http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=1097120
This article discussed the new water restrictions imposed on Southern Nevada by the Southern Nevada Water Authority. The Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (SNWA)mission is to, “manage the region's water resources and develop solutions that will ensure adequate future water supplies for the Las Vegas Valley” (http://www.snwa.com/html/about_index.html). The SNWA is comprised of representatives from each of its 7 member agencies. This puts this issue squarely in the regional planning arena. As Wheeler wrote, “It makes sense that plans for park systems, ecologically sensitive natural areas, and air and water quality should be prepared on a regional scale, since watersheds, airsheds, and ecosystems are regional in nature rather than limited to the bounds of any municipal jurisdictions” (Wheeler 144).
The SNWA focuses specifically on the Colorado River water from Lake Mead to the Las Vegas Valley. It is funded by regional connection charges, a quarter-penny sales tax and a reliability surcharge. These are paid by Southern Nevada residents and thus it is Southern Nevada residents that are being targeted for the new water limitations. The water restrictions aim to reduce water usage mainly through a cutback on landscaping water usage. According to Las Vegas Now, “48% of the valley's water is used by homeowners and 65 % of that is for landscaping--that's why most of the restrictions involve watering your grass”. With the new mandates citizens will be restricted as to how often they can water their yard, wash their car and use misters, with violators being reported by their neighbors. Interestingly, the fees imposed on violators will be set and enforced by each city. This makes this issue one of local government planning as well.
This issue also could have been addressed at the state level. Nevada does have a statewide authority known as the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR), whose mission “is to conserve, protect, manage and enhance the State's water resources for Nevada's citizens through the appropriation and reallocation of the public waters” (http://water.nv.gov/). Although I’m not familiar with the intricacies of Nevada water planning, there does seem to be some overlap between the agencies that might be confusing when implementing policies. In some ways this statewide authority might be more appropriate as it is not just Southern Nevada that is plagued by drought. At the same time Wheeler does make a good point when referencing state environmental planning, “Their foundation is often a set of broad goals for the state, with much of the implementation of these principles necessarily still local” (Wheeler 132). It is possible that the NDWR is setting goals and it is up to the SNWA to achieve those goals at the regional level.
There are multiple problems with trying to achieve the goal of water reduction at the statewide level. First of all, water use is likely to vary regionally. The SNWA includes the areas of Las Vegas and Las Vegas Valley, which is the largest metro area in the state. Given this information it makes sense to tailor the water restrictions regionally so that the areas with the most people, using a great deal of water on their landscaping are all restricted as a group. In addition the SWNA is a cooperative agency supported by Southern Nevada residents. It might be more difficult for such restrictions to be passed at the state level. At the same time I believe we need to start adopting such policies on a larger scale, especially with such important issues as water in the southwest. If we are going to plan regionally it would make more sense to plan regionally between the Colorado River basin states, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, California, who should all be greatly concerned about water usage.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sustainability Planning
http://reason.com/news/show/129855.html
Article #1, The Food Miles Mistake focuses on both Sustainability Indicators as well as International Planning Issues. Food miles have become an increasingly common indicator to measure the carbon footprint of our food. The general gist is that the closer a food was grown/raised to you the better that food is for the environment. For a society that has increasingly lost touch with their food chain and it’s repercussions on the environment this is a valuable concept. But as this article points out the issues is more complicated than it first seems.
As Wheeler said, “Indicators potentially have great power to demonstrate problems, motivate action, educate the public, and show the positive effect of sustainability policies”. This is applicable to the indicator of food miles. The assumption is that if a consumer knew how far their food had traveled they may make a different, more environmentally sound choice. But Wheeler warns with good reason that, “indicator efforts must be approached with caution”. It is with this tone of caution that The Food Miles Mistake was written. Ronald Bailey delves deeper into the subject referring to research which brings to light major problems with using food miles as a sustainability indicator. It has been found that food transportation sometimes accounted for only a fraction of the greenhouse gas emitted in food production. For example, according to Bailey, “the 2005 DEFRA study found that British tomato growers emit 2.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of tomatoes grown compared to 0.6 tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of Spanish tomatoes. The difference is British tomatoes are produced in heated greenhouses”. So a Brit might believe they are doing their part for the environment by buying the locally grown tomato when in reality there is a better option available. This shows food miles should be taken with a grain of salt and are only a small part of a larger picture.
There are also sustainability issues in industrialized vs. less developed countries presented in this article. Bailey points out that subsidies provided to farmers in rich countries may be wreaking more havoc on the environment than food transportation. Farming subsidies are prevalent in the industrialized world with the United States as a major participant. As farm subsidies are distributed to farmers in these richer countries they are able to sell their food at a lower price, pushing poor farmers out of competition. It is argued that if subsidies were discontinued a great number of farmers worldwide would be able to compete in the global food market and they would be pulled out of poverty. And as we have been learning about recently, over population is a major environmental issue that opens its own Pandora’s box of problems.
There are multiple stakeholders involved in this global food production issue. All consumers of food are involved, but in 2 ways. First it is important that we be aware of why food miles began to be used as a sustainability indicator. As desert dwellers we might want to think twice about our banana purchase that had to be transported a long distance to get here, or about eating tomatoes in the winter that came from Florida. But secondly, we should not be caught up in the idea of food miles for food miles. Tomatoes that were grown locally in the winter still were grown in a greenhouse that might have been heated. If anything this concept should make us think seriously about eating seasonally, a notion that has now become foreign as we can get most vegetables any time of the year at our local supermarket. This issue also affects farmers, both in industrialized and developing countries. If the subsidy practice were halted it would be a major change in lifestyle for farmers in industrialized nations who are used to growing vast monocultures of subsidized vegetables and not having to worry too much about their income. Conversely if farmers from developing countries were allowed into the market we might see faster development of these poor countries. This ironically might lead to food traveling more miles to get from farm to table.
http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/1278949.html
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law Senate Bill 375, a bill designed to combat urban sprawl. Both Planning Processes and Institutions and Policy Mechanisms are involved in this issue. In Chapter 5 Wheeler quoted Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs described communities that are, “walkable, human scale, diverse, and oriented around a fine-grained and vibrant mix of housing, shops and public facilities”. Unfortunately, as in a lot of the country, California has been plagued with sprawl, a situation opposite of Jacobs ideal. Although the lack of diversity and vibrancy are troublesome to our human experience perhaps most troublesome to the environment is the lack of walkability in these sprawling communities. Commutes are increasing and this article states, “38% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions are stemming from transportation”. The purpose of SB 375 is to reduce this sprawl.
This bill was the effort of conscious planning processes. In 2006 California adopted goals to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2020. SB 375 is the first step in implementing that goal. Wheeler states, “Far too often excellent plans are prepared but sit for years without being implemented or acknowledged within decision-making processes”. This was almost the case as it took 3 years for California to create policy that would implement measures to achieve this goal. But the hope is that this law is better late than never. According to Wheeler if planning policy “includes specific budgeting or legally binding changes in city zoning code or law stands a much better chance of being successful in the long run”.
