Assignment 7 - Part 2

3-4 paragraph analysis of how sustainability was addressed at the level that it was (i.e. state level or regional level or local government level or neighborhood level)

The cited news article talks about how China is investing heavily in green auto technologies. With the increasing debate on global climate change and how this phenomenon is impacting our way of life, many countries are taking a proactive approach to regulate industries in response to lowering their carbon footprint and improve sustainability. With the recent Copenhagen summit on global climate change ending in a less than favorable outcome, it is interesting to see China, which is currently the largest non-cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases, take to the frontlines in reinventing itself as an environmentally conscious country.

Sustainability in the case of the article referenced, is being addressed on a state/national level, with benefits and changes trickling down to regional and local governments where Chinese auto manufacturers operate. The article goes on to state, “Big auto groups backed by government money, such as SAIC, are likely to emerge as winners, industry analysts say, while leading private-sector players, like Warren Buffet-backed BYD, will also be a front runner as it pushes into foreign markets.” It is evident that there is a great incentive for local car manufacturers to increase research in hybrid and electric vehicles.

Since this is a new move by the Chinese government, the success of this sustainability planning is not yet known. However, I believe that the Chinese government, with its abundant economic resources may be in a good position to make this initiative a success. The article also states, “Almost all the major Chinese manufacturers have on-going development programs. Some may be more politically motivated but clearly some are very serious pursuits that are backed by large investments and substantial research teams." Regardless of the motives of the Chinese manufacturers as quoted above, it is evident that almost all of them are on board in increasing the number of hybrid and electric vehicle production.

Another way sustainability is being addressed in a national and regional level is in regards to the price of hybrid/electric cars. China is planning to develop low cost electric vehicles which will be easily acceptable to the Chinese and may even gain success in other countries as well. Currently, “A made-in-China Prius costs as much as $41,000, nearly matching the price tag of much bigger gasoline-powered Camry, making it a turn-off for Chinese buyers, who still have a penchant for big cars.” With the demand for lowering the cost of electric vehicles evident, I believe that the Chinese initiative may eventually be successful. At the very least, I hope this will help increase government funding in other countries.

3-4 paragraph analysis of how the sustainability issue could have been resolved at a different level.

I believe that it would have been beneficial for the Chinese government to address this issue (in addition to the national level) at other levels simultaneously, such as, working with regional and local governments to fund a network of electric vehicle charging stations, working with car manufacturers to make their manufacturing plants more sustainable, increasing use of recycled materials in hybrid and electric cars, and working with local governments to improve car recycling programs.

Although the aforementioned issues I mentioned above may eventually occur over the course of the sustainability initiative by the Chinese government, the article does highlight one of my concerns, “The southern boom town of Shenzhen, where BYD rolled out its plug-in hybrid, F3DM, late last year, has just three charging stations.” It is evident that merely investing in hybrid/electric vehicle production may not improve sustainability in the Chinese auto industry. It needs to be backed by utility companies that can provide energy to charging stations, all of which require the cooperation of regional, local, state, and national governments.

Some of the problems that can occur with implementing a sustainability policy at all levels would be coordinating and planning development activities. Additionally, problems can occur if foreign car manufacturers have incompatible chargers. The article states, “"You can't charge the Leaf at the facilities as the charger just won't fit in. We'll have to have our own facilities when we sell Leaf in Shenzhen," said Tsunehiko Nakagawa, vice president of Nissan China Investment.” I believe that more effort should also be placed on standardizing chargers so that customers are not inconvenienced when it comes to being able to charge their vehicles.

Although, from the current initiative the environmental quality is poised to improve, I believe that addressing some of the issues I have discussed, environmental quality can be improved even further. As mentioned before, by coordinating other related initiatives such as recycling, increasing charging stations, etc. policy makers in essence, would be able to create an infrastructure that is able to sustain the energy needs of hybrid and electric vehicles. This would provide consumers with a greater incentive to charger their cars rather than visit the local gasoline station.

