelm federal, state, and local response organizations with notifications to which they rarely, if ever, would respond. The agency is working constantly to clarify, streamline, and reduce any unnecessary burden. It also works to respond to concerns raised by the general public, industry, and Congress, and to eliminate inconsistencies and to ensure efficient and effective protection of public health, welfare, and the environment.

PREDATION by European red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) has been identified as at least partially responsible for local declines of populations of many small to medium-sized mammals in Australia and is listed as a ‘key threatening process’ under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, 1988 and the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999. Foxes occur in large numbers throughout urban, suburban and rural areas where they opportunistically take carrion, small to medium-sized mammals, birds, insects and fruit (Menkhorst 1995; Marks and Bloomfield 1999). They also kill poultry and larger mammals such as macropod species and sheep (Menkhorst 1995). In many conservation areas, particularly in near-urban locations where fox densities are high, they are thought to pose a serious threat to biodiversity conservation (Menkhorst 1995; Friend et al. 2001; Mahon 2001).

The protection of habitat for an officially designated “threatened” species, the Northern Spotted Owl, is widely seen as having endangered the survival of a very different “species,” namely the rural American logger. In spite of the widespread agreement on this point, however, it is not clear just how many jobs have been endangered, over just how long a period, due to the protection of spotted-owl habitat and of the environment more broadly. In the present paper, we analyze longer term employment trends in logging and milling, both nationally and in the two states of the Pacific Northwest where the spotted-owl debate has been most intense, to determine the length of time over which such environmental protection efforts have been creating the loss of logging and milling jobs. There are three potential key “turning points” since the start of high-quality employment data in 1947—the 1989 controversy over the federal “listing” of the Northern Spotted Owl under the Endangered Species Act, the earlier increase in environmental regulations accompanying the first Earth Day in 1970, and the still-earlier “locking up” of timber after the passage of the Wilderness Protection Act in 1964. We also examine the effects of two other variables that have received considerable attention in the ongoing debates—levels of U.S. Forest Service timber harvests and the exporting of raw logs. We find that the 1989 listing of the spotted owl has no significant effect on employment—not even in the two states where the debate has been most intense. Instead, the only statistically significant turning point came with the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964. The direction of the change, however, was precisely the opposite of what is generally expected. Both nationally and in the Pacific Northwest, the greatest decline in timber employment occurred from 1947 until 1964—a time of great economic growth, a general absence of “unreasonable environmental regulations,” and growing timber harvests. The period since the passage of the Wilderness Act has been one of increased complaints about environmental constraints, but much less decline in U.S. logging employment. If logging jobs have indeed been endangered by efforts to protect the environment in general and spotted-owl habitat in particular, what is needed is a plausible explanation of how the influence of the owls could have begun more than forty years before the species came under the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

The central focus of this paper is a largely unexplored research domain relating to how low-power for-profit actors can shape their political and regulatory environment and create economic opportunities that affect their survival and growth. The paper builds on and extends the concept of “negotiating the environment” and on how organizations create their environment, with an emphasis on low-power actors. Resource dependence theory (RDT) has been very influential in exploring the many ways in which firms can decrease or overcome resource vulnerabilities in their environment with a focus on high-power actors (large companies, resource-rich companies, industrial associations, and political power of highly endowed companies). However, whether and how low-power actors can shape their political, regulatory, and economic environment was not central to RDT analysis, which is the focus of this paper. The empirical context for this research is the emergence and enactment of automobile emissions standards in Japan following the adoption in the United States of the Clean Air Act in December 1970. The focal firm is the Honda Motor Company, which, at that time, was a negligible competitor in the Japanese automobile industry and had no legitimate political or institutional standing. Yet the company was successful in undoing the cartel-like dominance of the two largest Japanese automobile manufacturers and the Japanese Environmental Protection Agency. The focus of this paper is describing the phenomenon and developing new theoretical insights relating to how low-power for-profit actors are able to negotiate their environment.

The grasslands of the northern plains of Victoria have long been recognised to be among the most threatened and poorly-reserved ecosystems in Victoria and Australia with only an estimated 3.8% remaining. As the protected area network (PAN) has greatly expanded in the last decade, there has been a commensurate loss of unprotected grasslands due to legal and illegal clearing. Whether or not the PAN continues to grow, there is now a significant on-going conservation management liability that must be underpinned by an improved understanding of ecosystem function and the role of disturbance. Some encouraging progress has been made by recent research. For instance, only partial recovery from cultivation is possible with long (cultivation) resting and that further improvement requires intervention to overcome the limits in seed dispersal of key functional groups. And although more has been learnt about how patterns in productivity/species-richness interactions can be managed/influenced by biomass manipulation, the use of stock grazing as a sustainable conservation management tool has still not been demonstrated. The interim regime of ‘status quo’ (stock) management persists despite the fact that it has failed to: (a) differentiate itself from standard pastoral practices, and (b) define the pathway to discovering better alternatives. A new technical advisory group has been established to oversee recovery strategy and has chosen the development of a ‘conceptual model of how the system works’, as a key priority. A further priority will be to pursue the renomination of the community under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 following the recent publication of research suggesting these grasslands are naturally treeless, floristically unique and geographically confined to the southern Riverina.

