Jdi 2k12 Lab kww

Aff Answers

Perm

Perm solves—combination of regulatory oversite produces the best policies

The states’ failure to restrict their regulatory authority to issues impacting only their own jurisdictions, and the federal government’s failure to regulate only when the states’ ability to address an issue effectively is hobbled by collective action problems, are inconsistent with the policy implications of the scholarly debate over environmental federalism, in which scholars have supported a particular allocation of at least primary regulatory authority between the states and the federal government.9 The purpose of this Article is not to reengage in the long-running debate over whether, and when, the federal or the state governments are the more appropriate environmental regulators.10 Rather, the purpose is to question the fundamental assumption underlying the debate: that regulatory authority to address environmental ills should be allocated to one or the other level of government with minimal overlap. This Article argues first that a static allocation of authority between the state and federal government is inconsistent with the process of policymaking in our federal system, in which multiple levels of government interact in the regulatory process. Absent constitutional changes that would lock in a specific allocation of authority, broad, overlapping authority between levels of government may be essential to prompting regulatory activity at the preferred level of government. This Article further argues that a static allocation of authority deprives citizens of the benefits of overlapping jurisdiction, such as a built-in check upon interest group capture, greater opportunities for regulatory innovation and refinement, and relief for the courts from the often futile and confusing task of jurisdictional line-drawing. Part I.A of this Article critiques the scholarly adherence to a generally rigid separation between state and federal jurisdiction, which I argue is rooted in the dominance of economic models in the environmental federalism debates. In Part I.B, I contrast the scholarly preoccupation with the separation of federal and state power with environmental federalism in practice, which is marked by a large degree of jurisdictional overlap and interaction between the states and the federal government. Part II of this Article sets forth an alternative vision of environmental federalism, drawing upon recent scholarship that conceives the states and the federal government as alternative—not mutually exclusive— sources of regulatory authority. Such a conception views the interaction between the two levels of government as a means of improving the quality and responsiveness of regulation.

More ev.

Engel, 07 (Kristin, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law,” Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-37, January 2007 accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn.com)

As will be discussed in Part II, the scholarly preoccupation with a rigid allocation of state and federal environmental regulatory authority is misguided for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it ignores the manner in which policy leadership shifts between levels of government in a federal system, and hence how policy may start at one level of government before shifting to the level that might be considered optimal. In addition, the environmental federalism debate ignores the benefits of overlapping jurisdiction for the quality of policy development.

Without the Federal government the States would have little to no benefits or innovation

Bruce Katz 12 (Vice President and Director of Metropolitan Policy Program February 16, 2012 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/02/16-federalism-katz)

Race to the Top is a clear example of how the carrot of federal spending can reinvent how states carry out a critical role of government. Tennessee, New York, Florida and Ohio won competitive grants in the range of $400 million to $700 million, awards that are a mere fraction of these state’s annual education budgets, which range from $5.2 billion to $19.4 billion. This provides a new twist on the conventional notion of state innovation.

Perm Key to Warming/Environment

Cooperative federalism solves global warming-extinction

Canale 11, John Canale, Staff Writer, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review , “Putting the Pieces Together: How Using Cooperative Federalism Can Help Solve the Climate Change Puzzle,” 10/2/11, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1937255, FM
Climate change threatens human health and the environment on which we depend.1 Either by incremental environmental changes that affect our daily lives or by catastrophic weather events, humans are engineering their own demise.2 All nations contribute to the green-house gas emissions which cause climate change, but the United States contributes an exorbitant percentage of worldwide emissions in relation to its population.3 Automobile travel in the United States is a major contributor to climate change.4 While a concerted effort by the international community is needed to address climate change,5 the United States government needs to act decisively and swiftly to abate future effects of climate change. Currently the Federal government is taking small steps to whittle away at the problem.6 Recently the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acted to limit new vehicle emissions to combat climate change.7 Comprehensive land-use development planning on the state or national level is necessary to curb greenhouse gas emissions.8 Land-use plans would decrease pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from automobile usage by decreasing the distance that people travel in their cars.9 A comprehensive federal approach to smarter development should be adopted to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change.10 The Federal government should use the frame-works laid out in California and Atlanta, Georgia to incentivize smarter regional growth.11 In Part I of this Note, I will provide a background on climate change as well as the current status of greenhouse gas regulation through the Clean Air Act.12 In Part II, I will discuss land-use plan-ning, zoning, sprawl and the negative effects of sprawl on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.13 In Part III, I will discuss smart growth, California’s Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), Atlanta’s Regional Transportation Act, and how these state regulations require smarter growth.14 Finally, in Part IV, I will argue that, in order to lower green-house gas emissions and slow climate change, the Federal government should implement a cooperative federalism framework for smarter growth.15

Cooperative federalism provides a framework for Smart Growth plans, the most effective way to expand transportation infrastructure and solve global warming

Canale 11, John Canale, Staff Writer, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review , “Putting the Pieces Together: How Using Cooperative Federalism Can Help Solve the Climate Change Puzzle,” 10/2/11, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1937255, FM
Some scholars think that the need exists for more comprehensive federal land-use legislation.252 This need becomes clearer considering that the few regional programs that do address GHG emissions and air pollution are not comprehensive.253 To do this, federal policymakers need to understand “the interdependence of all local and state land use decisions.”254 Policymakers must see that suburban areas that increase sprawl have the negative effects of burdening urban areas with increased traffic congestion and air pollution, which are byproducts of increased automobile usage.255 The land-use policies of one local authority might adversely affect the surrounding localities be-cause air pollution and externalized costs do not stop at locality lines.256 Furthermore, the ability to have interconnected mass transit systems relies on either cooperation between local governments or a higher authority that can bridge the gap between local govern-ments.257 One of the most important concerns with federal land-use policy is intrusion on state powers.258 Because land use has historically been a state power, intrusions from the Federal government can cause resistance.259 However, the CAA and the CZMA do provide a framework to think about federal land use.260 In accordance with Title I of the CAA, the EPA sets NAAQS and then delegates to the states or regions the authority to determine how to meet these standards.261 Though the current structure of the CAA does not control land-use to a large extent, or provide for effective enough GHG emission limitations, it does at least provide an example of effective cooperative federalism.262 The federal government should approach the problem through instituting state plans like SB 375 and GRTA.263 The federal government could incentivize California-like “transit oriented plans” and dis-incentivize sprawling highway expansion.264 A cooperative federalism approach is best because there will be some resistance to any federal land-use planning—even to control GHG emissions—but this resistance can be softened by letting state and local governments design and implement individualized plans to meet local needs.265 Smart growth is a promising approach to significantly curbing GHG emissions.266 Incentivizing developers to align with smart growth objectives through a federally imposed land-use plan, or some form of a regional plan, would reduce VMTs and lessen the effect of GHGs.267 This type of regulation is what the United States needs to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change.268

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 435.73 Kb.

Share with your friends: