Land-use problems resisted the technological fixes that made pollution law politically feasible

Evidence

Despite the enormity of the pollution problem, the solution seemed to many policymakers largely a matter of technology. With smokestack scrubbers, catalytic converters, and waste-treatment plants, industry could make the air and the water cleaner. But the land-use problem could not be solved simply by mandating the adoption of new production techniques. Unlike the goods produced in pollution generating factories, the urban landscape was not manufactured in a controlled environment designed by engineers. Instead, the pattern of urban growth was the result of countless decisions made by a variety of people, and builders were only one part of the equation. The environmental impact of urban growth depended on where people built, not just how. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 983

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Environmentalists’ rural ideal of nature hindered building an urban land-use vision — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 987; Environmental law’s benefits lag far behind its politics because ecological problems resist quick fixes. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 368; The same scientific complexity that drove Congress to technology-based rules blocked water-quality enforcement. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 773 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Land-use regulation failed because political actors wrongly equated it with antipollution lawmaking #corroborates (0.85) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 980
• Nuisance law’s vagueness drove environmental law toward detailed statutory standards #qualifies (0.70) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 594