Immediately after the adoption of its Arctic Pollution Prevention Act in 1970, Canada embarked on intense diplomatic efforts in a number of international for a to obtain recognition of international law principles which would serve as a basis for its legislation. These efforts were pursued mainly in three international conferences : the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment of 1972, the London Conference of the International Maritime Consultative Organization on the prevention of pollution by ships in 1973 and the United Nations Third Law of the Sea Conference which began in 1974 at Caracas. At the 1975 session of that Conference, held in Geneva, a form of Artic clause was inserted in the first Negotiating Text and it provided that coastal States could adopt special protective measures in special areas within their exclusive economic zone, where exceptional hazards to navigation prevailed and marine pollution could cause irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance. In 1976, the provision was enlarged to enable coastal States themselves to enforce such protectives measures, instead of leaving the enforcement to the flag State, and the provision has been kept without change in all the subsequent negotiating texts of 1977, 1979 and 1980. Considering the wide consensus which this provision has received, particularly on the part of other Arctic States, it may now be regarded as part of customary international law and completely validates Canada's arctic legislation.

Geological sequestration is a promising technology for reducing atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) with the potential to geologically store a significant proportion Australia of Australia’s stationary CO2 emissions. Stationary emissions comprise almost 50% (or about 280 million tonnes of CO2 per annum) of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has abundant coal and gas resources and extensive geological storage opportunities; it is therefore well positioned to include geosequestration as an important part of its portfolio of greenhouse gas emission mitigation technologies.The Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies is undertaking a geosequestration demonstration project in the Otway Basin of southwest Victoria, with injection of CO2 planned to commence around mid 2007. The project will extract natural gas containing a high percentage of CO2 from an existing gas well and inject it into a nearby depleted natural gas field for long-term storage. The suitability of the storage site has been assessed through a comprehensive risk assessment process. About 100,000 tonnes of CO2 is expected to be injected through a new injection well during a one- to two-year period. The injection of CO2 will be accompanied by a comprehensive monitoring and verification program to understand the behaviour of the CO2 in the subsurface and determine if the injected carbon dioxide has migrated out of the storage reservoir into overlying formations. This project will be the first storage project in Australia and the first in the world to test monitoring for storage in a depleted gas reservoir. Baseline data pertinent to geosequestration is already being acquired through the project and the research will enable a better understanding of long-term reactive transport and trapping mechanisms.This project is being authorised under the Petroleum Act 1998 (Victoria) and research, development and demonstration provisions administered by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria in the absence of geosequestration- specific legislation. This highlights the need for such legislation to enable commercial-scale projects to proceed. Community acceptance is a key objective for the project and a consultation plan based on social research has been put in place to gauge public understanding and build support for the technology as a viable mitigation mechanism.

This paper provides a brief update on some of the key environmental issues that arose during 2009. In Queensland, activity is dominated by coal seam gas projects and specifically coal seam gas (CSG) to liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects. Environmental milestones for these projects are discussed, and the State Government’s response policy and regulation development response is reviewed. The progress of the more conventional LNG projects in Western Australia and the Northern Territory is also discussed. The final report on the mandated ten year review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 was released in December 2009. Seventy-one recommendations were made, and some key recommendations related to our industry are discussed here. Climate change has again dominated the media, with the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen in December 2009. In Queensland, the Government released a paper that presented a range of strategies and policies, building on a number of existing schemes and introducing new measures. Gas is identified as a key transitional fuel while low emission coal technology and emerging renewable energy sources are being developed. Greenhouse gas legislation is continuing to be developed across several states, but subordinate legislation is yet to be finalised. In Victoria, submissions on the Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Regulations closed in October 2009, and the Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008 came into effect on 1 December 2009. In March 2009, ten offshore acreage releases were made under the Commonwealth legislation; however, the closing date for submissions is dependent upon the development of the regulations. South Australia passed an Act amending the Petroleum and Geothermal Act 2000 on 1 October 2009 to allow geosequestration. A number of reviews of the regulatory framework or the administrative systems associated with the upstream oil and gas sector have been completed in the last decade. All these reviews make similar findings and recommendations, and most recently the Jones Report, tabled in Western Australian Parliament on 12 August 2009, found that most key recommendations from previous reports and reviews had not been addressed or properly implemented. There seems to be little point in undertaking regulatory and system reviews that consistently make similar findings, if these findings are never addressed. The hurdles to implementation of key recommendations need to be identified, so that progress can be made in improving the approvals processes for the industry, and improving the environmental outcomes.

