The article I selected was taken from http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2010/04/23/20100423higley-schools-solar-panels-0424.html.
This article deals with the local level of government planning for sustainability. Higley Unifed School District approved an agreement with a solar company to help reduce energy costs by installing solar panels on school rooftops. The agreement would reduce the energy costs of the school district from one third to one half, (6 cents per kilowatt hour as opposed to 9.5-11 cents/kwh). The school district is expected to save up to two million dollars annually on energy costs with these solar panels in place, the solar panel company (Sundial Arizona) believes that the savings will exceed two million annually. This will keep the schools with solar panels from spending money on energy bills (as the panels will produce more than the schools are projected to use), SRP will buy additional energy produced by the schools, and this will all be done using a free resource that is never in short supply in Arizona, sunlight. It will also free up liquid capital that schools in Arizona desperately need for other programs.
This issue could easily be addressed at the state level, giving grants to schools to help pay for this sort of project for all public schools. The biggest problem for this sort of solution would be the initial cost of the solar panels (not stated in the article), as installation and repairs have a 25 year warranty. There would definitely be an improved environmental quality for Arizona if this was implemented state-wide. Using clean solar energy for schools would certainly have an impact on the state level. If civilians and other agencies noticed the vast annual savings that is produced by solar energy, it is likely that they too would enroll in similar programs. Again, the initial cost of such programs are probably likely to deter enrollment, however, there would certainly be huge financial savings in the long run.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Assignment 6
1. Which components of your policy issue (for your final paper) are most relevant to Cohen’s “Values” Framework and why?
The issue does stem from behavior that is fundamental to our lifestyle, especially in the United States. The economic impact of regulating industry is a huge concern, especially during a recession. Also, the United States does not have public transportation systems that are as extensive or widely used as some European countries. Owning a car is a status symbol in the United States, it is also almost totally necessary if commuting from the suburbs to the city to work (as many Americans do). The problem and solution also raise issues of right and wrong, it is inherently wrong to pollute, but many also find that extensive government regulation on private businesses and lifestyles is also wrong. There is also a tradeoff between ecological well-being and human well-being in the short-term. Changing technology in cars and factories will be expensive in the short-term, but more cost-effective and safer in the long-term. The problem also has extensive conflicting values. Many in the United States believe that economic benefits outweigh the cost to the environment, while others believe the exact opposite. These two sides are divided basically by two types of thinking: short-term, and long-term.
2. Which components of your policy issue are most relevant to Cohen’s “Political” Framework and why?
This issue has been introduced and referred to committee, at this point. The federal government in the United States is the level that is considered primarily responsible for addressing this issue, as far as general reform and regulation goes. However, several state governments would like to set stricter policies for cleaner air. This issue clusters with other political issues in the United States, mainly with private business. Essentially, government regulation will be costly to private business, and the economics of this issue are certainly far-reaching to many sectors of private business. As far as political winners and losers go, de-regulation of private business to stimulate economic growth has been the main focus over the last three decades. President Clinton tried to enact some policies such as the Clean Air Act, but the Bush Jr. administration de-regulated quite a lot of the environmental policies in favor of business; as did Bush Sr. and Reagan. The potential winners in political competition, in the short term, will either be the environmentalists or the pro-business supporters. In the long term, though, everyone will win if this bill is passed. New regulation will help clean the air, and will create new technologies and jobs which will stimulate the economy in the long run.
3. Which components of your policy issue are most relevant for Cohen’s ‘Science and Technology’ framework?
There is not scientific certainty about the causes and effects of this problem. There are divided factions in the scientific community about global warming and the effects of greenhouse gasses. There are theories that support other likely causes of global warming as well, such as solar cycles. However, the political support behind global warming is massive, even with new science pointing towards other causes. Either way, though, the risk is simply too large to bet on other causes. Humans cannot control solar cycles, but they can control (or limit, or reduce) the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere. The attempt needs to be made to control carbon emissions because the risk is simply too large to gamble on other theories, as it is a controllable factor that may be contributing to the rising temperatures. There are technologies available that can be utilized and produced on a large scale to help reduce carbon emissions as well. Solar energy, wind energy, electric or hybrid cars, hydrogen cars, and other technologies currently exist that either produce no carbon emissions or far fewer carbon emissions. These technologies need to become more mainstream, and therefore less expensive and a viable choice for consumers.
