12.+Environmental+Policy+and+Regulation

Primary author: Ammon A. Brown Michael Moe, Crystal Orantes, Megan Welsh


 * Chapter 12: Environmental Policy and Regulation **

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the history, scope and current issues relating to environmental policy and regulation in the U.S. and Costa Rica. Upon completion of this chapter, it is expected that the reader will have a good understanding of these issues and be able to understand them in various contexts.
 * Purpose **

Environmental policy and regulation refers to the laws, statutes and norms that have been established to help mankind live in harmony with nature.
 * Definition **

The earth is full of life. This life manifests itself in many different sizes, shapes, forms and colors. All forms of life must co-exist in symbiotic harmony to ensure the continued well being of all living organisms on this planet. As the human population grows, it becomes increasingly important to act responsibly towards all other forms of life with which we share this space. As there are many parties involved, each with varying objectives, it has become requisite that our relationship with nature be predicated upon the basis of laws and regulations that can help us maintain this delicate balance. In this chapter, the following topics will be covered in the following order: (1) early U.S. history of environmental law, (2) early influential environmental literature in the U.S., (3) U.S. sources of environmental law, (4) nine key statutes regarding environmental law in the U.S., (5) current U.S. environmental issues, (6) current Costa Rican environmental issues and (7) the big picture of environmental policy and regulation in relation to sustainability.
 * Introduction **

In the U.S., Federal intervention on behalf of maintaining a favorable relationship with nature began over 100 years ago. The government took administrative action in passing the first ever Federal environmental law in the U.S. - the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This law declared it a misdemeanor to discharge waste of any kind into navigable waters, or into the tributaries which flow from them (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 2012). The Clean Water Act (which will be discussed in greater detail in section 12.4) has since largely superseded the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 2012).
 * 12.1 - U.S. History: Early environmental protection efforts **

In 1962, the publication of Rachel Carson’s eye opening book, Silent Spring, changed the way that many people thought about environmental issues at the time. So impactful was Carson’s literary work, that a government official made the following comment about her book after she passed away:
 * 12.2 – U.S. History: Early influential environmental literature **

 "There is no question that Silent Spring prompted the Federal Government to take action against water and air pollution -- as well as against the misuse of pesticides -- several years before it otherwise might have moved” (Graham Jr., 1978). With a primary focus on the use and impact of chemical pesticides, the book is often credited with having popularized what we now know as the environmental or green movement. It could be said that the potentially negative ramifications of careless human development took center stage at this time in U.S. history. With greater public awareness of our environmental impact sweeping the nation, came the public’s cry for action – which resulted in the creation of the many laws, statues and regulations upon which our relationship with nature is now predicated.

