Environmental Regulation Roundup: U.S. and Europe

Here are the three biggest U.S. and international stories shaping environmental regulation and marine conservation as of June 2024.

First: Divergent U.S. State Attitudes

A recent analysis by the Pew Research Center highlighted that public support for environmental regulations in the United States differs sharply across states. For example, in 2024, 71% of adults in both the District of Columbia and Minnesota supported stricter environmental regulations, while in Wyoming, opposition to such regulations held the majority. This disparity reflects a broader pattern: in 29 states and the District of Columbia, most adults considered stricter environmental laws and regulations worth their cost, whereas in over a dozen states, majorities did not.

The regional variations have direct policy consequences. States where public backing for regulation is high are more likely to adopt aggressive environmental legislation, such as limits on emissions, investment in renewable energy, or tighter standards for industrial pollution. Conversely, states with lower support may resist new regulatory measures or roll back existing ones, often citing economic or employment concerns.

This division has significant influence on national policy debates. Proposals for federal environmental standards regularly encounter pushback from states with less public support for regulation, which can stall or dilute national action. For example, when federal agencies propose stricter rules on emissions, states with less supportive populations frequently file lawsuits or seek waivers, arguing that their economies would suffer disproportionately.

The Pew analysis found that in 2024, approximately 60% of Americans overall believed that stricter environmental laws were justified by their benefits. However, the minority in states like West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Wyoming, where support is lowest, still shapes the narrative in Congress and among national policymakers. This is because senators and representatives from these states often use their constituents’ views to argue for more flexible or localized approaches to regulation.

The economic structure of a state is a major factor behind these differences. States with economies heavily reliant on fossil fuels or extractive industries are more likely to oppose additional environmental regulation. In contrast, states with a strong presence in knowledge-based sectors, technology, or renewable energy tend to see stricter environmental rules as compatible with economic growth.

These regional differences also play out in the courts. Legal battles over clean air and water standards, vehicle emissions, and land use often hinge on whether regulations reflect the level of public support in the affected states. In recent years, several high-profile cases have seen coalitions of states challenging or defending federal rules, with the outcome often swayed by the level of public backing at the state level.

The impact of this divergence extends to federal funding and grant distribution. States with higher support for environmental protection may receive more funding for clean energy projects or conservation programs, while those with lower support may prioritize infrastructure or industry subsidies instead.

This state-level variation complicates the push for unified national strategies on climate change and pollution. As of the June 2024 analysis, there was no consistent national standard on issues like methane emissions from oil and gas operations, leaving implementation to the patchwork of state policies shaped by divergent public attitudes.

Next, in U.S. public opinion on single-use plastic pollution:

A poll released in June 2024 by Oceana USA showed that a majority of Americans are deeply concerned about single-use plastic pollution. Specifically, 83% of registered voters reported concern about the impact of single-use plastics, and 82% supported reducing the federal government’s use of these materials.

The poll’s findings revealed that 73% of American voters favored a pause on building new plastic production facilities. This is a substantial majority, indicating a pronounced desire to address plastic pollution at the source rather than relying on recycling or clean-up efforts after the fact.

Support for tackling single-use plastics crossed party lines. In the poll, 83% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans supported halting the construction of new plastic production plants. For protecting communities affected by nearby plastic production, 88% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans were in favor of increased protections.

The poll also found that 84% of Americans support increasing the use of reusable packaging and foodware. Meanwhile, 80% favor requiring companies to reduce their reliance on single-use plastic packaging and foodware. This broad agreement suggests a nationwide readiness to shift from a disposable to a reusable culture in retail, food service, and packaging.

Legislative pressure is mounting as a result. The General Services Administration, which manages federal buildings and procurement, is currently considering a proposed rule to phase out non-essential single-use plastic products across all federal agencies. The agency is expected to release a draft rule later this year. Public comments submitted during the consultation period overwhelmingly favored a decisive reduction in government plastic use.

The motivations behind this support are grounded in concern for environmental and health impacts. Scientists estimate that 33 billion pounds of plastic enter the world’s oceans every year, equal to about two garbage trucks’ worth of plastic dumped into the sea every minute. This pollution threatens marine life, contaminates seafood, and introduces microplastics into drinking water.

Americans are also worried about the community-level effects of plastic production. According to the poll, 82% support measures to protect people living near plastic facilities due to health risks from chemical emissions and waste. The cost of cleaning up plastic waste is another flashpoint, with 81% of respondents supporting a shift in responsibility from taxpayers to the corporations that manufacture and use plastic products.