4. Which components of your policy issue are more relevant for Cohen’s “Policy Design” framework?
There are a lot of incentives and disincentives that can be used with this policy. Organizations can be given monetary benefits such as grants or tax breaks, or they can be given technological assistance. Obviously fines and other sanctions can be used as disincentives for companies who do not comply with regulations. The policy design does not really reflect any strategic thinking, it basically says that we need cleaner air and that carbon emissions are bad; it does not really provide a strategy of how to get cleaner air. There should be some progress made towards a solution with this policy, because it will allow for the government to begin specific programs that will target the reduction of carbon emissions. There are many ways that this goal can be achieved, but this general policy of cleaner air will lead to many specific, less generalized policies that will help contribute to cleaner air.
5. Which components of your policy issue are most relevant to Cohen’s “Management” framework?
The organizational capacity exists to directly utilize and encourage the use of technology and other strategic plan elements needed to reduce carbon emissions. The government can give grants or other types of support to companies that produce technology that reduce or eliminate carbon emissions, making the technology cheaper for individuals to utilize. These types of technologies simply need to be used more, while older technology that pollutes on a greater scale needs to be phased out as budgets permit. This procedure will lead to more sustainable environmental practices as well as reduce energy dependence on fossil fuels.
The issue does stem from behavior that is fundamental to our lifestyle, especially in the United States. The economic impact of regulating industry is a huge concern, especially during a recession. Also, the United States does not have public transportation systems that are as extensive or widely used as some European countries. Owning a car is a status symbol in the United States, it is also almost totally necessary if commuting from the suburbs to the city to work (as many Americans do). The problem and solution also raise issues of right and wrong, it is inherently wrong to pollute, but many also find that extensive government regulation on private businesses and lifestyles is also wrong. There is also a tradeoff between ecological well-being and human well-being in the short-term. Changing technology in cars and factories will be expensive in the short-term, but more cost-effective and safer in the long-term. The problem also has extensive conflicting values. Many in the United States believe that economic benefits outweigh the cost to the environment, while others believe the exact opposite. These two sides are divided basically by two types of thinking: short-term, and long-term.
2. Which components of your policy issue are most relevant to Cohen’s “Political” Framework and why?
This issue has been introduced and referred to committee, at this point. The federal government in the United States is the level that is considered primarily responsible for addressing this issue, as far as general reform and regulation goes. However, several state governments would like to set stricter policies for cleaner air. This issue clusters with other political issues in the United States, mainly with private business. Essentially, government regulation will be costly to private business, and the economics of this issue are certainly far-reaching to many sectors of private business. As far as political winners and losers go, de-regulation of private business to stimulate economic growth has been the main focus over the last three decades. President Clinton tried to enact some policies such as the Clean Air Act, but the Bush Jr. administration de-regulated quite a lot of the environmental policies in favor of business; as did Bush Sr. and Reagan. The potential winners in political competition, in the short term, will either be the environmentalists or the pro-business supporters. In the long term, though, everyone will win if this bill is passed. New regulation will help clean the air, and will create new technologies and jobs which will stimulate the economy in the long run.
3. Which components of your policy issue are most relevant for Cohen’s ‘Science and Technology’ framework?
There is not scientific certainty about the causes and effects of this problem. There are divided factions in the scientific community about global warming and the effects of greenhouse gasses. There are theories that support other likely causes of global warming as well, such as solar cycles. However, the political support behind global warming is massive, even with new science pointing towards other causes. Either way, though, the risk is simply too large to bet on other causes. Humans cannot control solar cycles, but they can control (or limit, or reduce) the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere. The attempt needs to be made to control carbon emissions because the risk is simply too large to gamble on other theories, as it is a controllable factor that may be contributing to the rising temperatures. There are technologies available that can be utilized and produced on a large scale to help reduce carbon emissions as well. Solar energy, wind energy, electric or hybrid cars, hydrogen cars, and other technologies currently exist that either produce no carbon emissions or far fewer carbon emissions. These technologies need to become more mainstream, and therefore less expensive and a viable choice for consumers.
