Content deleted Content added
Line 45:
===Application===
The use of Command and Control in regulation involves the government or similar body to “command” the reduction of pollution (e.g. setting emissions levels) levels and to “control” the manner in which it is achieved (e.g. by installing pollution-control technologies). It has been argued that CAC has the potential to be effective under certain conditions. Often its effectiveness can be determined by whether the problem has a diffuse or a point source. A CAC approach is relatively compatible with [[point source]] and regulation of these can often achieve success. On the other hand, CAC struggles to appropriately tackle issues that have a [[Diffusion|diffuse]], non-point source.<ref name="landr">Landy, M. Rubin, C. (2001) Civic Environmentalism: A new approach to Policyl. Washington DC: George Marshall Institute</ref> Evans<ref name="james"/> draws on the following example: “it is relatively easy to regulate the emissions from 10 large coal burning power stations in a single country, but far less easy to monitor the emissions caused by millions of motorists or the effluent discharges from tens of thousands of farms across the world.”
In [[Environmental Policy]], CAC is characterised by 3 different types of standards, the use of the standards is determined by various factors, including the nature of the environmental problem and the administrative capacities of the governing body:<ref name="ogus">Ogus, A. (2004) Comparing Regulatory Systems: Institutions, processes and legal forms in industrialised countries. ''In: Cook, P., Kirkpatrick, C. Minogue, M., Parker, D. (Eds.)'' UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.</ref>
Line 63:
{{See also|Montreal Protocol}}
The 1987 Montreal Protocol is commonly cited as a CAC success story at international level. The aim of the agreement was to limit the release of [[Chlorofluorocarbons]] into the atmosphere and subsequently halt the depletion of Ozone (O3) in the stratosphere.
There were a number of factors that contributed to Montreal’s success, these included:<ref name="speth">Speth, J., Haas, P. (2006) Global Environmental Governance. USA: Island Press.</ref><ref name="falkner">Falkner, R (2005) The Business of Ozone Layer Protection: Corporate Power in Regime Evolution. ''In: Levy, D., Newell, P. (2005) The Business of Global Environmental Governance. pp. 169-196.'' Cambridge Mass & London: MIT Press.</ref>
Line 69:
*The problem and solution were both clearly defined and supported by industry (albeit not initially)
*The [[Ozone hole]] was easily measurable
*There was an effective scientific lobbying alliance that played a key role in convincing the US Government and the commercial sector (in particular DuPont, then one of the largest manufacturers of CFCs)
Defining this agreement as a CAC approach is slightly problematic as the agreement does not directly instruct states how to meet their targets. However, the aim of the Montreal Protocol has been to eliminate the source of CFC emissions, as a result the only really feasible way for a state to achieve this would be through a ban on substances related to Ozone depletion. Montreal is considered by some to be a 'special case' of a successful CAC approach.<ref name="james"/>
| |||