The concept of sustainable development attained prominence after the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held at Johannesburg in September, 2002. Earlier, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), also known as Brundtland Commission Report (1987), named after its chairperson Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, had warned the global community on unwise use of natural resources for economic development. It defined sustainable development, “ the development that meets the need of present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The report highlighted the fundamental components of sustainable development, environment protection, economic growth and social equity. Much could not be done till September 2015, when 70th session of UN general assembly adopted 17 sustainable goals. These goals together constitute a blue print of development by the people and for the people conceived by active participation of UNESCO. Amongst these, five goals viz. good health and well- being, clean water and sanitation, decent work and economic growth, life below water and life on land, fall under the ambit of toxicology. National Toxicology Program (NTP) that was established by US Department of Health and Human Services in 1978 with its headquarters at National Institute of Environment Health Sciences, administers a unique collaboration between several federal agencies to develop new ways to test adverse effects of substances on human health. This program is known as Toxicology in 21st century (Tox- 21) (http://tox21.gov). The Tox21 collaboration was formalized in 2008 through a MOU between the National Institutes of Health, NTP, National Chemical Genomics Centre and the National Centre for Computation Toxicology. FDA joined Tox21 in 2010.The goal of Tox 21 is to research, develop, evaluate and translate innovative test methods that will better predict the effects of chemicals on human and environment health. The new focus areas include – development of expanded portfolio of alternative test systems to predict human toxicity, to address limitations of in vitro test systems, to curate the legacy of in-vivo testing, to establish confidence in in-vitro test systems. Excellent job has been done by Toxicity Forecaster (ToxCast). Through robotic screening system housed at NCATS, toxicologists are screening 10.000 environmental chemicals for their potential to cause toxicity (www.ncats.nih.gov). Toxicology is also contributing to Planetary Health initiative launched by Lancet (2015). The European Union (EU) has introduced a regulation – Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) by legislation in 2007. Other programs that address the goal of good health and well being include, International Program on Chemical safety (IPCS), Inter-organization Program for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOSMC), Inter-government forum for Chemical Safety (IFCS),Health and Environment Linkage Initiative (HELI), Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management (SAICM) and Global Chemical Outlook. The next goal of clean water and sanitation is addressed by regulatory toxicology through Clean Water Act (1972; amended 1977, 1978, 1987), Safe Drinking Water act (1974, amended in 1977, 1986, 1996) and Water Quality Act of 1987. In India, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1974) addresses this issue. The sub-discipline of aquatic toxicology nicely embraces this particular goal of sustainable development. Decent work or safe work environment is directly associated with human health. Science of toxicology considers it under another sub-discipline, i.e., occupational health/ industrial health or hygiene. Agencies like Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and International Labour Organization (ILO) have enacted suitable laws/ regulations to safeguard human health. Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA, 1976) remains to be the most powerful act. In India, National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), an ICMR institute located at Ahemdabad, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (IITR) located at Lucknow and Factory Advice Service Labour Institute (FASLI) Mumbai, are contributing to sustainable development through their commitment to safe work environment. Universities in India and abroad do teach occupational toxicology, thus generating a good human resource to work for sustainable development. Next goal, i.e., life below water is covered by aquatic toxicology. This discipline by definition is the study of the effects of chemicals and other anthropogenic and natural materials on aquatic organisms and ecosystems. The concepts of eco-magnification or bio-magnification emerged from aquatic toxicology. A toxicologist understands that life below water is vulnerable to toxins. Famous episodes related to aquatic toxicology include acid rain, toxic oil syndrome and contamination of water bodies with pesticides, heavy metals, TCDD and phenols. Therefore, the powerful acts like Federal Insecticides Fungicides and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and TSCA have been enacted to deal with health issues raised by the presence of hazardous materials in water. Accidental release of hydrocarbons in sea and their effects on flora and fauna have been studied by toxicologists. Efforts are being made to restore ecosystems like Great Barrier Reefs. Sustainability of life on land is a big issue. It includes- animal toxicology, plant toxicology, wild life toxicology and veterinary toxicology. Eco-toxicological problems, soil contamination by chemicals, air pollution, solid waste pollution and bio hazards, fall under the scope toxicology. Clean Air Act (1970, amended in 1974, 1977, 1990 ) and Central Air Pollution Control and Prevention Act (1981), Wild Life Protection Act (1972) are available to safe guard life on land. The foregoing paragraphs establish a link between toxicology and sustainable development. It offers an opportunity to ponder that principles of environment management viz. environmental impact assessment (EIA), environmental auditing, Environmental Impact Assessment and risk assessment - need to be supplemented with toxicological assessment/ monitoring of exposure to chemical hazards ( Rana ,2018 , Everyman Science.,103,373-380).Quantitative concepts, i.e., NOEL, LOEL, PEI, BEI etc., need to be introduced in parameters that monitor sustainable development. Putting toxicological inputs into the selected goals of sustainable development will help in making our planet chemically safe. In other words, multiphase science of toxicology too, is a partner of other sciences that are working towards sustainable development. Efforts being made by Journal of Environment Biology in encouraging the activities related to sustainable development deserve profound appreciation. It is my proud privilege to describe, in brief, my association with Journal of Environmental Biology since its inception in 1980. I am a witness to its journey of 42 years and persistent growth. There were no computers at that time and publication of a journal was an ardous task. I have seen its Editor-in-chief Dr. R. C. Dalela devoting most of his time and energy to the regular publication of journal. With the increase in the reputation of journal, number of foreign contributors also increased and it succeeded in becoming an international journal. Today, it is very popular amongst Asian Environmental Biologists. Special issues on a particular theme were also published from time to time. It encouraged the young scientists by awarding them JEB Award every year. Dr. R. C. Dalela Oration Lectures were also organised under the aegis of this journal. It was enlisted as online journal in 1988 and continues to maintain the same status even today. Its h index today is 48. This all could be possible due to tremendous energy and efforts put by Dr. R. C. Dalela in this journal. I fondly cherish my association with Dr. R. C. Dalela, as his student and with JEB as a contributor, the member of its editorial board, research advisor and editor of special volume(s). My articles published in this journal achieved good citations. I must appreciate the present Editor of Journal, Dr. Sumati Gaumat and her publication team for their efforts in maintaining the standard of this journal. I wish it all success in coming years