This is an excellent example of Institutions and Policy Mechanisms. At work making this bill happen was the California legislature, Governor and crucial to the actual implementation of the bill is the California Air Resources Board, who are required to set regional targets by September 2010 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As is crucial for success the passage of this bill exemplifies consistent planning on the part of California. California made greenhouse gas emission reduction a priority in 2006 and SB 375 carries on this priority consistently. This bill should encourage infill and discourage sprawl through a combination of incentives and mandates although one major criticism of the bill is that it is too focused at the state level. Some believe that regions should have a greater say in their local development.
SB 375 should affect all Californians. Characteristically many developers are upset about the bill because they worry it will affect their economic situation. The hope is that it will significantly improve the lives of many Californians. If it is a success there will be more communities closer to Jane Jacobs vision, where people can walk, will live near transit and will be able to enjoy diverse communities with unique housing, rather than the cookie cutter houses on the outskirts of town that make up many current communities. Most importantly this bill should help provide cleaner air to Californians as they meet their greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Article #1, The Food Miles Mistake focuses on both Sustainability Indicators as well as International Planning Issues. Food miles have become an increasingly common indicator to measure the carbon footprint of our food. The general gist is that the closer a food was grown/raised to you the better that food is for the environment. For a society that has increasingly lost touch with their food chain and it’s repercussions on the environment this is a valuable concept. But as this article points out the issues is more complicated than it first seems.
As Wheeler said, “Indicators potentially have great power to demonstrate problems, motivate action, educate the public, and show the positive effect of sustainability policies”. This is applicable to the indicator of food miles. The assumption is that if a consumer knew how far their food had traveled they may make a different, more environmentally sound choice. But Wheeler warns with good reason that, “indicator efforts must be approached with caution”. It is with this tone of caution that The Food Miles Mistake was written. Ronald Bailey delves deeper into the subject referring to research which brings to light major problems with using food miles as a sustainability indicator. It has been found that food transportation sometimes accounted for only a fraction of the greenhouse gas emitted in food production. For example, according to Bailey, “the 2005 DEFRA study found that British tomato growers emit 2.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of tomatoes grown compared to 0.6 tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of Spanish tomatoes. The difference is British tomatoes are produced in heated greenhouses”. So a Brit might believe they are doing their part for the environment by buying the locally grown tomato when in reality there is a better option available. This shows food miles should be taken with a grain of salt and are only a small part of a larger picture.
There are also sustainability issues in industrialized vs. less developed countries presented in this article. Bailey points out that subsidies provided to farmers in rich countries may be wreaking more havoc on the environment than food transportation. Farming subsidies are prevalent in the industrialized world with the United States as a major participant. As farm subsidies are distributed to farmers in these richer countries they are able to sell their food at a lower price, pushing poor farmers out of competition. It is argued that if subsidies were discontinued a great number of farmers worldwide would be able to compete in the global food market and they would be pulled out of poverty. And as we have been learning about recently, over population is a major environmental issue that opens its own Pandora’s box of problems.
There are multiple stakeholders involved in this global food production issue. All consumers of food are involved, but in 2 ways. First it is important that we be aware of why food miles began to be used as a sustainability indicator. As desert dwellers we might want to think twice about our banana purchase that had to be transported a long distance to get here, or about eating tomatoes in the winter that came from Florida. But secondly, we should not be caught up in the idea of food miles for food miles. Tomatoes that were grown locally in the winter still were grown in a greenhouse that might have been heated. If anything this concept should make us think seriously about eating seasonally, a notion that has now become foreign as we can get most vegetables any time of the year at our local supermarket. This issue also affects farmers, both in industrialized and developing countries. If the subsidy practice were halted it would be a major change in lifestyle for farmers in industrialized nations who are used to growing vast monocultures of subsidized vegetables and not having to worry too much about their income. Conversely if farmers from developing countries were allowed into the market we might see faster development of these poor countries. This ironically might lead to food traveling more miles to get from farm to table.
http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/1278949.html
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law Senate Bill 375, a bill designed to combat urban sprawl. Both Planning Processes and Institutions and Policy Mechanisms are involved in this issue. In Chapter 5 Wheeler quoted Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs described communities that are, “walkable, human scale, diverse, and oriented around a fine-grained and vibrant mix of housing, shops and public facilities”. Unfortunately, as in a lot of the country, California has been plagued with sprawl, a situation opposite of Jacobs ideal. Although the lack of diversity and vibrancy are troublesome to our human experience perhaps most troublesome to the environment is the lack of walkability in these sprawling communities. Commutes are increasing and this article states, “38% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions are stemming from transportation”. The purpose of SB 375 is to reduce this sprawl.
This bill was the effort of conscious planning processes. In 2006 California adopted goals to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2020. SB 375 is the first step in implementing that goal. Wheeler states, “Far too often excellent plans are prepared but sit for years without being implemented or acknowledged within decision-making processes”. This was almost the case as it took 3 years for California to create policy that would implement measures to achieve this goal. But the hope is that this law is better late than never. According to Wheeler if planning policy “includes specific budgeting or legally binding changes in city zoning code or law stands a much better chance of being successful in the long run”.
This is an excellent example of Institutions and Policy Mechanisms. At work making this bill happen was the California legislature, Governor and crucial to the actual implementation of the bill is the California Air Resources Board, who are required to set regional targets by September 2010 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As is crucial for success the passage of this bill exemplifies consistent planning on the part of California. California made greenhouse gas emission reduction a priority in 2006 and SB 375 carries on this priority consistently. This bill should encourage infill and discourage sprawl through a combination of incentives and mandates although one major criticism of the bill is that it is too focused at the state level. Some believe that regions should have a greater say in their local development.
SB 375 should affect all Californians. Characteristically many developers are upset about the bill because they worry it will affect their economic situation. The hope is that it will significantly improve the lives of many Californians. If it is a success there will be more communities closer to Jane Jacobs vision, where people can walk, will live near transit and will be able to enjoy diverse communities with unique housing, rather than the cookie cutter houses on the outskirts of town that make up many current communities. Most importantly this bill should help provide cleaner air to Californians as they meet their greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Defining Sustainability
1. Of all the definitions listed for sustainable development I think the best is Wheeler’s, ““Sustainable development is development that improves the long-term health of human and ecological systems”. This definition takes into account economic sustainability, environmental sustainability and social sustainability. The social and economic factors are covered under the “human system health”. Humans should be successful both socially and economically to be considered healthy. Environmental sustainability is accounted for under “ecological system health”. This definition also considers the necessity of long term planning. It is our short term tunnel vision that has led us to the current environmental situation we are in. Perhaps simultaneously a strength and a weakness, this definition is quite general and does not provide any sort of framework for sustainable development. This makes the definition most useful as a filter when creating policy. If a policy “improves the long-term health of human and ecological systems” than it is considered sustainable. This definition does assume that we would not be creating policy that would be overly detrimental to ourselves in the short term. Although, that is not to say that a policy might not require some sort of sacrifice or change in behavior in the short term.
2. There are many difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal. Perhaps most blaringly is the lack of an agreed definition of sustainability. An economist might have an entirely different view of sustainability than an environmentalist and while sustainability might be a goal of both they may end up working against each other.
