Command and control regulation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:23, 4 October 2012

Revision as of 14:41, 23 October 2012

Line 42:

==Environmental Regulation==

===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 the it'sits 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 58 ⟶ 59:

===International Environmental Agreements===

====Montreal Protocol====

{{See also|Montreal Protocol}}