Since 1990, polarization hindered changing environmental policy
statutorily. Yet, in mid-2016 the Lautenberg Act regulating toxics
- chemicals employed in commerce - was passed, winning business and
environmental support. What might explain this? Has the Trump
administration undercut the law's effects? Does the Act's passage
portend more progressive actions? We show that the Act was a
function of the status quo changing due to regulatory efforts
abroad and in the United States, and from outside pressures on
business. These influences impacted implementation, with the Trump
administration not targeting toxics regulation analogous to other
programs. Further, the processes we observe for toxics may not be
unique.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!