Sustainability also calls for major changes, both institutionally as well as in our general outlook. While sustainability has certainly become a buzzword, a change in outlook will have really occurred when we see more people willing to walk to a local business and possibly pay a little more rather than get in their cars and drive 10 miles to a big box store to pay the cheapest price. We will see this when people are really able to take the concept to heart and assume a greater responsibility for the choices we make. Institutionally we will need to change a great many things which might be unpopular politically, such as refusing subsidies to farmers using unsustainable practices. These changes are going to be difficult and the responsibility to make these changes rests evenly on citizens and public administrators. It is difficult to make sustainability a policy goal if these hard changes are seen as unpopular. As politicians are elected for a set term they are often considering what they need to do in the short term to get re-elected. If we can make long term sustainability a priority and pass this concern onto our elected officials then sustainability can become a realistic policy goal.
3. There are many factors to consider when designing a practical framework for an environmental agency to achieve economic, social and ecological sustainability. I think the best way to do this is to base the framework on public participation. An environmental agency should on the whole be composed of environmental experts so this leaves the involvement of stakeholders interested in economic and social sustainability. Fostering a strong public participation program that will include as many citizens as possible will help to ensure social sustainability. Civil society will be encouraged to flourish and participate in the policy development. This public participation will have the dual effect of increasing the effectiveness of the agency as well as encouraging social sustainability. In a large city like Phoenix, involving economic experts could be achieved by creating a panel. The panel could be composed of local economic experts. As policies are developed they can be put before the panel for their opinions and feedback. This framework will ensure that consideration is given to ecological, economic and social sustainability. As should be the case it should be up to the agency to decide the final policy. But by consciously and thoroughly involving the public and creating an economic panel many voices will be heard which should improve the final policy.
4. Attaining a long term view that sustainable development requires will necessitate deep seated changes at many different levels. Most importantly, a long term view will require changes in values. Politicians must shift their focus from the next election to the long term good of their constituents. But in order to elect these values based politicians in the first place citizens must undertake a dramatic change in values as well. We must not look only to our current financial situation but also to the long term health of our economy and our environment. As Goodland said we don’t have time to “grow” into sustainability. If we are going to move to a long term view of sustainability we might need to sacrifice some things in the short term to achieve this goal.
I believe that in order for this to happen we must deliberately foster a growth in civil society. As civil society has dwindled so has our sense of community. We all look out for ourselves without feeling any sense of responsibility toward the underprivileged or towards future generations. I think the decline of the civil society has also led to politicians who do not feel liable to their constituents and thus act only with their self interest in mind. When people are not active in their communities there is no one to challenge politicians when they act in a shortsighted, selfish manner. But if as a society we can grow our sense of community and change the roots of our values we will make headway in adopting a long term view of sustainable development.
2. There are many difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal. Perhaps most blaringly is the lack of an agreed definition of sustainability. An economist might have an entirely different view of sustainability than an environmentalist and while sustainability might be a goal of both they may end up working against each other.
Sustainability also calls for major changes, both institutionally as well as in our general outlook. While sustainability has certainly become a buzzword, a change in outlook will have really occurred when we see more people willing to walk to a local business and possibly pay a little more rather than get in their cars and drive 10 miles to a big box store to pay the cheapest price. We will see this when people are really able to take the concept to heart and assume a greater responsibility for the choices we make. Institutionally we will need to change a great many things which might be unpopular politically, such as refusing subsidies to farmers using unsustainable practices. These changes are going to be difficult and the responsibility to make these changes rests evenly on citizens and public administrators. It is difficult to make sustainability a policy goal if these hard changes are seen as unpopular. As politicians are elected for a set term they are often considering what they need to do in the short term to get re-elected. If we can make long term sustainability a priority and pass this concern onto our elected officials then sustainability can become a realistic policy goal.
3. There are many factors to consider when designing a practical framework for an environmental agency to achieve economic, social and ecological sustainability. I think the best way to do this is to base the framework on public participation. An environmental agency should on the whole be composed of environmental experts so this leaves the involvement of stakeholders interested in economic and social sustainability. Fostering a strong public participation program that will include as many citizens as possible will help to ensure social sustainability. Civil society will be encouraged to flourish and participate in the policy development. This public participation will have the dual effect of increasing the effectiveness of the agency as well as encouraging social sustainability. In a large city like Phoenix, involving economic experts could be achieved by creating a panel. The panel could be composed of local economic experts. As policies are developed they can be put before the panel for their opinions and feedback. This framework will ensure that consideration is given to ecological, economic and social sustainability. As should be the case it should be up to the agency to decide the final policy. But by consciously and thoroughly involving the public and creating an economic panel many voices will be heard which should improve the final policy.
4. Attaining a long term view that sustainable development requires will necessitate deep seated changes at many different levels. Most importantly, a long term view will require changes in values. Politicians must shift their focus from the next election to the long term good of their constituents. But in order to elect these values based politicians in the first place citizens must undertake a dramatic change in values as well. We must not look only to our current financial situation but also to the long term health of our economy and our environment. As Goodland said we don’t have time to “grow” into sustainability. If we are going to move to a long term view of sustainability we might need to sacrifice some things in the short term to achieve this goal.
I believe that in order for this to happen we must deliberately foster a growth in civil society. As civil society has dwindled so has our sense of community. We all look out for ourselves without feeling any sense of responsibility toward the underprivileged or towards future generations. I think the decline of the civil society has also led to politicians who do not feel liable to their constituents and thus act only with their self interest in mind. When people are not active in their communities there is no one to challenge politicians when they act in a shortsighted, selfish manner. But if as a society we can grow our sense of community and change the roots of our values we will make headway in adopting a long term view of sustainable development.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Frameworks
The problem of land application of biosolids and a proposed partial solution, HR 185 raises serious issues of right and wrong. The values most affected are those of human health, the environment, transparency of food systems, and the ethics of government agencies, specifically the EPA. Land application of biosolids has been in practice since the 70’s when the EPA declared it safe. Since then there have been allegations of the EPA aligning with industry to produce fraudulent and misleading studies. In the absence of untainted science the EPA assured, “no documented cases of illnesses” and “no public health concerns from the use of biosolids whatsoever” (http://www.sludgenews.org/resources/documents/Snyder.pdf). These statements occurred even after evidence was found that 3 deaths occurred after exposure to applied sewage sludge.
Although HR 185 would not disallow the land application of biosolids it would increase transparency in the food system, and could ultimately lead to discontinued use on land used for food. If consumers were notified that biosolids had been used to grow their vegetables or that their beef had been exposed it is reasonable to believe that they may opt not to purchase that product. As this occurred it would provide incentive for farmers to discontinue its use.
There are a great number of stakeholders involved in this issue. There are sludge application companies who make a profit from carting biosolids from treatment centers to rural areas, citizens (especially those who live near land treated with biosolids), the EPA, farmers, and food companies (such as Heinz and Del Monte). Intriguingly, this has also become an environmental justice issue as those with a voice have spoken against applying biosolids in their communities. Increasingly this issue has moved to more rural, less affluent communities who do not speak out.