 Environmental law and regulation comes from three primary sources: “legislatures, administrative agencies and the courts” (Allen, 2012). The role of each of these sources will now be discussed. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Federal and state legislatures often draft environmental laws using a generic language that allows more specialized administrative agencies, such as the EPA, to figure out exactly how the “regulatory requirements, discharge limits, and enforcement provisions” should be implemented and enforced (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Once the draft for a new environmental law has been created by legislature and refined by the EPA, it is “published as a proposed regulation in the Federal Register” (Allen, 2012). Public comment is then received and taken into account as the proposed regulation makes its way into publication as a final regulation in the Federal Register. Final regulations “have the force of law” (Allen, 2012). In this process, administrative agencies use their expertise to assist in and actually fulfill legislative functions. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The courts have three primary functions pertaining to environmental policy and regulation. They are: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">“1. To determine the coverage of environmental statues (which entities are subject to the regulations) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2. To review administrative rules and decisions (ensuring that regulations are properly promulgated and within the statutory authority granted to the agency) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">3. To develop the common law system (a record of individual court cases and decisions that set a precedent for future judicial actions)” (Allen, 2012) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Now that we know where environmental law comes from, we will explore some of the most prominent environmental laws which have been enacted in the United States.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">12.3 - U.S. sources of environmental law **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Although there are more than nine environmental statues in the U.S., the following nine laws are some of the most prominent and when combined they “regulate materials and products throughout their life cycle, from creation and production, to use and disposal” (Allen, 2012). The nine environmental laws which will be outlined herein are as follows in chronological order: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1.The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 1947 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">FIFRA is a program that deals with the “registration, labeling, and use of pesticides” (Allen, 2012). Due to the fact that “all pesticides are toxic to plants and animals,” their use must be carefully monitored (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Non-compliance with FIFRA “is punishable by a civil fine of up to $5,000, and knowing violations of registration requirements may have criminal fines of up to $50,000 and one year imprisonment (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2.The Clean Air Act (CAA), 1955 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In 1955, the Air Pollution Act was enacted, but was ineffective due to weak regulatory provisions. As a means of addressing its ineffectiveness, the law was amended in 1970 and came to be known as the Clean Air Act. “The CAA is intended to control the discharge of air pollution by establishing uniform ambient air quality standards” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As a means to this end, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were created. These standards set the “maximum allowable concentrations of specific chemicals,” such as “carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, tropospheric ozone, particulate matter, and sulfer dioxide” which are “monitored in the ambient, or background air that meet or exceed (specified) health-based criteria” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Violations of CAA may involve “fines of up to $25,000 per day of violation” (Allen, 2012). Knowingly breaking this law can bring about a $250,000 per day fine and “up to five years imprisonment” (Allen, 2012). Corporations can be fined up to as many as much as $1,000,000, depending upon the severity of the offense. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">3.The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 1970 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) was enacted to ensure the safety of employees in all places of employment throughout the United States. The OSH Act is overseen by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Pursuant to this Act, workplace standards must be set and followed. If chemicals are used in the workplace, time limits and dosage potency regulations are strictly enforced to ensure the well-being of the employee. Short and long term health effects are considered and taken into account when creating workplace standards and health policies (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Upon inspection of a place of employment, a citation may be issued which outlines the violations of the organization. Violations that are deemed to be serious in nature are punishable by “penalties of up to $7,000. Willful or repeated violations carry penalties of up to $70,000 per violation” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">4.The Clean Water Act (CWA) 1972 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As mentioned, The Clean Water Act (CWA), passed October 18, 1972, largely supersedes the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. As such, it may be considered “the first comprehensive federal program designed to reduce pollutant discharges into the nation’s waterways” (Allen, 2012). The two primary objectives of the law are (1) to have zero discharge into water bodies and thereby (2) make them suitable for recreational purposes such as swimming and fishing. Although the passage of the law has been quite successful in “improving the quality of the nation’s waterways,” there is still much work to be done in ultimately accomplishing the Act’s primary objective of having zero discharge (Allen, 2012).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">12.4 - U.S.: nine key environmental statutes **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">According to CWA, a pollutant may be any of the following: “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The two foremost bodies of the CWA are “the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) construction program (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Violations of this Act come with civil penalties that can range from $25,000 per day up to $50,000 for repeated offenses. Corporations can be subject to fines of up to $1,000,000. Individuals may also be imprisoned for several years for violations of this law (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">5.The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 1976 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As manufacturing increased in the 1970s, a number of extremely toxic substances, “such as PCBs, began appearing in the environment and in food supplies” (Allen, 2012). As these toxic substances were discovered, the federal government took action by designing and creating a program which came to be known as The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which was introduced “to assess the risks of chemicals before they are introduced into commerce” (Allen, 2012). The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) came into law on October 11, 1976. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">TSCA mandates that the EPA collect information and keep records “on all chemicals manufactured or processes for commercial purposes in the United States” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">“‘Knowing of willful’ violations of TSCA are punishable as crimes that carry up to one year imprisonment and up to $25,000 per day of violation” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">6.The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 1976 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 aims to “regulate the disposal of both non-hazardous and hazardous solid wastes to land, encourage recycling, and promote the development of alternative energy sources based on solid waste materials” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is important to note that if waste is ignitable, corrosive, reactive or toxic, it may be deemed hazardous (Allen, 2012). The EPA has the authority to determine whether or not waste is hazardous. “Household waste, agricultural wastes that are returned to the ground as fertilizer, and wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals, including coal,” have not been deemed as hazardous forms of waste by the EPA (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In order to ensure a complete ‘cradle to grave’ responsible handling of hazardous wastes, RCRA has set forth strict regulations regarding the transport, treatment, storage and disposal of them (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">When this law is broken and the offending party is aware that such action will bring another person into harms way, “fines may reach $250,000 per day and up to 15 years imprisonment. Organizations may be fined as much as $1,000,000” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">7.The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In the 1970s, it was discovered that the water in and surrounding Love Canal in New York was severely contaminated and that the neighborhood there “sat on top of 21,000 tons of buried chemical waste” (Love Canal, 2012). A myriad of health problems ranging from birth defects to strange illnesses and mental retardation were noted to be prevalent in this area at the time (Love Canal, 2012). Journalists and activists began investigating the matter and as awareness spread, hundreds of families were eventually evacuated from the area. The creation of The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 was the government’s response. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The creation of the CERCLA allows the EPA to get involved with sites that produce an abundance of hazardous waste in two ways: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">“(1) Short-term emergency responses to spills or other releases, and (2) long-term remedial actions which may actually occur long after the site is listed on the NPL, and which are designed to achieve a permanent state of cleanup” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Violations of CERCLA “may result in a fine amounting to more than $25,000 per day and criminal penalties of three years for a first conviction and five years for a subsequent conviction” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">8.The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 1986 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In 1984, 2,500 people died from “the release of methyl isocyanate from a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India” (Allen, 2012). Tens of thousands of others were permanently disabled. This chemical disaster highlighted the need for greater community awareness of the chemicals being used in the plant and the need to create emergency evacuation plans. With greater awareness, existing evacuation plans and perfect execution of those plans, many lives could have likely been saved. In the wake of this tragic event, the emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was created. Its objectives are dual-fold: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">“(1) to have states create local emergency units that must develop plans to respond to chemical release emergencies, and (2) to require the EPA to compile an inventory of toxic chemical releases to the air, water, and soil from manufacturing facilities, and to disclose this inventory to the public” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">First time violators may be subject to fines of up to $25,000 “and/or be imprisoned for up to two years. Second violations may subject persons to fines of up to $50,000 or five years imprisonment” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">9.The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 1990 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The PPA’s primary objective is, as you might guess, the prevention of pollution. This prevention has been defined as: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">“any practice which: (1) reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to recycling, treatment, and disposal: and (2) reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The primary requirement under this Act is for companies that must file an R form “under SARA Title III (the TRI) to report to the EPA information regarding the source reduction and recycling efforts that the facility has undertaken during the previous year” (Allen, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There are many different environmental concerns and efforts being made throughout the United States. Some of these concerns center around economic aspects of environmental law and regulation. Others focus on energy or other things such as land management and natural resource preservation. We shall now briefly look at a few of these issues. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> About 2% of the GDP in the U.S. goes towards environmental protection, but this number is difficult to accurately calculate due to the oft unseen far-reaching consequences of any action taken involving the natural system. It is estimated that this number is comparable to that of many other countries (Environmental policy of the United States, 2012). Environmental protection proponents argue that nation states, such as the U.S., should make a greater investment in conserving their natural resources and enforcing environmental law. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Criticism to this increased attention and spending comes from businesses that are reluctant to spend more than they feel that they need to in order to accomplish their day-to-day operations. For this reason, enforcement of environmental law and regulation can be difficult, as not all parties involved are too keen to jump on board, as they fear that it will hurt their economic bottom lines. However, as outlined earlier, there are serious ramifications for non-compliance with environmental law which can include steep fines and jail time (Allen, 2012).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">12.5 – Current U.S. Environmental Issues **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Buildings are the greatest users of energy in the U.S., so there is a lot of room for improvement in the planning, design and construction of these structures (Straube, 2009). Buildings consume 48% of the power in the U.S., with transportation taking 27% and industry the remaining 25%. By creating more energy efficient buildings that work more with the natural system, we can reduce the negative ramifications of our environmental impacts (Perez-Lombard, 2008).