Reference:

LaMonica, Martin. April 21, 2010. “China investing heavily in green auto tech.”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20003049-54.html

Week 12

Week 12: April 5-11
Topic: Tools for Sustainability Planning

Tasks:
- Readings: Chapters 5-8 in Wheeler
- Post two weekly comments for participation

Assignment #6 - Frameworks for Environmental Policy

Part 1: Values Framework

According to Cohen “Ideas about our relationship to the ecological environment derive from our concept of property and a definition of nature as a resource to be used for human material well-being.” In the spirit of Cohen’s “Values” framework, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, recognizes the importance of using nature as a resource for human well-being. The goal of the S.1733 bill is to “create clean energy jobs, promote energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.”

The aforementioned goals are aligned with Cohen’s values framework of using nature as a resource for human well-being. By ensuring that we protect nature and the resources that we need to exist, we will come full circle in maintaining a healthy relationship with the environment and ensuring our survival and future. The issue at the core of the S.1733 bill stems from behaviors of our lifestyle that have resulted in substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.

The problem resulted due to a tradeoff between ecological well-being and human well-being wherein the ecology was being decimated by human activities. The proposed solution requires some modification to the values and perceptions of individuals on issues concerning contamination of the environment and use of natural resources, however, progress can still be made as we adapt to global climate change.

Part 2: Political Framework

According to Cohen, “The environmental issue has made significant demands on our political processes and institutions. Americans have called for political processes that develop a consensus about the definition of environmental quality and make decisions about methods for achieving environmental goals. In the past thirty years this political process has facilitated a high degree of social learning in the United States.”

The green energy bill S.1733 involves the participation of businesses and political leaders. Additional stakeholders involve consumers who would purchase green energy technologies and working in green energy jobs thereby furthering research and development and future adoption of sustainable technologies.

The political victory and loss in this arena will be defined by workable policies that allow for growth and easy adoption. Although something of this magnitude has not been done in the past, policy makers will have to ensure that they are able to balance availability, adoption, and affordability on a continual basis. This will help offset the use of more cost-effective substitutes that are currently increasing greenhouse gas emissions and help make renewable energy technologies cost-effective in the long run.

Part 3: Science and Technology Framework

“Can science and technology solve environmental problems as quickly as they can create them? Do we have the science in place to truly understand the causes and effects of this environmental problem? Does the technology exist to solve the environmental problem or mitigate its impacts?”

The S.1733 bill covers the same seven greenhouse gases that were identified in the House bill: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflurocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride. The contributors to greenhouse gas emissions have been identified and although it is debatable if we have the science in place to truly understand the causes and effects of the environmental problem, I believe that we nonetheless have the ability to adapt to it.

I believe that we have the technologies to both mitigate and solve the environmental problems. This bill marks an effort to put into effect the processes necessary to make the changes a reality. Since the technologies contributing to global climate change are tightly integrated with our economic and social development, it would be virtually impossible to halt them in order to address the problem. The bill in fact allows for a means to develop green energy technologies along with current technologies and gradually reducing the former with the latter. This would result in smaller adaptive approaches in the short run marked by a more rapid shift to renewable technologies in the long run.

Part 4: Policy Design Framework

“Economic forces are a major influence on the development of environmental problems and the shape of environmental policy.”

The bill S.1733 includes measures aimed at reducing the costs of compliance and minimizing allowance price volatility. Like the House bill, it provides for a two-year rolling compliance period, unlimited banking of unused allowances, and limiting borrowing. Furthermore, the policy provides support for deployment of carbon capture and storage technology through a ten-year program funded through wire charges, bonus allowances for early deployment projects, and allowance value designated through 2050 for further deployment.

The bill incorporates strategic thinking in its design allowing for stakeholder compromises and considerations needed to ensure effective implementation. The bill marks a substantial progress toward a solution to global climate change solutions and also marks an effort to advance the use of renewable technologies across the business and commercial product realms.