If HR 185 does not pass the winners will continue to be industry and the losers will continue to be the citizens. I say continue because this bill has been reintroduced year after year since at least sometime in the ‘90’s and has yet to pass. It is possible that with changes in the EPA because of the new administration that outlook on sewage sludge may change as well.
This is an especially difficult issue because from what I have read so far there are not widely available substitutes. Land use became a solution for biosolids after an effort was made to clean up rivers, streams and oceans. Once waste treatment plants were able to separate the waste from the water they could return the water to its appropriate place but needed somewhere to put the solid waste. When the EPA was tasked with finding a solution in the 70’s they turned to land use. As Northeast Biosolids and Residuals Organizaiton (NEBRA), a biosolid friendly organization writes, “If you like clean lakes, rivers, and groundwater, you should support environmentally sound biosolids management. You can’t have one without the other.” (www.nebiosolids.com).
The issue is even further complicated by the science behind it. The EPA has been widely touted to have allied with industry, ignoring any research questioning the land use of biosolids and relying solely on industry friendly scientists who say there is “neglible risk” involved. One former EPA scientist David Lewis, fought for years against the current regulations only to be publicly ridiculed, have his research questioned and finally completely forced out of biosolid research by the EPA. So the science appears to be pretty cut and dry, most science either finds that land use of biosolids does not pose much risk, or that there is still a lot of research that needs to be done and until we can say it is safe there needs to be more regulation.
Unfortunately the policy design of current biosolid practice is backward. Instead of relying on science to form policy the EPA formulated policy and then looked for/created science to back that up. This has created a situation that has compromised the health of many people as well as animals and the environment. As stated previously, if HR 185 were to pass it would create an incentive to farmers to say no to biosolids. Currently, farmers are often not told of the dangers related to biosolid use and are often encouraged to accept this “free” form of fertilizer. If there were economic consequences in the form of reduced sales then farmers would most likely stop use. As it is now the opinions of these stakeholders are not widely available, but I will continue to search for this for my paper.
As has been clearly shown and will be much more so in my final paper the management of biosolid use by the EPA has been subpar. They have enacted lax regulation that has lead to death and serious illness in case after case. Instead of taking responsibility and researching the issue there have been lies and cover ups. With the election of President Obama the hope is that the EPA will go back to being a science based agency less mired in politics. Hopefully if this happens the current practice of biosolids will be evaluated and a better, safer solution can be found.
Although HR 185 would not disallow the land application of biosolids it would increase transparency in the food system, and could ultimately lead to discontinued use on land used for food. If consumers were notified that biosolids had been used to grow their vegetables or that their beef had been exposed it is reasonable to believe that they may opt not to purchase that product. As this occurred it would provide incentive for farmers to discontinue its use.
There are a great number of stakeholders involved in this issue. There are sludge application companies who make a profit from carting biosolids from treatment centers to rural areas, citizens (especially those who live near land treated with biosolids), the EPA, farmers, and food companies (such as Heinz and Del Monte). Intriguingly, this has also become an environmental justice issue as those with a voice have spoken against applying biosolids in their communities. Increasingly this issue has moved to more rural, less affluent communities who do not speak out.
If HR 185 does not pass the winners will continue to be industry and the losers will continue to be the citizens. I say continue because this bill has been reintroduced year after year since at least sometime in the ‘90’s and has yet to pass. It is possible that with changes in the EPA because of the new administration that outlook on sewage sludge may change as well.
This is an especially difficult issue because from what I have read so far there are not widely available substitutes. Land use became a solution for biosolids after an effort was made to clean up rivers, streams and oceans. Once waste treatment plants were able to separate the waste from the water they could return the water to its appropriate place but needed somewhere to put the solid waste. When the EPA was tasked with finding a solution in the 70’s they turned to land use. As Northeast Biosolids and Residuals Organizaiton (NEBRA), a biosolid friendly organization writes, “If you like clean lakes, rivers, and groundwater, you should support environmentally sound biosolids management. You can’t have one without the other.” (www.nebiosolids.com).
The issue is even further complicated by the science behind it. The EPA has been widely touted to have allied with industry, ignoring any research questioning the land use of biosolids and relying solely on industry friendly scientists who say there is “neglible risk” involved. One former EPA scientist David Lewis, fought for years against the current regulations only to be publicly ridiculed, have his research questioned and finally completely forced out of biosolid research by the EPA. So the science appears to be pretty cut and dry, most science either finds that land use of biosolids does not pose much risk, or that there is still a lot of research that needs to be done and until we can say it is safe there needs to be more regulation.
Unfortunately the policy design of current biosolid practice is backward. Instead of relying on science to form policy the EPA formulated policy and then looked for/created science to back that up. This has created a situation that has compromised the health of many people as well as animals and the environment. As stated previously, if HR 185 were to pass it would create an incentive to farmers to say no to biosolids. Currently, farmers are often not told of the dangers related to biosolid use and are often encouraged to accept this “free” form of fertilizer. If there were economic consequences in the form of reduced sales then farmers would most likely stop use. As it is now the opinions of these stakeholders are not widely available, but I will continue to search for this for my paper.
As has been clearly shown and will be much more so in my final paper the management of biosolid use by the EPA has been subpar. They have enacted lax regulation that has lead to death and serious illness in case after case. Instead of taking responsibility and researching the issue there have been lies and cover ups. With the election of President Obama the hope is that the EPA will go back to being a science based agency less mired in politics. Hopefully if this happens the current practice of biosolids will be evaluated and a better, safer solution can be found.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Environmental Kuznets Curve
As Hardin quoted in The Tragedy of the Commons, “the morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed”. When Europe and the United States were developing they exploited a great number of natural resources to improve their situation. At the time populations were less, the air and water was cleaner and we knew less about the science and danger behind climate change. The state of the system was such that this exploitation of resources was not inherently immoral. Fast forward to 2009, the earth is overflowing with people, much of our water systems are polluted, we have destroyed numerous rainforests and much of our air is sullied from pollution. We have also learned more about our effect on the ecosystem and have developed a great deal of knowledge and technology to combat our enormous waste stream. There are ways for developing countries to advance their wealth without further ruining the environment.
There is an important role for industrialized nations as previously poor countries begin to develop. Industrialized nations have an obligation to set an example, and mentor these countries. Wealthier nations have no right to expect developing nations to clean up their act if they, with the economic resources, cannot lead the way. Industrialized nations can also impart their knowledge and help to educate developing nations to grow sustainably.
Equity should always be a part of this debate. Currently industrialized nations use a disproportionate amount of the earth’s resources. But this does not mean that developing nations should be given approval to pollute as much as industrialized nations. Instead industrialized nations should set the example to reduce pollution. It should not be acceptable for a nation to value economic development more than the environment. Climate change has reached such a critical mass that we can’t afford to acquiesce to unchecked degradation. That being said industrialized nations cannot reasonably require developing nations to reduce emissions. They can suggest, coerce, or request but not require. Conversely developing nations can expect industrialized nations to lead the way, both by example and by imparting on them the knowledge they have amassed.
