The polluter pays principle defends the idea that “the environmental costs of economic activities, including costs to avoid potential harm, should be internalised rather than imposed on society as a whole”.  All issues relating to cost liability for environmental remediation and compliance with environmental legislation concern this principle. However, there are not many environmental justice litigations that are in the starting blocks. Just under 50 years ago, President Richard Nixon partnered with a Democratic Congress to pass a law that changed the daily experience of almost everyone living in the United States. These laws were born out of a flood of laws – almost all of them emerged over the same two-year period – and they had surprisingly large goals. They sought to limit toxic air pollution nationwide, clean up hundreds of streams and rivers, and establish a permanent state-licensed environmental protection agency. Air quality laws regulate the emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere. A specialized subset of air quality laws regulates air quality in buildings. Air quality laws are often specifically designed to protect human health by limiting or eliminating concentrations of pollutants in the air.
Other initiatives aim to address broader environmental problems, such as restrictions on chemicals that affect the ozone layer and emissions trading schemes to combat acid rain or climate change. Regulatory efforts include identifying and categorizing air pollutants, setting limits for acceptable emission levels, and requiring necessary or appropriate mitigation technologies. One way or another. In the 1970s, the courts largely upheld the constitutionality of major environmental laws, but refused to extend them. At the beginning of the decade, environmental groups hoped that the judiciary would expand environmental protection, just as they had expanded civil rights protection the previous decade. The courts did not take advantage of the opportunity. The principle can play a role in any debate on the need for environmental regulation. Yes.
The most environmentally friendly public land laws are essentially conservation laws. The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, for example, established the system of national parks and established a process for the establishment of new national parks. The Antiquities Act of 1906 does something similar, with a twist: it allows the president to unilaterally set aside parts of the state for special cultural or conservation protection. These treaties become “national monuments”. There are two other laws that don`t affect the EPA so much, but that date from the same period and have expanded the environmental power of government: environmental law is a catch-all term that includes aspects of the law that protect the environment.  A related but diverse set of regulatory systems, now heavily influenced by environmental principles, focus on the management of certain natural resources such as forests, minerals or fisheries. Other areas, such as environmental impact assessment, may not fall exactly into either category, but they are nevertheless important elements of environmental law. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “In recent years, China has worked with great determination to develop, implement and enforce a solid framework for environmental law. Chinese officials face critical challenges in effectively implementing laws, clarifying the role of their national and provincial governments, and strengthening the functioning of their legal system.  China`s explosive economic and industrial growth has led to significant environmental degradation, and China is currently in the process of implementing stricter legal controls.  The harmonization of Chinese society and the natural environment is seen as a growing political priority.
   What are the main laws governing the EPO? The modern concept of sustainable development was a topic of discussion at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference) and the driving force behind the 1983 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED or Bruntland Commission). In 1992, the first United Nations Earth Summit resulted in the Rio Declaration, principle 3 of which reads as follows: “The right to development must be respected in order to meet the development and environmental needs of present and future generations. Since then, sustainable development has been at the heart of the international environmental debate, notably at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2002) and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2012 or Rio+20). The articles on the rights of nature in the Ecuadorian constitution are part of a reaction to a combination of political, economic and social phenomena. Ecuador`s abusive past with the oil industry, including the Chevron class action lawsuit, and the failure of an extraction-based economy and neoliberal reforms to bring economic prosperity to the region, led to the election of a new left-wing regime led by President Rafael Correa, triggering a demand for new approaches to development.