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">12.6 – Current Costa Rican environmental issues **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">During summer semester of 2012, a group of 24 students and 2 professors from the University of Utah travelled to Costa Rica to study sustainable infrastructure. I had the privilege of being a part of this group. One of the reoccurring themes of study throughout the trip was that of analyzing Costa Rica’s primary energy producing company, ICE (Costa Rican Energy Institute), and their commitment to have positive environmental and social impacts. As we toured various ICE facilities, our primary guide and long-time ICE employee, Luis, mentioned ICE’s commitment to the environment and local communities many times. In order to more fully understand their environmental and social commitments, I went to the official ICE site to get more information. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">ICE’s environmental responsibility page reports that ICE is committed to helping the Costa Rican government meet their stated objective of becoming a carbon neutral country by the end of 2021 (Responsibilidad Social y Ambiental, 2012). ICE’s literature explains that being carbon neutral means “to mitigate and /or offset the emission of greenhouse gases resulting from human activities in the country” (Responsibilidad Social y Ambiental, 2012). In order to meet this objective, ICE has created an institutional program to help with climate change, “PICC,” which among other things, has taken the initiative to plant around 12 million trees on tree farms since 1960 and has created many tree nurseries which elementary school children often visit to learn about nature in a hands-on and fun way (Responsibilidad Social y Ambiental, 2012). They’ve planted over 100 different species of trees, most of them native to Costa Rica, with some being exotic in locations where this is appropriate (Responsibilidad Social y Ambiental, 2012).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Apart from planting trees on tree farms, they’ve also made the commitment to plant trees on their very own institutional lands in sites such as “Angostura (Turrialba), Cachi, Rio Macho, San Miguel de Turrucares, Garita, Nagatac, around the Arenal reservoir, Tenorio, Arenal Plant, Corobici, Sandillal and Miravalles. The goal is to plant 50 per year until 2021” (Obras Comunales, 2012).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As mentioned, during our time spent with our ICE tour guide Luis, he also explained ICE’s social commitment to the local communities surrounding their facilities and the country as a whole. Luis pointed out that ICE is involved in the local educational systems in developing environmental curriculum and in improving the infrastructure of the schools. ICE’s site provides some useful information in relation to this commitment as well. It states that ICE was involved in a project that benefitted schools in “Urasca, San Jeronimo, San Miguel and the Congo” specifically and included work on the “roofs, ceilings, electrical systems, ramps, floors, walls” and other aspects of infrastructure (Obras Comunales, 2012).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">“In the 1970s, the Costa Rican government banned export of more than 60 diminishing tree species, and national law proscribes cutting timber without proper permits” (Baker). If the land owner wishes to cut down a tree, they must first obtain permission. Permission is generally only given if the tree poses a serious threat to a nearby structure or establishment. Even if permission is obtained, the land owner cannot cut down the tree. An official is sent in to cut it down and clear it. Great care is taken to responsibly use the wood from trees that do end up being cut down. Sadly, illegal deforestation in the country still runs rampant, despite the government’s best effort to protect the countries trees (Baker). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Looking at the big picture, “there are more than 30 environmental laws in Costa Rica” (Costa Rica Environmental Laws, 2012). Some of them are very similar to the United States’ environmental protection laws which have already been discussed (Costa Rica Environmental Laws, 2012), (Legislation Costa Rica, 2012). However, it has been argued that “although Costa Rica has thousands of pages of written laws and regulations that concern resources and the environment, most of the laws are weak and unenforced” (Thrupp, 1990). Furthermore, proponents of this argument have even gone as far as to say that “environmental law itself is not formally recognized and established in the Costa Rican legal system” (Thrupp, 1990). While it can be difficult to quantify directly the impact of the environmental laws which Costa Rica has enacted, one should not think that they are not quantifiable indirectly. If for nothing else, these laws help to give Costa Rica an excellent appearance of being ‘green.’ The Costa Rican’s ability to distinguish themselves as a leader in the field of ecotourism and sustainable development is a major driving factor of their economy. The fact that they aren’t involved in any global wars also helps. In 2011, approximately 71.5% of Costa Rica’s GDP came from services- of which ecotourism was a very large part (Costa Rica Country Report, 2012). <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In any event, it is now requisite that a comparative table be displayed which contains the names of some of the laws that have similar functions among the two countries (Allen, 2012), (Costa Rica Environmental Laws, 2012), (Legislation Costa Rica, 2012):
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">U.S. Law || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Costa Rican Law ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 1947 || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Law No. 7017 Law for the Import and Control of Agro Chemicals. (Ley No. 7017 “Ley para la importación y control de la calidad de los agroquímicos”, de 16 de diciembre de 1985.) ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Clean Air Act (CAA), 1955 || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">N/A ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 1970 || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ley 2000 - 7983 Ley de Protección al Trabajador (Workers Protection Law), and Ley 1973 - 5395 Ley General de Salud (General Health Law) ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Clean Water Act (CWA) 1972 || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Law No. 276 Water Law (Ley No. 276 “Ley de Aguas”, de 25 de agosto de 1942.) and Ley 1953 - 1634 General de Agua Potable (General Drinking Water Law) ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 1976 || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ley 1998 - 7788 Ley de Biodiversidad (Biodiversity Law) ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 1976 || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ley 1995 - 7554 Ley Organica del Ambiente (General Environmental Law), and Ley 1996 - 7575 Ley Forestal (Forestation Law) ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980 || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ley 1995 - 7554 Ley Organica del Ambiente (General Environmental Law), ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 1986 || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">N/A ||
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 1990 || <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ley 1946 - 276 Ley de Aguas (Water Law) ||