4. Which components of your policy issue are more relevant for Cohen’s “Policy Design” framework?
There are a lot of incentives and disincentives that can be used with this policy. Organizations can be given monetary benefits such as grants or tax breaks, or they can be given technological assistance. Obviously fines and other sanctions can be used as disincentives for companies who do not comply with regulations. The policy design does not really reflect any strategic thinking, it basically says that we need cleaner air and that carbon emissions are bad; it does not really provide a strategy of how to get cleaner air. There should be some progress made towards a solution with this policy, because it will allow for the government to begin specific programs that will target the reduction of carbon emissions. There are many ways that this goal can be achieved, but this general policy of cleaner air will lead to many specific, less generalized policies that will help contribute to cleaner air.
5. Which components of your policy issue are most relevant to Cohen’s “Management” framework?
The organizational capacity exists to directly utilize and encourage the use of technology and other strategic plan elements needed to reduce carbon emissions. The government can give grants or other types of support to companies that produce technology that reduce or eliminate carbon emissions, making the technology cheaper for individuals to utilize. These types of technologies simply need to be used more, while older technology that pollutes on a greater scale needs to be phased out as budgets permit. This procedure will lead to more sustainable environmental practices as well as reduce energy dependence on fossil fuels.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
H.RES.354
This bill is stating that the climate change of the Earth is probably due to the increase in human greenhouse gas emissions. It cites quite a few sources supporting this claim as well, and stating that there is evidence that carbon emissions are unhealthy for humans. The bill asks for Congress to recognize that litigation is needed to help control this problem and the risks of global warming, and to recognize that the changing global temperature is likely due to the increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.
Here is a copy of the bill I am using:
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.
Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in March 2007 that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas concentrations;
Whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that climate change may lead to increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife, and ecosystems, and higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant;
Whereas the National Academies of Sciences recognizes significant global warming is occurring, it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities, and this warming has already led to change in the Earth’s climate;
Whereas the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has concluded that rising sea levels are submerging low-lying lands, eroding beaches, converting wetlands to open water, exacerbating coastal flooding, and increasing the salinity of estuaries and freshwater aquifers;
Whereas the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) affirms 2008 was the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on combined average of land and ocean surface temperatures;
Whereas the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) affirms that greenhouse gas concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere have increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, with carbon dioxide growing from about 280 ppm in 1850 to about 380 ppm today; and
Whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions; and
(2) recognizes legislation is needed to mitigate risks humans and ecosystems face from a warming climate system.
Taken from: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-354
Here is a copy of the bill I am using:
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.
Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in March 2007 that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas concentrations;
Whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that climate change may lead to increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife, and ecosystems, and higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant;
Whereas the National Academies of Sciences recognizes significant global warming is occurring, it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities, and this warming has already led to change in the Earth’s climate;
Whereas the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has concluded that rising sea levels are submerging low-lying lands, eroding beaches, converting wetlands to open water, exacerbating coastal flooding, and increasing the salinity of estuaries and freshwater aquifers;
Whereas the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) affirms 2008 was the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on combined average of land and ocean surface temperatures;
Whereas the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) affirms that greenhouse gas concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere have increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, with carbon dioxide growing from about 280 ppm in 1850 to about 380 ppm today; and
Whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions; and
(2) recognizes legislation is needed to mitigate risks humans and ecosystems face from a warming climate system.
Taken from: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-354
Assignment 5
1. Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and the US did to increase their economic well-being?
a. Why or why not?
This is an interesting question, on the surface I would say that a country has the right to do with its own resources as it pleases. Countries like the United States that are currently developed need to find a way to have sustainable natural resources. If a developing country chooses to deplete its natural resources and have a ‘tragedy of the commons’ then that developing country should not receive aid from a country that has planned for sustainability. This may seem cruel, but it shouldn’t be the responsibility of a few nations who planned better to support those who do not.
