policy instruments

          I believe the government should regulate environmental matters for two reasons.  The first is that our environment is something that should be cared for, used, and enjoyed carefully and consciously.  The second reason why the government should regulate environmental matters is that the first is not happening.  Humans leave much to desire in the way of conservationism and simply smart consumption.  The government should regulate when it is found that voluntary efficient living is not taking place.  And because we live in a world of humans, the "voluntary" approach doesn't usually work; therefore rules and laws should be created (by the state governments because location affects environment greatly) to create a more tangible and absolute "line" which should not be crossed.  Ideally, once this line has been created, those who were not as willing to live "greener" lifestyles, will have some guidelines which they would follow to both better understand the effects of even the slightest inefficient habit, and to contribute to a healthier and stronger environment.
         I believe whole-heartedly in voluntary action.  I understand that this is the most optimistic, some would even say naive, choice.  But simply imagining a world in which everybody changes their own daily habits in favor of more efficient, less wasteful practices, inspires me to make that world happen.  The practical side of me desires a combination of government regulation with voluntary action.  This would essentially be a "let's try voluntary action, and then when some people predictably don't voluntarily act in a desirable manner, we'll make some rules" kind of approach.  The more I think about voluntary action, the more I realize how hard it would be to enforce, because "voluntary" implies that no laws are affecting one's actions, and hence no one can possibly break a law...because there is no law!!! So a dependence on everybody to care strongly about the environment exists.  Voluntary action could work maybe in a small town where the environment is important to all; and maybe the inspiring story of that town could soon help the entire country follow that example.  I see and hear the sappy hope in this, but it is still what I believe.
      Voluntary action is not very well-suited to environmental policy because it is difficult to make policy when there are no laws already in place.  The citizens are acting simply out of their own desire (or lack thereof) to help the environment.  There is nobody telling them to do so, and therefore there is nobody regulating . It would be difficult to punish citizens or assess situations, because identifying those who are causing problems would be virtually impossible.  But if the "voluntary action with rules for the not so voluntary" approach were the way of the world, it would be quite well-suited to environmental policy.  There would already be regulations on which to build or edit, and those who were not following those regulations could help in the creation of newer stringent (or more lax!) legislation.  I believe that all of this should take place at the state level, because different than civil policy, for example, environmental policy is location-dependent.
     Voluntary action is different from the other policy instruments in that it is government-free.  Most other policy instruments, such as market-based solutions and government regulation involve the government, though market-based instruments are similar to voluntary action in that they are private.  (Market-based solutions require the agreement of two private corporations, and involve the government indirectly.  They essentially monetarily quantify the use of the environment, so that companies and corporations, who tend to use more resources than an individual, can choose to sell their extra allotments of resources).
     Voluntary action aligns with my political ideology pretty well, which is conservatism.  Voluntary action requires little to no government, which is exactly what I like.  And even if some people are not so willing to act in a desirable fashion (meaning the "voluntary" doesn't describe everybody in the community), and the government has to step in to make some rules for those who need them, I don't feel as if my political ideology would be compromised.  Such a situation would only lead to the creation and enforcement of new rules, so those not so willing are being held personally responsible for their inconsistency with the rest of the community.  Obviously, figuring out who is not keeping up with the program would be difficult in the first place, so I think that practically speaking, even in a "voluntary action" style approach, regulation of some sort must be in place from the start just in case.