Part 5: Management Framework

“Which administrative and organizational arrangements have proven most effective at protecting the environment? Do we have the organizational capacity in place to solve the environmental problem?”

The bill directs the submission of a report to Congress every four years that includes an analysis of the latest science relevant to climate change, an analysis of capacity to monitor and verify greenhouse gas reductions, an analysis of worldwide and domestic progress in reducing global warming pollution, and additional measures that can be taken.

This is one of the examples that incorporate administrative and managerial processes that need to be in place to ensure continuous monitoring of R&D in renewable technologies and their potential for advancing the limits of our knowledge in solving the environmental problems we face today and in the future. These procedures require continuous testing to ensure they are effectively integrated with science and technology. Furthermore, the success of these processes requires cooperation between all stakeholders associated with policy making, businesses, and the science community.

Week 11

Week 11: March 29 - April 4
Topic: Defining Sustainability

Tasks:
1. Readings
- Chapters 1-4 in Wheeler
- Week 11 Articles on Blackboard under "Course Documents"

2. Post two weekly comments for participation

3. Assignment #6
- Posted Online: March 29 under "Assignments" on Blackboard
- Due Date: Sunday, April 11 (Midnight MST)

Assignment #5 - part 3

Final Paper Bill Information

The bill that I have chosen to write on is S.1733 – Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. The sponsor for this bill is John Kerry and its purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a nation-wide cap-and-trade program. Furthermore, it seeks to create energy jobs, promote energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and help facilitate a transition to a clean energy economy.

The following are three provisions that the bill promotes:

1. Transition us away from dirty fossil fuels of the past and toward the clean energy of the future: The Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act leaves key Clean Air Act provisions intact, thus maintaining existing mechanisms to regulate dirty coal technology. These provisions are crucial for ending the construction of new dirty coal plants that use outdated technology and ensuring that the oldest, dirtiest coal plants reduce their global warming pollution.

2. Take serious steps to cut global warming pollution as soon as possible: Cut carbon pollution from fossil fuels at least 20% by 2020: Scientists say we must do much more. Targets for cutting carbon from fossil fuels in Kerry-Boxer are 3% stronger than the House bill, but rollbacks in regulation of methane and other greenhouse gasses make the bill only 1% stronger on net.

3. Create millions of clean energy jobs by investing in a clean energy future: The current Senate bill includes many key job-creating and job-training programs necessary to jumpstart America's transition to a clean energy economy. We encourage senators to increase investment in programs that will create new jobs by investing in a clean energy future rather than investing in dirty coal plants and oil companies who have been reaping record profits for years. This includes bolstering support for a global climate deal by investing in climate adaptation, avoided deforestation, and exporting clean energy technology.

Assignment #5 - Part 2

Part 2

1. I believe that developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and U.S. did to increase their economic well-being. Considering the importance of global climate change, I also acknowledge that there is a growing need to countries to adapt and use technologies that lessen our impact on the environment. Developing countries do not have the financial resources to undertake such kinds of research and development.

I believe that if rich countries are willing to share renewable energy technologies with developing countries then it would be in the developing countries best interest and moral and ethical duty to stop exploiting forests. I believe that given a choice developing countries would not choose to exploit forests and other natural resources, they do so out of need.

2. Countries such as China and India are now on the forefront of the environmental debate concerning the level of emissions from the two countries. As these two countries are undergoing a rapid development stage the amount of pollution in both countries continues to increase. “China’s rapid development, often touted as an economic miracle, has become an environmental disaster. Record growth necessarily requires the gargantuan consumption of resources, but in China energy use has been especially unclean and inefficient, with dire consequences for the country’s air, land, and water.” (Vig, pp 309)
The expectation that developing countries must engage in equal participation as developed countries in climate change issues is unfair in my opinion. “Developing countries point to Europe’s destruction of its forests during the industrial revolution and the widespread cutting in the United States in the nineteenth century. Why then should developing countries be held to a different standard than the developed one?” (Vig, pp 297)

Economic development entails the reduction of poverty and the ability of a nation to increase per capita income and improve the livelihood of the people. It would be unfair for industrialized countries to expect developing nations to place more emphasis on reducing emissions especially when industrialized nations are largely responsible for the current global climate problems.