On the other hand, it could be seen as a moral obligation for developed countries to steer developing nations in the right direction, forcing them to conserve and plan for sustainability. This will slow economic development in the short term, but in the long term it will prove beneficial. The developed nations would probably have to use force (economic or otherwise) to achieve this goal, which is obviously not optimal (or even legal). The developed nations need to choose which action they will take, either one of these options would probably work; one is more humane and much more difficult to achieve.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
a. Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?
Equity would be difficult to achieve between developing and industrialized nations. Developing nations produce more carbon emissions per capita than developed nations do, that’s just the way it is. A middle ground must be met though, so yes.
b. What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?
When producing large amount of emissions, developing nations are affecting all nations, which is not equitable. They should be required to reduce emissions. However, developed nations should help by giving monetary aid or technological aid to help reduce emissions of developing nations. A developing nation should have the right to have a stronger economy and a higher standard of living, if developed nations want fewer emissions, then they need to help the developing nation by providing technological or monetary support.
c. Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?
A developing nation should expect to have developed nations help them financially if sanctions are to be put on emissions. Fewer emissions generally equates to less money and growth for these countries. If these developing nations are expected to produce less for the good of all, then they should be compensated in some way. To be equitable, it seems to me that sanctions on development should be supplemented with some sort of aid.
a. Why or why not?
This is an interesting question, on the surface I would say that a country has the right to do with its own resources as it pleases. Countries like the United States that are currently developed need to find a way to have sustainable natural resources. If a developing country chooses to deplete its natural resources and have a ‘tragedy of the commons’ then that developing country should not receive aid from a country that has planned for sustainability. This may seem cruel, but it shouldn’t be the responsibility of a few nations who planned better to support those who do not.
On the other hand, it could be seen as a moral obligation for developed countries to steer developing nations in the right direction, forcing them to conserve and plan for sustainability. This will slow economic development in the short term, but in the long term it will prove beneficial. The developed nations would probably have to use force (economic or otherwise) to achieve this goal, which is obviously not optimal (or even legal). The developed nations need to choose which action they will take, either one of these options would probably work; one is more humane and much more difficult to achieve.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
a. Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?
Equity would be difficult to achieve between developing and industrialized nations. Developing nations produce more carbon emissions per capita than developed nations do, that’s just the way it is. A middle ground must be met though, so yes.
b. What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?
When producing large amount of emissions, developing nations are affecting all nations, which is not equitable. They should be required to reduce emissions. However, developed nations should help by giving monetary aid or technological aid to help reduce emissions of developing nations. A developing nation should have the right to have a stronger economy and a higher standard of living, if developed nations want fewer emissions, then they need to help the developing nation by providing technological or monetary support.
c. Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?
A developing nation should expect to have developed nations help them financially if sanctions are to be put on emissions. Fewer emissions generally equates to less money and growth for these countries. If these developing nations are expected to produce less for the good of all, then they should be compensated in some way. To be equitable, it seems to me that sanctions on development should be supplemented with some sort of aid.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Assignment 4
West Oakland, California is the area affected by this environmental justice issue. “West Oakland experienced expansions during the two World Wars, as shipbuilding attracted residents from inside and outside the country, resulting in a diverse group of people living in the area. With the end of World War II, West Oakland suffered from severe job losses, and its economic decline continued through the 1980s. West Oakland today bears witness to its social and economic history. Its residents are 64% African Americans, 16% Latinos, and 9% Asian and Pacific Islanders. West Oakland also hosts numerous abandoned waste sites from its industrial past, contaminated with lead and vinyl chloride, among many other chemicals with multi-syllabic names, as well as a large port that attracts diesel truck traffic and polluting marine vessels. The leading causes of death in West Oakland during 1996 to 1998 were heart disease (27%) and cancer (22%), and respiratory illnesses like asthma are a big problem (Kang, Helen).”
The author suggests that the socioeconomic status along with the large ethnic minority population is the reason that the government is not acting in the best interest of the community. However, it is probably more likely that the socioeconomic status of the community has more of an effect on the governments’ inaction.