There is an important role for industrialized nations as previously poor countries begin to develop. Industrialized nations have an obligation to set an example, and mentor these countries. Wealthier nations have no right to expect developing nations to clean up their act if they, with the economic resources, cannot lead the way. Industrialized nations can also impart their knowledge and help to educate developing nations to grow sustainably.
Equity should always be a part of this debate. Currently industrialized nations use a disproportionate amount of the earth’s resources. But this does not mean that developing nations should be given approval to pollute as much as industrialized nations. Instead industrialized nations should set the example to reduce pollution. It should not be acceptable for a nation to value economic development more than the environment. Climate change has reached such a critical mass that we can’t afford to acquiesce to unchecked degradation. That being said industrialized nations cannot reasonably require developing nations to reduce emissions. They can suggest, coerce, or request but not require. Conversely developing nations can expect industrialized nations to lead the way, both by example and by imparting on them the knowledge they have amassed.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Assignment #7
For my final policy paper I have chosen to write about HR 185: Sewage Sludge in Food Production Consumer Notification Act. The bill is to amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the egg, meat, and poultry inspection laws to ensure that consumers receive notification regarding food products produced from crops, livestock, or poultry raised on land on which sewage sludge was applied. To summarize the summary of the bill on Thomas.loc.gov, this bill would require that consumers be notified if any animal or vegetable were produced using sewage sludge. An exception is granted if sludge was applied to land at least a year before the food production commenced.
At first glance this bill seems simple and straightforward. Who could argue that they want to be notified when sewage sludge comes into contact with their food? But as much regulation is, this situation is complicated. The EPA has been accused of utilizing “industry friendly scientists” to promote the use of this wastewater on land applications. While one function of Congress is to mandate the direction of the EPA, it makes the situation complicated when the EPA is focusing on science that “approves” of the use of sewage sludge.
Interestingly, this bill has been introduced numerous times since 2007, garnering little support both within Congress and from the public. Perhaps if the media became more involved the public would become aware of this issue and voice their opinion. It is doubtful that most people would willingly accept the use of these volatile “biosolids” to grow their food.
At first glance this bill seems simple and straightforward. Who could argue that they want to be notified when sewage sludge comes into contact with their food? But as much regulation is, this situation is complicated. The EPA has been accused of utilizing “industry friendly scientists” to promote the use of this wastewater on land applications. While one function of Congress is to mandate the direction of the EPA, it makes the situation complicated when the EPA is focusing on science that “approves” of the use of sewage sludge.
Interestingly, this bill has been introduced numerous times since 2007, garnering little support both within Congress and from the public. Perhaps if the media became more involved the public would become aware of this issue and voice their opinion. It is doubtful that most people would willingly accept the use of these volatile “biosolids” to grow their food.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Assignment #6
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/15/20080815pierceletter15.html?&wired
In July 2004 the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality filed a lawsuit against Honeywell Inc for violations between 1974 and 2004. ADEQ alleged violation of Arizona Water Quality Control Act, Arizona Hazardous Waste Disposal Act, and Arizona Underground Storage Tank Act for acts which included dumping illegal substances into the sewer system, failing to cleanup fuel leaking from underground tanks (that eventually seeped into the groundwater), and failing to disclose these violations for multiple years. These damages were instituted at a Honeywell factory near the Sky Harbor airport in South Phoenix. This suit settled in 2008 with Honeywell agreeing to pay a $5 million civil penalty fee and a $1 million supplemental environmental project. It is the award of this $1 million SEP which I believe to be an environmental justice abuse.
As part of the settlement Honeywell agreed, at the State of Arizona’s suggestion, to direct the $1 million SEP towards the Western Climate Initiative to combat global warming. The Western Climate Initiative is collaboration between 7 US Governors from the states of Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington and 4 Canadian Premiers from British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Their mission is, “to identify, evaluate, and implement collective and cooperative ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the region, focusing on a market based cap-and-trade system” (http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/). While this is an important and noble undertaking, it would be difficult to presume the funds from the Honeywell indiscretions would directly benefit the people of South Phoenix, whose groundwater has been seriously polluted.
This is determined to be an environmental justice issue because South Phoenix is composed largely of poverty stricken minority groups. Instead of directing the SEP towards cleanup of the South Phoenix area the State of Arizona decided to allocate the funds to a project that was an initiative of then Governor Napolitano. Although it can be argued that since South Phoenix is part of AZ which is part of the WCI and therefore the residents of South Phoenix will still benefit from the SEP payment, I disagree. While the WCI claims to be a regional organization I refute that a group that spans 2/3 of a continent should be classified as “regional”. The SEP was also not directed at a specific project managed by the WCI, but was to simply be given over for WCI to use as they see fit.
When questioned about the SEP Governor Napolitano responded that the settlement was, “both legal and effective”. (http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/government/97322.php) But, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, “There must be a relationship between the underlying violation and the human health or environmental benefits that will result from the SEP”. (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/seps/) The only relationship between the groundwater pollution from Honeywell and the SEP to the WCI is that both the violation and the payment are environmental in nature. It seems that the EPA guideline is meant to act as a repair or restitution for the damage inflicted by the offending party. Instead of following this principle it appears the State felt they could disregard the damage done to the neighborhood of South Phoenix and use the $1 million for a special project.
One cause of this environmental injustice is political power. Rinquist stated, “Political power is a function of wealth, education, group organizational skills, frequent participation in the political process, and so forth”. (Vig 249) South Phoenix is not a neighborhood of particularly high wealth, education, or organizational skills. I believe it is particularly this reason that Arizona felt the environmental needs of South Phoenix could be ignored and the SEP payment gained at the neighborhoods expense could be used for other purposes. If this pollution would have occurred in Paradise Valley, where this is a much different demographic I believe Arizona would have suggested a SEP directed towards the cleanup of the pollution.
Another related point is market rationality. This pollution would not have occurred if the Honeywell facility were not located in South Phoenix. This location can easily be attributed to market conditions. The plant makes airplane engines and it makes sense to be located next to the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport, which is in South Phoenix.
In July 2004 the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality filed a lawsuit against Honeywell Inc for violations between 1974 and 2004. ADEQ alleged violation of Arizona Water Quality Control Act, Arizona Hazardous Waste Disposal Act, and Arizona Underground Storage Tank Act for acts which included dumping illegal substances into the sewer system, failing to cleanup fuel leaking from underground tanks (that eventually seeped into the groundwater), and failing to disclose these violations for multiple years. These damages were instituted at a Honeywell factory near the Sky Harbor airport in South Phoenix. This suit settled in 2008 with Honeywell agreeing to pay a $5 million civil penalty fee and a $1 million supplemental environmental project. It is the award of this $1 million SEP which I believe to be an environmental justice abuse.
As part of the settlement Honeywell agreed, at the State of Arizona’s suggestion, to direct the $1 million SEP towards the Western Climate Initiative to combat global warming. The Western Climate Initiative is collaboration between 7 US Governors from the states of Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington and 4 Canadian Premiers from British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Their mission is, “to identify, evaluate, and implement collective and cooperative ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the region, focusing on a market based cap-and-trade system” (http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/). While this is an important and noble undertaking, it would be difficult to presume the funds from the Honeywell indiscretions would directly benefit the people of South Phoenix, whose groundwater has been seriously polluted.
