In Week 4 we saw a change in the characteristics of pollution and the damage it caused after WWII, which led to a push for preventative pollution regulation. In week 5, we saw justification for moving the preventative regulation to federal regulation.

• Briefly discuss why tort law is a reactionary response to pollution. Do you think that was an appropriate response before WWII? Justify your answer with science, law/economics, and values.
• Briefly discuss why regulatory approaches are a preventative and precautionary response to pollution. Do you think the shift to a preventative and precautionary response was justified based on the pollution characteristics and harm after WWII? Justify your answer with science, law/economics, and values.

Tort law is reactionary because it's a response to retroactive damage, but with a narrow scope (notably before the complexities of societal influence on the environment were more or less realized). It was made this way so individuals that have been harmed have an option to receive compensation, given that they have sufficient standing. Our values as a society have changed, creating more awareness and giving more priority in protecting the environment both within individual circumstances and as a whole. I like to think that before WWII our priorities for the environment were simply reactive, which I think is evident through the heavy reliance on tort laws, the abundance of unchecked pollution that was accruing in our rivers (catching fire), and the lack of methods to increase efficiency in relation to pollution output (no regulatory drivers).

As societal ideology shifted, environmentalism was promoted and in the 60s and 70s congress became more involved in prevention with the enactments of CWA, and CAA. It was time for the societal response to pollution to change from being narrowly reactive to evaluating precautions and looking for preventative means through regulation. The 60s and 70s proposed a new way to handle the range of dynamic issues often developed by the ongoing relationship between modern society and the environment through regulatory approaches like NEPA and with the forming of agencies like the EPA. This was primarily because current methods, such as tort laws just weren't as effective and didn't largely take into count new science and values that were pushing for awareness and prevention - steering away from primarily reactive practices.

I do think the shift to a preventative and precautionary response was justified based on impacts of pollution and harm after WWII. Image if society wouldn't have shifted and the harm it would have done to not only the environment, but societal progress and development. I think regulation often influences innovation, because it has the ability to set new standards, primarily in the form of pollution mitigation methods. It then locks those standards, which are hopefully aligned with current social values. This creates a nice relationship, as it's possible to adjust regulation as social values change over time. As society continues to raise standards (adjust to better regulation) in accordance to values, science can continue to took for higher means of efficiency, all of this adding to collective social progress experiencing cleaner air, water, along with more resources. Perhaps it's fair to say that a national situation like pollution needs to get bad enough for meaningful reaction to occur, followed by solutions, while forming preventative measures, because as a society we don't want to step backwards, with our values, science, and economy pushing and relying on our forward momentum.