Recycling, often proposed as a solution, is viewed skeptically by most Americans. Less than 6% of plastic in the U.S. is currently recycled, and many respondents viewed recycling as an inadequate response to the scale of the problem. Instead, there is growing advocacy for policies that cut plastic production and promote refill and reuse systems.

Export of plastic waste is another area where public opinion is driving proposed action. Eight in ten Americans support limiting the export of U.S. plastic waste to other countries, where it can end up polluting environments and harming communities with weak regulatory oversight.

These findings have already influenced state and local legislation. Several U.S. cities and states have adopted bans or restrictions on single-use plastics in retail and food service, often citing strong public support as the rationale. Companies are also responding: major retailers and food brands have rolled out reusable packaging pilots and committed to reducing plastic use in response to both consumer demand and regulatory signals.

National parks are a specific flashpoint. The poll showed that 74% of respondents support stopping the sale and distribution of single-use plastics in U.S. national parks, reflecting a broader expectation that public spaces lead by example in reducing plastic waste.

In sum, the June 2024 poll data show a clear mandate from the American public for significant action on plastic pollution. Both legislative and corporate actors are facing increased scrutiny, with voters expecting rapid progress toward less wasteful systems.

And from Europe: European Coastal Communities Demand Action

Research conducted by ClientEarth in June 2024 found widespread dissatisfaction among Europe’s coastal communities concerning government efforts to protect the marine environment. The study surveyed 1,804 people living within 10 kilometers of the coast in nine European countries and revealed that 46% believe their local marine environment is in decline—a figure nearly equal to half of respondents.

Trust in government action is low. Only 36% of those surveyed said they believe their national government is doing enough to protect the ocean. Confidence was especially low in the UK, where just 29% of coastal residents trusted the government’s actions, and even lower in Denmark and Greece, at 27% and 21% respectively.

De-prioritization of marine protection is seen as a primary cause for government inaction, with 49% of respondents identifying it as a core issue. This was followed by concerns over inadequate budgets and lack of enforcement resources, cited by 40% of participants as obstacles to effective marine protection.

Direct observations of decline are common among coastal residents. Forty-seven percent say that the number of fish and marine animals in their area is falling, 40% report a reduction in marine plants, and 34% see fewer seabirds. Respondents also noted a rise in pollution, sewage discharges, and trash dumping, with 43% believing that pollution is worsening and 47% saying that littering and dumping have increased. Twenty-six percent of those surveyed have personally witnessed harmful activities like illegal dumping or pollution in their local waters.

In a separate survey of people working in the European fishing industry, 85% said that a further decline in the marine environment would harm their livelihoods, and nearly half—47%—said that strong environmental regulation was necessary for the sector’s future.

The lack of enforcement is a major theme. Many coastal residents believe that existing laws are not being upheld, which allows illegal or unregulated activities to persist. Seventy-one percent of fishing industry respondents believe illegal practices occur within their sector, underscoring skepticism about current oversight.

The research coincided with the first anniversary of the European Ocean Pact and the announcement of the EU Ocean Act, both of which included new commitments to restore ocean health and protect coastal communities. However, as of June 2024, coastal communities and the fishing industry report little evidence of progress on these pledges.

The European Commission’s pledge of €1 billion to protect marine life and promote the “blue economy” was intended to support projects targeting marine restoration, pollution control, and the transition to sustainable fisheries. Yet, the perception among local residents is that national governments have not matched these ambitions with action plans or effective enforcement.

Litigation over marine protection is ongoing in several countries. ClientEarth and its partners have launched legal cases over bottom trawling in marine protected areas in France, Spain, and the Netherlands, arguing that these practices violate both EU and national conservation commitments.

Transparency in the fishing industry is another demand from coastal communities. Calls for the UK to sign the Global Charter for Fisheries Transparency reflect public expectations that governments should not only create new rules but also ensure that these rules are monitored and enforced.

The report also finds that 38% of coastal Europeans expected further decline in the state of the marine environment, compared to 33% who were optimistic about improvement. This pessimism stems from daily observations of pollution, depletion of fish stocks, and ongoing illegal practices.

A quarter of those living on Europe’s coast said they had personally witnessed harmful activity in their local marine area, ranging from industrial waste dumping to unregulated fishing. This direct exposure increases demand for immediate government intervention and stricter legal measures.

The data show that marine degradation is not only an environmental issue but a threat to the economic and social fabric of coastal communities. Millions of Europeans depend on healthy oceans for jobs, food security, and recreation. The widespread lack of confidence in government action is driving renewed advocacy, legal complaints, and pressure on policymakers to turn public commitments into enforceable rules.

The most specific finding comes from ClientEarth’s detailed polling: only one in five coastal Greeks—21%—say they trust their government to protect the marine environment, the lowest level of confidence recorded among all countries surveyed.