This is determined to be an environmental justice issue because South Phoenix is composed largely of poverty stricken minority groups. Instead of directing the SEP towards cleanup of the South Phoenix area the State of Arizona decided to allocate the funds to a project that was an initiative of then Governor Napolitano. Although it can be argued that since South Phoenix is part of AZ which is part of the WCI and therefore the residents of South Phoenix will still benefit from the SEP payment, I disagree. While the WCI claims to be a regional organization I refute that a group that spans 2/3 of a continent should be classified as “regional”. The SEP was also not directed at a specific project managed by the WCI, but was to simply be given over for WCI to use as they see fit.
When questioned about the SEP Governor Napolitano responded that the settlement was, “both legal and effective”. (http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/government/97322.php) But, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, “There must be a relationship between the underlying violation and the human health or environmental benefits that will result from the SEP”. (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/seps/) The only relationship between the groundwater pollution from Honeywell and the SEP to the WCI is that both the violation and the payment are environmental in nature. It seems that the EPA guideline is meant to act as a repair or restitution for the damage inflicted by the offending party. Instead of following this principle it appears the State felt they could disregard the damage done to the neighborhood of South Phoenix and use the $1 million for a special project.
One cause of this environmental injustice is political power. Rinquist stated, “Political power is a function of wealth, education, group organizational skills, frequent participation in the political process, and so forth”. (Vig 249) South Phoenix is not a neighborhood of particularly high wealth, education, or organizational skills. I believe it is particularly this reason that Arizona felt the environmental needs of South Phoenix could be ignored and the SEP payment gained at the neighborhoods expense could be used for other purposes. If this pollution would have occurred in Paradise Valley, where this is a much different demographic I believe Arizona would have suggested a SEP directed towards the cleanup of the pollution.
Another related point is market rationality. This pollution would not have occurred if the Honeywell facility were not located in South Phoenix. This location can easily be attributed to market conditions. The plant makes airplane engines and it makes sense to be located next to the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport, which is in South Phoenix.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Assignment #5
Two environmental problems particularly conducive to contingent valuation are the cleanup of a local stream and a program to reduce the air pollution in a city. Both of these problems would benefit from benefit cost analysis and contingent valuation could be used to determine the value of the benefits. I believe that contingent valuation is most effective when measuring areas of concern locally. A resident of a city with poor air quality would better be able to estimate their willingness to pay for a problem in that city since it would directly affect them. A major flaw in contingent valuation is that there is not enough time to thoroughly educate respondents about the issue before they must decide their willingness to pay. Choosing to use contingent valuation method for concerns that respondents are already familiar with addresses this major flaw.
Two environmental problems not conducive to contingent valuation would be cleanup of a stream across the country and assessment of damage recovery for a business found to have caused great damage by illegally dumping waste. For the same reasons mentioned previously it is difficult to expect accurate values from respondents who are commenting based on a situation that is foreign both in subject and location. While in theory existent values make sense, in practice it is complicated and decision makers should think twice before creating policy based on values from respondents who are not familiar with the subject they are commenting on. As shown in the debate surrounding the Exxon Valdez spill, there is too much controversy surrounding damage payments based on contingent valuation. When faced with an especially politicized or expensive situation and damage recovery values must be determined, a less controversial method than contingent valuation is recommended.
Two environmental problems not conducive to contingent valuation would be cleanup of a stream across the country and assessment of damage recovery for a business found to have caused great damage by illegally dumping waste. For the same reasons mentioned previously it is difficult to expect accurate values from respondents who are commenting based on a situation that is foreign both in subject and location. While in theory existent values make sense, in practice it is complicated and decision makers should think twice before creating policy based on values from respondents who are not familiar with the subject they are commenting on. As shown in the debate surrounding the Exxon Valdez spill, there is too much controversy surrounding damage payments based on contingent valuation. When faced with an especially politicized or expensive situation and damage recovery values must be determined, a less controversial method than contingent valuation is recommended.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Assignment #4
Public managers should engage the public, even when the public’s knowledge is limited about the science of an environmental issue. Many public managers are hesitant to involve the public for fear that a project will be delayed or suspended altogether. In a case where the public needs to be educated on an environmental issue, the task falls to the public manager. Depending on the scope of the issue and the size of the community there are many ways this can be accomplished which include:
- The media
- E-mail
- Phone calls
- Listservs
- Mailers
- Websites
- Community meetings
The consequences of not involving the public can be severe. Many public managers do not involve the public because they fear the public will not buy into the project and the project will be hindered. As exemplified in the readings, this is actually more likely to happen if the public is not engaged in the decision making. If the public is involved early and thoroughly they will begin to take ownership of the project and are more likely to work collaboratively. When the public feels they have been left out they will often take measures such as litigation to hold the project up. It was shown that projects can be much more successful and satisfying to all stakeholders when the public is engaged.
- The media
- Phone calls
- Listservs
- Mailers
- Websites
- Community meetings
The consequences of not involving the public can be severe. Many public managers do not involve the public because they fear the public will not buy into the project and the project will be hindered. As exemplified in the readings, this is actually more likely to happen if the public is not engaged in the decision making. If the public is involved early and thoroughly they will begin to take ownership of the project and are more likely to work collaboratively. When the public feels they have been left out they will often take measures such as litigation to hold the project up. It was shown that projects can be much more successful and satisfying to all stakeholders when the public is engaged.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Assignment #3 Op-Ed
Now that we are facing the next presidential election, I believe it is important to review the environmental policy that has been enacted in the last 4 years with President Obama. I consider it especially prudent to view these policies in the context of the last 40 years, when the environment became a priority in the United States.
The 1st Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970, ushering in a new era of environmental policy. There was an affluent and well educated public that found they had the time and inclination to care about quality of life issues, such as the environment.
It was with this sentiment that Nixon declared the 1970’s the “environmental decade” and signed the National Environmental Policy Act as his 1st official act in 1970. This was just the first of what was to be 19 pieces of environmental legislation passed during 1970’s, a level that has not been reproduced in any decade since. This was a unique time in that partisan politics was not yet so deeply ingrained in government and Congress was able to come to agreement on many issues.
The 1980’s produced an about face on environmental policy from the previous decade. Ronald Reagan was elected President and brought with him a focus on industry, less government and a general disregard for environmental issues. Reagan appointees to environmental related positions left much to be desired, for instance Anne Burford, EPA administrator and James Watt, Secretary of the Interior. Both were attorneys who spent their careers litigating against environmental regulation and made clear their intent to continue that agenda during their time in office. One of the most noteworthy environmental aspects of Reagan’s term was his propensity to value politics over science and take questionable means to push his policies through. During Reagan’s administration environmental budgets were drastically cut. By the early 80’s the EPA had already lost 1/3 of their operating budget and 1/5 of their personnel, a blow from which they have never been able to fully recover.