The passage of the Clean Air Act and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 marked a sweeping transformation in American politics. In a few short years, the environmental movement pushed Republican and Democratic elected officials to articulate a right to clean air as part of a bevy of new federal guarantees. Charged with delivering on those promises, the EPA represented a bold assertion that the federal government had a responsibility to protect the environment, the authority to command private business to reduce their pollution, and the capacity to dictate how they did so. But revolutions are always contested and the starburst of environmental concern that propelled the Clean Air Act and the EPA coincided with economic convulsions that shook the liberal state to its core. As powerful businesses pressed to roll back regulations, elected officials from both parties questioned whether the nation could keep its environmental promises. Pushing on, the EPA adopted a monetized approach to environmental value that sat at odds with environmentalist notions of natural rights but provided a critical shield for the agency’s rulemaking, as environmental protection came to serve as a key battleground in larger debates over markets, government, and public welfare. The EPA’s success and the potential limits of its monetary approach are evident in the very air we breathe today—far cleaner and healthier as a result of the EPA’s actions, but holding new threats in a rapidly changing climate.

On January 1, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) into law. In this Act, Congress articulated for the first time a national policy on the environment. The goals of the Act included the promotion of “efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.” Congress also created the Council on Environment Quality (CEQ) to assist the president with the implementation of the new law and placed the new agency in the Executive Office of the President. The CEQ was to consist of three members, and it was to be supported by a professional staff selected by the CEQ. On January 29, 1970, President Nixon nominated Russell E. Train to serve as the chair of the CEQ; he also nominated Robert Cahn and Gordon J. F. MacDonald to serve as the other members of the CEQ. One week later, on February 6, 1970, the Senate confirmed the nominations, which officially allowed the new agency to open for business. In addition to ongoing consultations with the president and his advisors, Chairman Train and the other two members of the CEQ had to assemble a professional and administrative staff. In August of 1970, only six months after the CEQ officially opened for business, President Nixon submitted The First Annual Report of The Council on Environmental Quality to Congress. The front section of the Report was “The President’s Message to Congress.” The remainder of the Report, developed by the CEQ, contained the first assessment of the nation’s environment, a list of the underlying causes and effects of existing environmental problems, a review of the national government’s efforts to address those problems over the previous two decades, and recommendations for improving environmental quality and protecting human health that involved changes in policy and administrative structure. It is especially noteworthy that the Report contained a section on the causes and effects of climate change, as well as recommendations for addressing this critical problem. In this chapter, we describe and attempt to explain what has happened to the CEQ over the forty-year period from 1970 to 2010.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was approved unanimously in the Senate and with near unanimity in the House of Representatives in December 1969. President Nixon signed the act into law on January 1, 1970. The new statute was both brief and farsighted. In fewer than 3,500 words the congressional authors of NEPA articulated for the first time a national policy on the environment, set in motion an innovative regulatory process centered on environmental impact statements, institutionalized public participation in federal environmental decision making, and introduced the requirement that the president report annually to Congress on the nation’s environmental status and trends. NEPA also included a provision that established a new agency, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in the Executive Office of the President. The CEQ’s assigned statutory role was to implement the environmental impact statement process, prepare the president’s annual environmental report on the condition of the environment, develop policy proposals for solving environmental problems, and coordinate efforts across the federal government to address environmental concerns. As stated in the law, NEPA is designed to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment”; to “promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man”; and to “fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.” The references to promoting harmony between people and the environment, protecting the biosphere, and affirming the nation’s responsibility for environmental stewardship illustrate an understanding of the scope, scale, and significance of environmental matters that was significantly ahead of its time. The language in NEPA quoted above anticipated by twenty years the concern for the Earth’s biosphere and the concept of environmental sustainability that would become more widely articulated in the run-up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Moreover, NEPA has had an enduring global impact. By the law’s fortieth anniversary, a majority of U.S. states had established their own environmental impact statement requirements and more than 160 nations worldwide had adopted similar legislation.