Additionally, since industrialized countries have the financial capability to conduct research into sustainable practices and renewable technologies, developing countries should expect developed nations to share such technologies. In my opinion, some sort or mutually agreed upon technology transfer system would be helpful in ensuring renewable energy technologies are being put to good use.

Week 10

Week 10: March 22-28
Topic: Frameworks for Environmental Policy

Tasks:
- Readings: Chapters 1-8 in Cohen
- Post two weekly comments for participation

Assignment #4 - Part 1

“The federal government pointed with pride to a sweeping national database that identifies pollution-stricken poor and minority neighborhoods to help officials better target billions of economic recovery dollars.”

The system is called the Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT). EJSEAT scores combine data such as cancer rates, poverty levels, child mortality, toxic emissions, education and racial characteristics, and density of industrial facilities. This allows for the environmental justice tool to service minority and poverty stricken stakeholders more efficiently and target economic recovery dollars more efficiently.

The system began as a vision after a 1994 presidential order urging government agencies to address the issues of identifying minority and poor neighborhoods with disproportionate pollution and environmental health issues. There were also concerns that many of the United States’ toxic and industrial sites are located in minority areas thereby increasing their risk to exposure. This environmental justice tool directly addresses the needs of the poor and minority groups across the nation.

Joel Rast’s article Environmental Justice and the New Regionalism regarding the smart growth policies talks about how a strategy for reframing the new regionalist debate is needed which, in a way, may resonate more with minority stakeholders. He further goes on the state that while the new regionalism calls for policies benefiting low-income, inner-city residents, in practice, it contains a profound suburban, middle-class bias. For the most part, inner-city minorities have not been provided with compelling reasons to engage in the new regionalist dialogue. This lack of engagement, in turn, perpetuates the failure of new regionalist initiatives to seriously confront the problem of inner-city poverty. The article directly addresses the author’s concerns of addressing the needs of the minority.

A second relevant reading is David M. Konisky’s article Inequities in Enforcement? Environmental Justice and Government Performance, talks about mass mobilization of minority groups in the 1980s protesting the siting of hazardous waste and unwanted land uses in low income and minority communities. Additionally, a nationwide study by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) brought further awareness to possible environmental inequalities. The CRJ study investigated the relationship between the location of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) and poor and minority communities, and demonstrated that as the percentage of these groups increased, so too did the probability of there being a hazardous waste facility in their area.

Reference:
"Environmental Justice" Tool in the Works
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/24/tech/main5186668.shtml

Week 8 Readings

Week 8: March 8-14
Topic: Global Environmental Issues

Tasks:
1. Readings:
- Chapters 12-15 in Vig
- Week 8 Articles on Blackboard under "Course Documents"
2. Post two weekly comments for participation
3. Assignment #5
- Posted Online: March 8 under "Assignments" on Blackboard
- Due Date: Sunday, March 28 (Midnight MST)

Week 7 Readings March 1-7

Week 7: March 1-7
Topic: The Greening of Industry & Sustainable Development

Tasks:
1. Readings:
- Chapters 10-11 in Vig
- Week 7 Articles on Blackboard under "Course Documents"

2. Post two weekly comments for participation

3. Assignment #4
- Posted Online: March 1 under "Assignments" on Blackboard
- Due Date: Sunday, March 14 (Midnight MST)

Assignment #3

13.] I believe that managers and environmental planners should engage the public even if they know that the public’s knowledge is limited about the science of an environmental issue. The Shepherd and Bowler article provided good rationales for my belief in public participation; first, they describe public participation as a fair conduct of democratic governance in public decision-making activities. Secondly, by engaging in public participation, meeting public needs will be ensured. Third, by engaging the public, hostility can be reduced since the public can influence the decision-making process. Finally, by including local knowledge and values and publicly examining expert knowledge, the final decision becomes better.