By the end of his second term Reagan’s environmental stance, or lack thereof, was no longer popular and George H.W. Bush took advantage of this opportunity to position himself as a more environmentally friendly president. He labeled himself, “a conservationist” in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt. However, his environmental appointees were selected more in the Reagan tradition, to the chagrin of environmentalists. While the 1st half of his term began in a positive direction, with Bush gravitating towards a moderate stance, the 2nd two years found a return to the Reagan years of antiregulation and even secret dealings. During the last 18 months of his administration Bush appointed Vice President Dan Quayle to head up the Council on Competitiveness, and initiative meant to respond to and analyze industry regulation. The Council dealt in secrecy and applied pressure to the EPA and other organizations, a direct throwback to Reagan era environmental procedure.
The election of Clinton brought in a new attitude towards environmental policy. Environmentalists were encouraged by Vice President Al Gore, with one of the strongest environmental records in the House. Both Clinton and Gore professed a strong desire to implement new, innovative policies and to return to a time where environmental policies were based on science. Notably, they rejected the long held posture that the environment and the economy had to be competing priorities, believing that both could be improved upon simultaneously. While Clinton presumably had the best of intentions, these intentions ended up being paralyzed by Republican control of Congress. He found many of his objectives for the environment went by the wayside, although he was able to make some progress, such as preservation of the Florida Everglades and some policy reformation.
Environmentalists look back on the George W. Bush days as a dark time. Bush’s pro-industry, antiregulatory, antiscience outlook makes and easy comparison to the Reagan administration. In fact analysts viewed Bush’s environmental appointees as more conservative than Reagan’s, many calling it a “political restoration” in that so many of the appointees had worked for previous administrations. Bush quickly went to work reviewing and reversing many of Clinton’s policies, for instance reviewing his administrations recommended maximum level of arsenic in drinking water and suspending regulation to ban road construction on almost 60 million acres of national forest.
In what can be seen as a trend with recent Republican presidents, Bush also dealt in secrecy and valued politics over science. Early in his administration he appointed Vice President Dick Cheney to work with a task force to write a national energy plan. They consulted mostly industry experts and the recommendations were indicative of this strategy, focusing on increasing the nation’s future energy supplies, including gas, domestic oil, nuclear, and “clean coal” developments. They also recommended environmental regulations be streamlined to accelerate new energy production and improve the national electricity grid. In dealing with the EPA the Bush administration did not put a priority on science. Through leaks the public learned that Bush’s team had edited many scientific documents to bend the recommendations into alignment with his policies. This outraged environmentalists and scientists alike, but Bush felt he had enough “political capital” to do as he wanted.
The election of Barack Obama electrified much of the country and gave hope to environmentalists, a feeling that had been painfully absent over the last 8 years. His appointment of Lisa Jackson to EPA Administrator was encouraging as she pledged, “Science must be the backbone for EPA programs” ( http://www.mswmanagement.com/the-latest/epa-lisa-jackson.aspx). President Obama really set the tone when one of his first acts as President was to order a review, which eventually became a reversal of the Bush’s refusal to let states set their own standard for fuel efficiency.
When looking back over the past 4 years it would seem as if Obama had been channeling Clinton on many key environmental issues, with 2 notable differences in effectiveness. First, Obama was not blocked by a Republican Congress as Democrats took control during his 2008 election. In addition to this helpful factor Obama has made good on his promise to usher in a new era of bipartisanship, leading to a more collaborative attitude in Congress. It was in this atmosphere that Obama was able to pass his New Energy for America plan in 2010, which succeeded in adding millions of “green collar” jobs and begin moving America towards energy independence with renewable sources. This act was in direct opposition to the Regan and Bush belief that improving the economy and the environment had to be competing priorities.
In a marked difference from his predecessor Obama also recognized the role of greenhouse gases in climate change and implemented new measure including a cap and trade program to reduce emissions, with a goal of reducing them 80% by 2050. Obama implemented programs that began retrofitting federal buildings and placed new building standards into effect so that federal buildings became role models in the effort to reduce carbon emissions.
In recognition of the role that agriculture has on the environment Obama answered the request by proponents of local food systems and planted a garden on the lawn of the White House. He also worked with Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture to begin reforming the Farm Bill of 2008. In a surprising move he called for a reduction in subsidies to agribusiness and announced his intent to increase funding for local food programs.
While there is still much that needs to happen to positively shape environmental policy in the United States the past 4 years with President Obama have been simultaneously a refreshing change from the Bush years and also a welcome throwback to the 70’s when environmental policy made leaps and bounds in America. It is my hope we can re-elect Obama so he can continue the environmental progress he has made.
The 1st Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970, ushering in a new era of environmental policy. There was an affluent and well educated public that found they had the time and inclination to care about quality of life issues, such as the environment.
It was with this sentiment that Nixon declared the 1970’s the “environmental decade” and signed the National Environmental Policy Act as his 1st official act in 1970. This was just the first of what was to be 19 pieces of environmental legislation passed during 1970’s, a level that has not been reproduced in any decade since. This was a unique time in that partisan politics was not yet so deeply ingrained in government and Congress was able to come to agreement on many issues.
The 1980’s produced an about face on environmental policy from the previous decade. Ronald Reagan was elected President and brought with him a focus on industry, less government and a general disregard for environmental issues. Reagan appointees to environmental related positions left much to be desired, for instance Anne Burford, EPA administrator and James Watt, Secretary of the Interior. Both were attorneys who spent their careers litigating against environmental regulation and made clear their intent to continue that agenda during their time in office. One of the most noteworthy environmental aspects of Reagan’s term was his propensity to value politics over science and take questionable means to push his policies through. During Reagan’s administration environmental budgets were drastically cut. By the early 80’s the EPA had already lost 1/3 of their operating budget and 1/5 of their personnel, a blow from which they have never been able to fully recover.
By the end of his second term Reagan’s environmental stance, or lack thereof, was no longer popular and George H.W. Bush took advantage of this opportunity to position himself as a more environmentally friendly president. He labeled himself, “a conservationist” in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt. However, his environmental appointees were selected more in the Reagan tradition, to the chagrin of environmentalists. While the 1st half of his term began in a positive direction, with Bush gravitating towards a moderate stance, the 2nd two years found a return to the Reagan years of antiregulation and even secret dealings. During the last 18 months of his administration Bush appointed Vice President Dan Quayle to head up the Council on Competitiveness, and initiative meant to respond to and analyze industry regulation. The Council dealt in secrecy and applied pressure to the EPA and other organizations, a direct throwback to Reagan era environmental procedure.
The election of Clinton brought in a new attitude towards environmental policy. Environmentalists were encouraged by Vice President Al Gore, with one of the strongest environmental records in the House. Both Clinton and Gore professed a strong desire to implement new, innovative policies and to return to a time where environmental policies were based on science. Notably, they rejected the long held posture that the environment and the economy had to be competing priorities, believing that both could be improved upon simultaneously. While Clinton presumably had the best of intentions, these intentions ended up being paralyzed by Republican control of Congress. He found many of his objectives for the environment went by the wayside, although he was able to make some progress, such as preservation of the Florida Everglades and some policy reformation.