The executive branch departments and agencies of the national government have the key role in the implementation stage of the policy process. In the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was assigned the task of providing an annual report on the condition of the nation’s environment, assessing the effects of national, state, and local governments’ efforts to protect the environment, and developing recommendations to improve environmental quality. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given the primary responsibility for implementing the pollution control laws Congress created between 1970 and 1980, amendments to those laws, and new laws enacted during the next three decades. Some scholars have maintained that the process of implementing a public law is “removed from the hurry and strife of politics,” since the important political and substantive matters have been decided in the law itself. Other scholars, however, describe the implementation stage of the policy process as a continuation of the political struggle that occurred over the creation of the law. The competition between these two views of policy implementation is one factor that makes the study of the “life cycles” of executive branch departments and agencies so important. If the first view is correct, the implementation of a public law should be a relatively smooth process in which the leadership, managers, and professionals in agencies like the CEQ and the EPA carry out their assigned statutory duties. Likewise, the life cycle of the executive branch agency should be relatively stable and long. Finally, absent serious flaws in the design of the policy itself, the prospects for successful implementation of the law might seem to be relatively high. If the alternative view of policy implementation is correct, however, the extent to which implementation of a public law actually occurs is likely to depend heavily on the health, vitality, and even survival of the implementing agency. In turn, the health and vitality of the executive branch agency is likely to depend on the leadership of the agency and the resources that Congress and the president appropriate for it.

As we continue our exploration of who rules the earth, we find that the economy, once you look inside it, relies on a vast system of rules and regulations, its cogs and wheels spinning day and night to enable the countless transactions that make up a modern economy. The relation between markets and rules is a fascinating one, far more complex than is suggested by the usual debates over government regulation versus free enterprise. Markets rely on rules. But increasingly, the reverse is also true: Some of our most innovative environmental policies and regulations have embedded within them market incentives designed to promote pro-environment behavior. To appreciate the stakes, let’s begin by considering what is arguably the greatest environmental tragedy—and biggest environmental success story—of all time. The removal of tetraethyl lead from gasoline has had a profound impact on human health and well-being worldwide. The change began in the United States in the late 1970s, soon spread to Europe, and over the next two decades diffused throughout the entire world. This shift was prompted by an innovative set of rules that actually assigned property rights to poison—and in the process created incentives for widespread changes in corporate behavior. Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the US Environmental Protection Agency had the legal authority to regulate tetraethyl lead, which had been added to gasoline since the 1920s to boost engine performance. The original decision to add “ethyl” to the chemical mixture sloshing around in our gas tanks took place despite dire warnings from health experts. Foremost among these was Alice Hamilton, Harvard’s first female professor and the country’s leading expert on the health impacts of lead, which she knew intimately from her studies of worker exposure in the largely unregulated “dangerous trades” of the time. In 1925, the US Surgeon General convened a special meeting to decide whether ethyl production could proceed despite the known health risks. Hamilton argued that it would be reckless to deliberately disperse throughout the air a substance whose toxic effects (notably damage to the human nervous system) were well known for centuries.