9-2009 NEWS & ANALYSIS 39 ELR 10851 Using the Tools of Pollution Prevention to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Richard Reibstein Richard Reibstein is a Lecturer in Environmental Law and Policy at Boston University and an Environmental Analyst at the Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance Mr Reibstein’s opinions are his own and should not be attributed to the institutions with which he is affiliated O ur public debate about policy to combat climate change sometimes seems limited to a choice between trading and taxes Yet, there are other tools of gov- ernance that could be more actively examined e problem of global warming is so big that we should be actively pursu- ing a “full-toolbox” approach of doing everything we can, and considering how each strategy can be synergistically implemented in concert with other strategies is Article argues for greater attention to a suite of tools successfully used to promote pollution prevention: assistance, planning, and expanded right to know reporting ese tools employ a mode of governance that may be termed “relational,” where government complements traditional enforcement with efforts to encourage self-responsibility and enlist collabora- tion with willing members of the regulated community at community is not a homogeneous group, but is composed of many different entities presenting a great variety of motiva- tions and capacities A full-toolbox, relational approach can more powerfully control risks and harness the potential for creative solutions, fostering not just environmental progress but also building the social and intellectual capital necessary for the technological and economic advancement that will most effectively solve our problems e pollution prevention (P2) movement provides examples of how we might best use government to mobilize resources to address global warming I. P2’s Quiet Success P2 has been the declared policy of the United States since the passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 1 and in the 1 See Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Pub L No 101-508, §§6601-6610, 104 Stat 1388, 1388-1321 to 1388-1327 (codified at 42 USC §§13101- 13109) e preamble of the Act states, in part: Congress finds that: (1) e United States of America annually pro- duces millions of tons of pollution and spends tens of billions of dol- lars per year controlling this pollution (2) ere are significant op- portunities for industry to reduce or prevent pollution at the source through cost-effective changes in production, operation, and raw materials use Such changes offer industry substantial savings in re- duced raw material, pollution control, and liability costs as well as early 1990s every state had a P2 program that typically pro- vided education and assistance to companies in finding ways to reduce pollution at the source, instead of controlling pollution after it had been created Despite what some might term “a general ennui” about P2, the data indicate substantial accom- plishments have resulted from what has been relatively minimal investment ese programs have had quiet success by helping companies redesign processes, reformulate products, perform more careful measurement and use, and other efficiency and substitution efforts to reduce and prevent pollution e US National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, the organization of P2 professionals, issued a report in 2009 finding the following: [S]tate and local programs documented overall reductions of approximately 77 billion pounds of pollution: 5 billion pounds from reducing materials and waste; 2 billion pounds from reducing air emissions; and 60 million pounds from reducing water pollution from 2004 to 2006 In addition, water consumption was reduced by over 4 billion gallons and energy usage was reduced by over 1 billion kilowatt- hours    In almost every case, these efforts have not only led to environmental improvement, but have been cost- effective, saving a total of approximately $64 billion 2 help protect the environment and reduce risks to worker health and safety (3) e opportunities for source reduction are often not realized because existing regulations, and the industrial resources they require for compliance, focus upon treatment and disposal, rather than source reduction; existing regulations do not emphasize multi-media man- agement of pollution; and businesses need information and technical assistance to overcome institutional barriers to the adoption of source reduction practices (4) Source reduction is fundamentally different and more desirable than waste management and pollution control e Environmental Protection Agency needs to address the historical lack of attention to source reduction 42 USC §13101(a) (2007) In the P2 Act, Congress declared that it is “the na- tional policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible,” describing what has been termed the “hier- archy” of management options—recycling when pollution cannot be avoided, then treatment, and then disposal or release as a last resort Id. §13101(b) 2 Nat’l Pollution Prevention Roundtable, Road to Sustainability: Pollu- tion Prevention Progress From 2004 to 2006, Results From the Nation- al Pollution Prevention Data Management System 3 (2009), available at http://wwwp2org/wp-content/road-to-sustainability-2004-20062pdf Copyright © 2009 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.