The negative consequences of not including the public can be an increased distrust of the public with public managers and environmental planners in the event something goes wrong. The Army’s example in the Shepherd and Bowler article is a good illustration of how public participation should be garnered. Although the program was put on hold, feedback can be gained regarding why the public was not fully satisfied. In the end, I feel that public participation is vital in ensuring a healthy relationship between the decision makers and the community.

14.] Contingent valuation (CV) can be used to evaluate the installation of wind turbines and solar panels. Since the installation of such technologies is considered to have an impact on natural land formations and migratory birds, CV can be sued to gather information on the willingness of the public to support such programs despite their negative effects.

Another use of CV can be to address preservation of natural forests. Since natural forests are necessary for the protection of wildlife and the ecology, CV can be used to address the preferences of people regarding the protection endangered species and the environment. In both cases, CV can also be used to come up with monetary estimates for losses caused by any damages.

15.] I don’t believe that CV can be used in the event of transboundary air pollution or contamination. Since such pollution automatically constitutes a political issue, it is best to rely on government officials to address the problem and reach an amicable solution.

Another example of not using CV would be during instances of wildfires that may be traced back to an individual or individuals. Although appropriate fines should be imposed, the fact that a wildfire was started by an individual as opposed to a company does not necessitate the use of a contingent valuation.

Week 6 Readings

Week 6: February 22-28
Topic: Environmental Justice

Tasks:
1. Readings: Week 6 Articles on Blackboard under "Course Documents"
2. Post two weekly comments for participation

Week 5 Readings

Topic: Environmental Policy Tools & Valuing Nature

Tasks:

1. Readings
- Chapters 8-9 Vig
- Week 5 Articles on Blackboard under "Course Documents"

2. Post two weekly comments for participation
3. Assignment #3
- Posted Online: Februaru 15 under "Assignments" on Blackboard
- Due Date: Sunday, February 28 (Midnight MST)

Week 4 Readings

Week 4: February 8-14

Topic: NEPA, Environmental Impact Assessment and Citizen Participation

Tasks:

1. Readings: Week 4 Articles on Blackboard under "Course Documents"
2. Post two weekly comments for participation

Part 2 - My Op-Ed

Part 2

Environmental Policy Trends

The history of environmental policy over the last few decades has been an uneven one and focusing either on short-term or long-term agendas. Overtime, the continuity of strong public support for environmental protection and expansion of government authority has strengthened. When George W. Bush was elected president in 2001, within two months of taking office he announced a reversal in a campaign pledge to impose controls on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Additionally, he announced that the United States would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change arguing that it was “fatally flawed” and placed too much unfair burden on the U.S. economy.

Presidential powers in enacting and sustaining environmental policies can be crucial in its success and widespread adoption. Presidents have a major role in agenda setting. They have the ability to bring issues to the public’s attention, define terms of public debate, and rally public opinion and support. Presidential powers, such as those of President Nixon can also be crucial in mobilizing expertise groups inside and outside the government to lay the foundation of policies and legislation that set into motion plans of action for generations.

Until the 1970 the federal government played a limited role in making environmental policies. In 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act to preserve forest lands and approved the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to fund federal purchases of land for conservation purposes. The third Act of the 1960s was the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 to protect selected rivers with “outstandingly remarkable features.” Land and water conservation were at the core of environmental policies before an overarching government body was formed.

The first Earth Day was on April 22, 1970. Teachings about environmental problems highlighted the importance of the ecology on the nation’s social and political agendas. With the meaning and nature of “quality of life” evolving rapidly, the concern, need, and demand for stronger environmental protection grew among the population. Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, setting the stage for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. President Nixon proclaimed the 1970s as the environmental decade, increasing new federal measures that covered air and water pollution control, pesticide regulation, endangered species protection, control of hazardous and toxic chemicals, ocean and coastline protection, better stewardship of public lands, requirements for restoration of strip-mined lands, setting aside more than 100 million acres of Alaskan wilderness for varying degrees of protection, and the creation of a “Superfund” in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for cleaning up of waste sites. The aforementioned were a truly remarkable level of achievement for environmental policies during the 1970s.

