Which environmental problem is addressed? The state law I chose is Idaho’s Department of Environmental Quality Pollution Prevention (P2). This is a subsidiary of the EPA’s 1990 law passed by congress “The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.” This environmental problem addressed in the P2 law is the prevention of pollution.

What are the characteristics of the problem? According to dictionary.com pollution is defined as: “the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.” Pollution can be found in a variety of sources and categorized by type of pollution: air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, visual pollution, plastic pollution etc. Pollution is essentially anything that is added to or in an environment that is not supposed to be there and causes harm to that environment. An example of air pollution could be vehicle emissions. An example of water pollution could be agricultural runoff from fertilizers and pesticides that contaminate the water sources it comes into contact with.

Identify the policy tool used in the law. The policy tool used in this law is information based.
Tell us what you think of the law--is there a better way to address the problem? Why? From Idaho Department of Environmental Quality on P2: “DEQ is firmly committed to encouraging and empowering Idaho citizens, businesses and communities to engage in behaviors to protect public health and preserve Idaho's environment. One of the major ways we seek to achieve this goal is to build the capabilities of Idaho citizens to incorporate pollution prevention practices into the workplace and their daily lives.” Based on this statement the Idaho DEQ’s largest pollution prevention remedy is to educate citizens and businesses on the effects of pollution and to reduce the amount of pollution produced in the first place, as opposed to the later remedy of cleaning up pollution that has already been reduced. I feel that this is a good idea in theory to educate the community and business on the effects of pollution, but probably not as effective as other pollution reform. I think there is a better way to address pollution through a liability-based policy. If individuals or businesses know from the get-go that will be charged for any pollution that they create, they will then be less likely to produce pollution in the first place. This idea of the threat of payment may apply more to individuals than businesses, but businesses would still be held liable for their pollution through the form of payment. Hopefully if the community were to demand action in pollution reform the businesses would follow suit. An example of this would be the road signs we see pretty much everywhere “No littering. $500 fine imposed for littering” the amounts are usually different, but the message is the same, if you are caught littering (polluting) we will fine you (liability-based policy).

Sources
http://deq.idaho.gov/pollution-prevention.aspx
https://www.epa.gov/p2/pollution-prevention-law-and-policies
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pollution