Those of lower socioeconomic status usually have less access to higher education. If the community is ignorant of the harmful effects of the environmental factors around it, then it is unlikely that they will petition for change. More highly educated and affluent communities are more likely to have access to information pertaining to their environment, and are more likely to have the resources to make changes within the community. The more affluent community would probably have more political influence, which is an idea outlined by David Konisky, who suggested that government behavior may be influenced by the political capacity of potentially affected populations. This idea is relevant because it takes a static characteristic, such as race, and removes it from the equation. Konisky believes that the government may be discriminating based on SES, not race. Low income communities have less political power because they lack the necessary capital, both educational and monetary. The fact that minorities are overrepresented in some low SES communities is more coincidental than an act of an oppressive, racist government. This is what Konisky found in his research, that there was a strong correlation between poverty and state enforcement, while racial compensation of a community (controlled for SES) did not seem to correlate with state enforcement.
In this article, a woman from the low SES area started a petition to solve an environmental problem, and she ended up winning her case. The woman saw an inequality, and stated that the current laws were not sufficient for dealing with the problem she was interested in. She created a petition, organized a campaign, and resolved the issue. This type of action may be atypical in a low SES community, but the article shows that the government will respond to the 'squeaky wheel'.
Link to article: http://lsnc.net/equity/2009/05/15/a-case-study-of-environmental-justice-work-in-west-oakland/
The author suggests that the socioeconomic status along with the large ethnic minority population is the reason that the government is not acting in the best interest of the community. However, it is probably more likely that the socioeconomic status of the community has more of an effect on the governments’ inaction.
Those of lower socioeconomic status usually have less access to higher education. If the community is ignorant of the harmful effects of the environmental factors around it, then it is unlikely that they will petition for change. More highly educated and affluent communities are more likely to have access to information pertaining to their environment, and are more likely to have the resources to make changes within the community. The more affluent community would probably have more political influence, which is an idea outlined by David Konisky, who suggested that government behavior may be influenced by the political capacity of potentially affected populations. This idea is relevant because it takes a static characteristic, such as race, and removes it from the equation. Konisky believes that the government may be discriminating based on SES, not race. Low income communities have less political power because they lack the necessary capital, both educational and monetary. The fact that minorities are overrepresented in some low SES communities is more coincidental than an act of an oppressive, racist government. This is what Konisky found in his research, that there was a strong correlation between poverty and state enforcement, while racial compensation of a community (controlled for SES) did not seem to correlate with state enforcement.
In this article, a woman from the low SES area started a petition to solve an environmental problem, and she ended up winning her case. The woman saw an inequality, and stated that the current laws were not sufficient for dealing with the problem she was interested in. She created a petition, organized a campaign, and resolved the issue. This type of action may be atypical in a low SES community, but the article shows that the government will respond to the 'squeaky wheel'.
Link to article: http://lsnc.net/equity/2009/05/15/a-case-study-of-environmental-justice-work-in-west-oakland/
Sunday, February 28, 2010
General CV questions
13. Public managers should try to include the public, even if they are ignorant of the issue or the science behind it. They are, in fact, using the publics money and acting in their best interest. A good way for planners to engage the public would be to have a vote on various issues, sending out explanations of the legislation a few weeks before the vote. The odds of the majority of the public reading and participating are small, but that isn't the fault of the agency.
14. CV would be appropriate in a case involving damage to national parks. The government needs to restore whatever hypothetical damage was done, and it would probably be easy to locate the company(ies) who are responsible. CV would estimate the total damages and essentially send a bill to the offenders. The example of the oil spill from the reading is also an excellent CV case. Even if unintentional, the damage to the environment was caused by the oil company, and they should be liable for the cleanup.
15. The issue of acid rain would not be a conducive use of CV. Simply put, there are many contributors to acid rain, and it would probably not be legally viable to use CV against a main contributor (as most people are culprits). However, imposing sanctions making companies reduce harmful emissions would be useful. CV only seems like it would be useful in a case where a few specific parties can be held liable for damages.
14. CV would be appropriate in a case involving damage to national parks. The government needs to restore whatever hypothetical damage was done, and it would probably be easy to locate the company(ies) who are responsible. CV would estimate the total damages and essentially send a bill to the offenders. The example of the oil spill from the reading is also an excellent CV case. Even if unintentional, the damage to the environment was caused by the oil company, and they should be liable for the cleanup.
