Sunday, February 28, 2010

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

Saturday, February 20, 2010

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)

Saturday, February 13, 2010

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

Saturday, February 6, 2010


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)