Final answer:
The politics of making environmental regulations has indeed been of substantial interest to the public due to the significant impact on firms, the economy, and environmental benefits. Stakeholders actively engage in lobbying and advocacy, and the debate over market-oriented tools versus command-and-control regulations reflects the controversy and public interest.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that the politics of making environmental regulations has traditionally not been of much interest to the public is false. Environmental regulations are subject to the political process and involve many stakeholders with various interests.
Existing firms often lobby for exceptions and loopholes in environmental standards, advocating that such standards should apply mainly to new firms, which influences the rule-making landscape. Moreover, environmental regulations lead to debates about their economic impact, such as potential unemployment.
These regulations redistribute economic costs and environmental benefits, leading to strong opposition from affected groups, indicating a substantial public interest in the matter. The effectiveness of market-oriented environmental policy tools, as an alternative to command-and-control laws, is also a matter of public concern, which can achieve pollution reduction with greater cost efficiency and flexibility.