15. The issue of acid rain would not be a conducive use of CV. Simply put, there are many contributors to acid rain, and it would probably not be legally viable to use CV against a main contributor (as most people are culprits). However, imposing sanctions making companies reduce harmful emissions would be useful. CV only seems like it would be useful in a case where a few specific parties can be held liable for damages.
Friday, February 12, 2010
My Own Op-Ed
Environmental policy has had a number of changes in the last four decades. Before the 1970’s, government played a very limited role in environmental policymaking. Mostly, environmental policy pre-1970 was focused on preserving national parks; during the mid 1960’s, President Johnson was concerned with planning global population research to combat the scarcity of world resources. Issues such as pollution were considered local matters until federal guidelines were made, such as the Clean Air Act of 1963 and amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. These set the stages for setting federal guidelines on pollution.
Policy began to escalate in the 1970’s, and Congress set the stage for increasing innovation at the end of 1969 when it passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This act essentially declared that the Federal Government, along with State and local governments, would use all practical means to create and maintain a sustainable environment for present and future Americans. The increase in legislation for this decade was massive, and included water and air pollution control, pesticide regulation, endangered species protection, controls of hazardous and toxic chemicals, ocean and coastline protection, better stewardship of public lands, requirements for restoration of strip-mined lands, cleaning of toxic waste, and setting aside nearly 100 million acres of land in the Alaskan wilderness to varying degrees of protection. National parks grew substantially during this period, as did the national wildlife refuge system. Energy issues in the 1970’s were engaged in a policy stalemate, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations all attempted to create policies for achieving energy independence by increasing energy supplies, but for the most part these were unsuccessful.
During the 1980’s, President Reagan felt that environmental regulation was a barrier to the supply side of economics, he then weakened or reversed many of the policies of the 1970’s. The Economic Recovery Act of 1981 cut income taxes by 25 percent and greatly reduced spending on environmental and social programs, Reagan also greatly reduced the staff on the Council of Environmental Quality as well. The agencies and policies that Reagan could not eliminate were simply weakened by budget and staffing cuts, making them largely ineffective. Reagan did, however, unintentionally strengthen the environmental movement through his lax enforcement of pollution laws and pro-development resource policies. George H. Bush was passive in his presidency, and that was reflected in his environmental policy, although he was more environmentally friendly than his predecessor. The Clean Air Act of 1990 had lofty goals of controlling acid rain, reducing air pollution, and lower emissions of toxic chemicals by huge amounts.
The 1990’s saw two terms of President Clinton, and Vice President Al Gore. Environmentalists were disappointed by Clintons’ lack of progress, however, he and Gore pushed an extensive agenda of environmental policy reform as part of their larger effort to “reinvent government” in order to make it more responsive and efficient to public concerns. Clinton also restored the Florida Everglades and had other initiatives based on ecosystem management, he also reversed many of the Reagan and Bush era executive orders that were unpopular with environmentalists. Clinton and Gore argued that the relationship between economic growth and environmental protection gave a false choice, because environmental cleanup and maintenance creates jobs; as does developing environmentally clean and energy-efficient technologies. They provided incentives and infrastructure projects to promote green technologies, a philosophy President Obama has adopted. The Clinton Administration was largely unsuccessful with its environmental policy, although Clinton did try to implement several new policies and created many new agencies.
The Bush administration did not hold the values of the Clinton administration, and, like Reagan, was concerned with the economic impact of environmental protection and resource conservation. President Bush expanded the powers of the president in virtually every way after the September 11th terrorist attacks, and like Reagan, Bush used executive powers to advance an anti-regulatory, pro-business agenda through most of his tenure.
President Obama seems to be taking environmental policy the way it was handled in the 1970’s. Obama announced a 2.3 billion dollar tax credit program to help start up a clean energy sector, which will create jobs, more sustainable energy, and reduce foreign dependence on oil. President Obama also aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions made by the federal government by 28% by 2020. He also is providing incentives to automobile makers to make more fuel-efficient cars, and is considering allowing individual states set their own, more strict emissions laws for vehicles. All-in-all, President Obama is pushing legislation towards a more sustainable and cleaner future, all while keeping economics in mind. Using solar power, wind power, and reducing the amount of fossil fuels consumed due to new technology will be expensive as an initial investment, but will pay off in the future both financially and environmentally. This is in contrast to the seemingly more short-sighted Reagan and Bush administrations. Obama has a hard road ahead of him with an unpopular war, a massive recession, and a budget crisis. He does seem to be getting legislation going to give the United States a more sustainable and “greener” future.