It is interesting to see how the 1970s were a giant leap forward for environmental protection. There were also other signs of commitment to environmental policy goals such as the doubling of are designated to national wilderness (excluding Alaska). However, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration brought a marked difference in the United States environmental policy agenda. Virtually all environmental protection and resource policies enacted during the 1970s were reevaluated in light of the president’s desire to reduce the scope of government regulation, shift responsibilities to the states, and rely more on the private sector. With President Reagan’s agendas clearly not in the favor of environmental protection, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, James Watt and the Administrator of the EPA, Anne Gorsuch (later Burford) were forced to resign due to their continued criticism of the administration.

President Reagan’s actions had a paradoxical effect on environmental issues across the nation. National and grassroots environmental groups organized and appealed successfully to the public creating further political incentives for environmental activism at all levels of government. Even after George H. W. Bush come into office, the White House was divided environmental issues for both ideological and economic reasons. Following George H. W. Bush, President Clinton exerted only sporadic leadership on the environment throughout his two terms in office. However, he was also praised for his environmental appointments and for his administration’s support for initiatives such as the restoration of the Florida Everglades and other actions based on new approaches to ecosystem management. President Clinton also reversed many Reagan and George H. W. Bush era executive actions that were widely criticized by environmentalists, and he favored increased spending on areas such as alternative energy and conservation research.

As for the George W. Bush administration, within two months of taking office, President Bush reversed a campaign pledge to impose controls on carbon dioxide emission from power plants and withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol despite pleas from world leaders and much of the scientific community. The controversial Healthy Forest Restoration Act/Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) of 2003 allowed loggers to thin parts of federally owned protected forests based on the theory that it will reduce the risk of forest fires. During his Presidential Campaign George Bush had promised to clean up power plants and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, specifically $2 billion for research in clean coal technology. He later reversed his position, stating that carbon dioxide was not considered a pollutant under his Clean Air Act and that restricting carbon dioxide emissions would lead to higher energy prices. George W. Bush’s legacy has also been to take wolves off the endangered species list, allowing power plants to operate near national parks, loosening regulations for factory farm waste, and loosening mountaintop coal-mining operations.

The history of environmental policies in the United States has had its ups and downs. Overall however, there has been significant growth in national support for environmental policies. Much like the Nixon administration, the Obama administration is an upward trend from recent administrations in ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to place the environment at the forefront of policy and decision-making. President Obama’s 4-year term has just come to an end. While many criticized his efforts to further environmental agendas over creating jobs, few truly understood his resolve, determination, and foresight. From the first day in office, the Obama administration has been at the forefront of battling an economic depression comparable to the Great Depression while he has singled handedly make more efforts towards protecting the environment than the two Bush administrations combined.

A considerable effort has been made to his $150 billion funding for clean energy technologies over a 10-year period. President Obama has been able to modernize the U.S. power grid, revitalized the development of nuclear plants, funded research for use of coal without emissions of heat-trapping gases, and diversified the U.S. renewable energy portfolio to contribute 10 percent of the national energy grid by the end of 2012. All this while he successfully steered the country out of a recession. A remarkable achievement for one man in one presidential term.