Environmentalists look back on the George W. Bush days as a dark time. Bush’s pro-industry, antiregulatory, antiscience outlook makes and easy comparison to the Reagan administration. In fact analysts viewed Bush’s environmental appointees as more conservative than Reagan’s, many calling it a “political restoration” in that so many of the appointees had worked for previous administrations. Bush quickly went to work reviewing and reversing many of Clinton’s policies, for instance reviewing his administrations recommended maximum level of arsenic in drinking water and suspending regulation to ban road construction on almost 60 million acres of national forest.
In what can be seen as a trend with recent Republican presidents, Bush also dealt in secrecy and valued politics over science. Early in his administration he appointed Vice President Dick Cheney to work with a task force to write a national energy plan. They consulted mostly industry experts and the recommendations were indicative of this strategy, focusing on increasing the nation’s future energy supplies, including gas, domestic oil, nuclear, and “clean coal” developments. They also recommended environmental regulations be streamlined to accelerate new energy production and improve the national electricity grid. In dealing with the EPA the Bush administration did not put a priority on science. Through leaks the public learned that Bush’s team had edited many scientific documents to bend the recommendations into alignment with his policies. This outraged environmentalists and scientists alike, but Bush felt he had enough “political capital” to do as he wanted.
The election of Barack Obama electrified much of the country and gave hope to environmentalists, a feeling that had been painfully absent over the last 8 years. His appointment of Lisa Jackson to EPA Administrator was encouraging as she pledged, “Science must be the backbone for EPA programs” ( http://www.mswmanagement.com/the-latest/epa-lisa-jackson.aspx). President Obama really set the tone when one of his first acts as President was to order a review, which eventually became a reversal of the Bush’s refusal to let states set their own standard for fuel efficiency.
When looking back over the past 4 years it would seem as if Obama had been channeling Clinton on many key environmental issues, with 2 notable differences in effectiveness. First, Obama was not blocked by a Republican Congress as Democrats took control during his 2008 election. In addition to this helpful factor Obama has made good on his promise to usher in a new era of bipartisanship, leading to a more collaborative attitude in Congress. It was in this atmosphere that Obama was able to pass his New Energy for America plan in 2010, which succeeded in adding millions of “green collar” jobs and begin moving America towards energy independence with renewable sources. This act was in direct opposition to the Regan and Bush belief that improving the economy and the environment had to be competing priorities.
In a marked difference from his predecessor Obama also recognized the role of greenhouse gases in climate change and implemented new measure including a cap and trade program to reduce emissions, with a goal of reducing them 80% by 2050. Obama implemented programs that began retrofitting federal buildings and placed new building standards into effect so that federal buildings became role models in the effort to reduce carbon emissions.
In recognition of the role that agriculture has on the environment Obama answered the request by proponents of local food systems and planted a garden on the lawn of the White House. He also worked with Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture to begin reforming the Farm Bill of 2008. In a surprising move he called for a reduction in subsidies to agribusiness and announced his intent to increase funding for local food programs.
While there is still much that needs to happen to positively shape environmental policy in the United States the past 4 years with President Obama have been simultaneously a refreshing change from the Bush years and also a welcome throwback to the 70’s when environmental policy made leaps and bounds in America. It is my hope we can re-elect Obama so he can continue the environmental progress he has made.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Assignment #2
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1867780,00.html
President Obama recently appointed Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor, as the United States Secretary of Agriculture. Given that the agricultural system, from growth to transport to land-use change, is responsible for about 1/3 of greenhouse gases globally, a strong link between agricultural and environmental policy is increasingly apparent. Ergo the President’s choice for Secretary of Agriculture has extremely important implications for those who value environmental policy.
The choice of Vilsack has not been initially embraced by environmentalists. To begin with, Vilsack has been a strong supporter of biofuels, particularly ethanol. While initially touted as a ‘green’ alternative, ethanol has since been deemed a less than ideal solution by those concerned with the environment. Further, during his time as governor of Iowa the presence of feedlots has increased. Feedlots are gargantuan “animal farms” which utilize heavily subsidized corn, antibiotics and unsanitary conditions with which to grow livestock as quickly and cheaply as possible for human consumption. To touch on a few concerns, feedlots are generally acknowledged to contribute substantial pollutants into the air and water while simultaneously increasing drug resistant pathogens. This style of farming also indirectly supports the subsidized corn industry which has had devastating impacts on crop diversity and utilizes tremendous quantities of pesticides. Finally, Vilsacks allegiance is suspect, given his Iowan roots, as Iowa is one of the nation’s leading producers of corn and soy.
But the above should not cause environmentalists to immediately despair as Vilsack does give us reason to hope. Vilsack has declared his support for farm conservation programs, programs that would hopefully work for the small to midsize American farmer. This is in direct contrast to the big business heavily subsidized mega farmers who have been leading the way in the US. He also claims to support wind generated energy and has been vocal about his concern for global climate change. It initially appears as if Obama’s choice of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture is a “middle of the road” decision. We will wait and see how dedicated Vilsack really is to drastically overhauling the US agricultural system and as such doing his part to improve the environment.
President Obama recently appointed Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor, as the United States Secretary of Agriculture. Given that the agricultural system, from growth to transport to land-use change, is responsible for about 1/3 of greenhouse gases globally, a strong link between agricultural and environmental policy is increasingly apparent. Ergo the President’s choice for Secretary of Agriculture has extremely important implications for those who value environmental policy.
The choice of Vilsack has not been initially embraced by environmentalists. To begin with, Vilsack has been a strong supporter of biofuels, particularly ethanol. While initially touted as a ‘green’ alternative, ethanol has since been deemed a less than ideal solution by those concerned with the environment. Further, during his time as governor of Iowa the presence of feedlots has increased. Feedlots are gargantuan “animal farms” which utilize heavily subsidized corn, antibiotics and unsanitary conditions with which to grow livestock as quickly and cheaply as possible for human consumption. To touch on a few concerns, feedlots are generally acknowledged to contribute substantial pollutants into the air and water while simultaneously increasing drug resistant pathogens. This style of farming also indirectly supports the subsidized corn industry which has had devastating impacts on crop diversity and utilizes tremendous quantities of pesticides. Finally, Vilsacks allegiance is suspect, given his Iowan roots, as Iowa is one of the nation’s leading producers of corn and soy.
But the above should not cause environmentalists to immediately despair as Vilsack does give us reason to hope. Vilsack has declared his support for farm conservation programs, programs that would hopefully work for the small to midsize American farmer. This is in direct contrast to the big business heavily subsidized mega farmers who have been leading the way in the US. He also claims to support wind generated energy and has been vocal about his concern for global climate change. It initially appears as if Obama’s choice of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture is a “middle of the road” decision. We will wait and see how dedicated Vilsack really is to drastically overhauling the US agricultural system and as such doing his part to improve the environment.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Introduction
Hello PAF 546. I am a MPA student, newly accepted into the program this semester. In addition to attending classes at ASU, I also work at ASU as a Fiscal Specialist in the President's Office. I am very interested in learning more about environmental policy, especially policy related to food/agriculture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)