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As is shown above, there are many environmental laws that have similar functions in the U.S. and Costa Rica. Costa Rica, however, does not have a direct equivalent of the Clean Air Act, nor the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">One interesting difference in environmental regulation between the U.S. and Costa Rica is the manner in which land is acquired on beachfronts for the construction of new hotels. Hotel Alegro in Papagayo Costa Rica serves as a perfect example of this difference. Rather than purchasing the land to build a hotel, the hotel leased the land from the government for 30 years with an ongoing agreement to contribute to the development of the surrounding areas in a sustainable manner with the option of renewing the lease after the initial time allotment is up. Some of the development includes planting trees, building churches, constructing roads and even providing environmental education to those in surrounding areas. These types of agreements seem to be less common in the United States.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In a perfect society, there would be no need for environmental policy and regulation because everyone would know everything there is to know about nature and they would value it so much that they would never do anything to compromise it. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect society. Awareness still needs to be spread about the environmental impacts of our actions, if we are to ensure the continued well-being of our species and all others that make up the natural system. Until we live in such a perfect society, we must continue to monitor our impacts on the natural system – so that we might make and enforce rules that will help us to strike a balance between preservation and development – one in which we can live in perfect harmony with all of our neighbors – human and non-human alike. =<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Works Cited =
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">12.7 – Conclusion: Environmental policy and regulation in relation to sustainability **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Allen, D. T. (2012). Sustainable engineering. Crawfordsville: Paul Boger. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Baker, C. (n.d.). Conservation. Retrieved July 2012, from Philip.Greenspun: [] <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Costa Rica Country Report. (2012). Retrieved July 2012, from Global Finance Magazine: [|http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-country-reports/291-costa-rica-gdp-country-report.html#axzz1zrFzowH2] <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Costa Rica Environmental Laws. (2012). Retrieved July 2012, from Costa Rica Law: [] <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Environmental policy of the United States. (2012, May). Retrieved May 2012, from Wikipedia: []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Graham Jr., F. (1978). Rachel Carson. EPA Journal <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Legislation Costa Rica. (2012). Retrieved July 2012, from The World Law Guide: [] <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Love Canal. (2012, May). Retrieved May 2012, from Wikipedia: [|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal#Health_problems.2C_activism.2C_and_site_cleanup] <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Obras Comunales. (2012). Retrieved May 2012, from Grupo ICE: []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Perez-Lombard, L. O. (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and Buildings, 394 - 398. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Responsibilidad Social y Ambiental. (2012). Retrieved May 2012, from Grupo ICE: [] <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. (2012). Retrieved May 2012, from Wikipedia: []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Straube, J. (2009, January 30). Why Energy Matters. Retrieved July 2012, from Building Science Insights: []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Thrupp, L. A. (1990). Environmental initiatives in Costa Rica: A politcl ecology perspective. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 243 - 256.