Policy began to escalate in the 1970’s, and Congress set the stage for increasing innovation at the end of 1969 when it passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This act essentially declared that the Federal Government, along with State and local governments, would use all practical means to create and maintain a sustainable environment for present and future Americans. The increase in legislation for this decade was massive, and included water and air pollution control, pesticide regulation, endangered species protection, controls of hazardous and toxic chemicals, ocean and coastline protection, better stewardship of public lands, requirements for restoration of strip-mined lands, cleaning of toxic waste, and setting aside nearly 100 million acres of land in the Alaskan wilderness to varying degrees of protection. National parks grew substantially during this period, as did the national wildlife refuge system. Energy issues in the 1970’s were engaged in a policy stalemate, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations all attempted to create policies for achieving energy independence by increasing energy supplies, but for the most part these were unsuccessful.
During the 1980’s, President Reagan felt that environmental regulation was a barrier to the supply side of economics, he then weakened or reversed many of the policies of the 1970’s. The Economic Recovery Act of 1981 cut income taxes by 25 percent and greatly reduced spending on environmental and social programs, Reagan also greatly reduced the staff on the Council of Environmental Quality as well. The agencies and policies that Reagan could not eliminate were simply weakened by budget and staffing cuts, making them largely ineffective. Reagan did, however, unintentionally strengthen the environmental movement through his lax enforcement of pollution laws and pro-development resource policies. George H. Bush was passive in his presidency, and that was reflected in his environmental policy, although he was more environmentally friendly than his predecessor. The Clean Air Act of 1990 had lofty goals of controlling acid rain, reducing air pollution, and lower emissions of toxic chemicals by huge amounts.
The 1990’s saw two terms of President Clinton, and Vice President Al Gore. Environmentalists were disappointed by Clintons’ lack of progress, however, he and Gore pushed an extensive agenda of environmental policy reform as part of their larger effort to “reinvent government” in order to make it more responsive and efficient to public concerns. Clinton also restored the Florida Everglades and had other initiatives based on ecosystem management, he also reversed many of the Reagan and Bush era executive orders that were unpopular with environmentalists. Clinton and Gore argued that the relationship between economic growth and environmental protection gave a false choice, because environmental cleanup and maintenance creates jobs; as does developing environmentally clean and energy-efficient technologies. They provided incentives and infrastructure projects to promote green technologies, a philosophy President Obama has adopted. The Clinton Administration was largely unsuccessful with its environmental policy, although Clinton did try to implement several new policies and created many new agencies.
The Bush administration did not hold the values of the Clinton administration, and, like Reagan, was concerned with the economic impact of environmental protection and resource conservation. President Bush expanded the powers of the president in virtually every way after the September 11th terrorist attacks, and like Reagan, Bush used executive powers to advance an anti-regulatory, pro-business agenda through most of his tenure.
President Obama seems to be taking environmental policy the way it was handled in the 1970’s. Obama announced a 2.3 billion dollar tax credit program to help start up a clean energy sector, which will create jobs, more sustainable energy, and reduce foreign dependence on oil. President Obama also aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions made by the federal government by 28% by 2020. He also is providing incentives to automobile makers to make more fuel-efficient cars, and is considering allowing individual states set their own, more strict emissions laws for vehicles. All-in-all, President Obama is pushing legislation towards a more sustainable and cleaner future, all while keeping economics in mind. Using solar power, wind power, and reducing the amount of fossil fuels consumed due to new technology will be expensive as an initial investment, but will pay off in the future both financially and environmentally. This is in contrast to the seemingly more short-sighted Reagan and Bush administrations. Obama has a hard road ahead of him with an unpopular war, a massive recession, and a budget crisis. He does seem to be getting legislation going to give the United States a more sustainable and “greener” future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