References Part 2

1. Device Daily. November 9, 2008. “Obama To Change The Energy And Environmental Policy.” Retrieved February 6, 2010 from http://www.devicedaily.com/environment/obama-to-change-the-energy-and-environmental-policy.html

Part 1 - President Obama Article

Part 1

The United States’ environmental policy began when President Nixon in 1969-1970 signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and later in the year created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With the EPA, environmental programs were consolidated into a single entity and further lead to the Clean Air Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments in the same year. The birth of the environmental movement and supporting policies signaled the United States’ efforts in the recognition and struggle to protect the environment. With the administrations that followed President Nixon, additional advancements were made in measuring problems and being innovative with our approach to protecting the environment. In this regard, the Obama administration is in line with the core intent of environmental policy issues and is aligned with previous administrations in funding research and development in cleaner forms of energy with the exception of the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Although the Obama administration’s environmental policy is aligned with the previous administrations, the nature of environmental issues have changed since the 1970s. I singled out the Reagan and Bush administrations as not being aligned with the intentions of the environmental policy that was established by President Nixon. President Reagan entered into office openly unsympathetic to environmental issues. With the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 he gradually reduced the EPA’s budget by 30 percent and cut the number of EPA employees. He then appointed people at key agency positions who would enthusiastically follow the Reagan administration. Under this strategy environmental policies were written and interpreted more favorable for industry interests.

As for the Bush administration, within two months of taking office, President Bush reversed a campaign pledge to impose controls on carbon dioxide emission from power plants and withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol despite pleas from world leaders and much of the scientific community. Fortunately, the end of the Reagan and Bush administrations resulted in the rebirth of meaningful environmental policies that have brought us to the Obama administration where President Obama recently announced that part of his “clean energy” agenda was to reduce dependence on foreign oil and create more jobs.

Although reducing dependence on foreign oil and creating more jobs are clichéd goals to make, President Obama has been actively taking the necessary steps to ensure we are heading in the green direction. Administrations officials mentioned that new moves were based on scientifically sound research that resulted in a green light for coal-based electricity and corn based fuel. Furthermore, there will be implementation of new technology that would allow for continued use of coal without emissions of heat-trapping gases. Although I do not disagree with Obama’s policies on environmental issues, I would have appreciated a firmer U.S. stance at the Copenhagen summit in December 2008. The summit was an opportune moment for President Obama to solidify the American position on environmental policies and could have essentially marked a new beginning for climate change measures around the globe. Additionally, I hope to see more detailed information on the “sound scientific research” that has resulted in technologies that allow for use of coal without heat-trapping gas emissions and how that applies to the environmental costs of mining and processing coal.

Reference Part 1

Schoof, Renee. February 4, 2010. “Biofuels, Coal are part of Obama’s Clean-Energy Plan.” Retrieved February 6, 2010 from http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100204/BUSINESS01/2040332/1003/BUSINESS

Week 3 Reading:

Tasks:

1. Readings: Chapters 4-7 in Vig
2. Post two weekly comments for participation
3. Assignment #2
- Posted online: February 1 under "Assignments" on Blackboard
- Due Date: Sunday, february 14 (Midnight MST)

Week 2

Readings for Week 2.

Tasks:
1. Readings: Chapter 1-3 in Vig
2. Post two weekly comments for participation.

The above picture is of Doe Run Peru in La Oroya, Peru. La Oroya is one of the 10 most polluted places in the world. The smelter plant is owned by New York billionaire Ira Rennert. The plant is the sole means of livelihood for the people who live there and suffer the ill-effects of the pollution.

References:

1. A Peruvian Town in Limbo (Slide show)

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/06/25/world/06252009PERU_index.html

2. In the Andes, a Toxic Site Also Provides a Livelihood

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/world/americas/25peru.html?_r=1

About Me

Hello everyone! This is the first time I have created a blog so it is a little exciting for me. My name is Farhan Ahmed and I am a masters student in the School of Letters and Sciences pursuing an MA in Applied Ethics and the Professions with a focus in Science, Technology and Ethics. I also have a masters in Global Technology and Development from the ASU Polytechnic campus and an undergraduate degree in Management from the W. P. Carey School of Business. Apart from school, I work part time for the ASU Residential Life Technology Center and manage their support helpdesk.

I am originally from India, and came here several years ago. This will be my last semester taking classes to graduate so I am very excited to learn as much as I can from all of you.