Both sides treat environmental regulation as an absolute-rights matter, precluding economic compromise

Evidence

Without a common economic denomination, the sharply contrasting nature of these highly moralistic perceptions of the role of environmental law makes compromise difficult. The fundamental disagreement about humankind’s relationship to the natural environment and the proper role for law in addressing that relationship produces a polarization of positions. Each side tends to view the other as beginning from an unacceptable moral premise. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 150

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Environmental lawmaking conflict is a necessary feature, not a failing. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 418; Tradeable emissions rights could cut pollution at lower cost than command-and-control rules — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 799; The EPA was structurally caught between irreconcilable demands from both directions. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 411 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• By 2000 the two parties held opposite substantive visions of environmental law #expands (0.78) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 1049
• Environmental lawmaking conflict is a necessary feature, not a failing. #qualifies (0.75) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 418
• The EPA was structurally caught between irreconcilable demands from both directions. #complicates (0.75) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 411
• Tradeable emissions rights could cut pollution at lower cost than command-and-control rules #contradicts (0.72) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 799
• Environmental entitlements are meant to be law-created, not preference-derived #qualifies (0.72) — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 309