This a loose tie to sustainability planning but for the purpose of this article and a sustained climate is entity at hand, and my personal opposition to cap & trade programs made me pick this and apply to the context of the assignment as best as I could.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/science/earth/07pollute.html
The focus of this article New York’s intention to examine a possible increase in the free allowance for CO2 emissions that it affords its power plants to produce without cost under a 10 state regional “Carbon-Trading Pact” known as the “Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative” (RGHGI). Under the Pact each state issues its own tradable permits or allowance for CO2 pollution produced, which most of the states auction off. This decision by New York has been met with complicating opinion from stakeholders and environmentalist.
The RGHGI is an example of a regional planning initiative with the region being the 10 states that engaged in the pact. It appears that the spirit of the pact was to allow member states of this functional region to collectively control CO2 emission through a mandatory market mechanism, under the polluter pays principle. As wheeler points out (in principle), any regional planning effort is administered through a weak planning institution (Wheeler, Pg. 151). In the case of the RGHGI, or any other market based system, participation and compliance by member would be more effectively facilitated through a collective administrative body with the regulatory teeth to ensure conformance by its members.
In concept the RGHGI could be effectively administered at the regional level. If the 10 member states represented a common airshed, which is probably the case, then such an effort would allow for the equalizas tion of regional externalities to be control on a market scale and states to work toward achieving emission targets. The results of such efforts could be more efficient end use production of energy, reinvestment of funds secured by the states into communities, market incentives to explore more carbon friendly and renewable energy sources, and diversification of energy portfolios. All of these will result in a more sustainable energy plan for the region if administer in accordance with the spirit of the pact.
Wheeler points out that regional planning often do not have any governmental authority or police power to back-up or enforcement compliance. (Wheeler, Pg. 133) In the article, New York is intending to expand free allowance to its power plants. While most concede that New York’s action will have no impact to other members or the pact it outlines a fundamental weakness in addressing planning issues with public health or economic ramification at a level with little or no enforcement authority.
If such an initiative was enacted at the state level then an agency of the state could ensure compliance with the terms of the pact, and offer emission targets for those entities that had less of a capacity to compete in an open market. The article points out the New York power plants have already engaged in production agreements, which they have to meet thus forcing them to purchase more emission rights and absorb the cost burden. If the plants could no longer afford to absorb those cost a regional pact would offer little incentive to try however a state regulatory mandate would apply sanction for non-compliance.
Note: Cap & Trade is a complex mechanism, which this review has simplified for the purpose of attaching it a mechanism for energy sustainability planning.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Assignment 12 Richard Dalton
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aOiCpp9Xi1pk&refer=environment
Article 1, “NYC Opens 1st Building-Mounted Wind Turbine at Brooklyn Yard”
By title it appears that this article would focus on a $25 million building, which is powered by wind turbines at Brooklyn Yard. However, the real focus is on a plan that Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City unveiled to create a model sustainable industrial complex, which could lead to the creation of 1700 permanent jobs including construction sector and green collar employment.
What is demonstrated in the article is the City’s buy-in to the sustainable planning process through cooperation and financial backing of the greening of buildings in the Brooklyn Yard Complex. The city is implementing a $250 initiative that will add more than 1.5 million square feet of space that will foster a multitude of diverse development. In addition, the city has earmarked $2 million dollars to convert and redesign a 30,000 square-foot building, which is slated to be awarded a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating of platinum.
LEED is a mechanism to incorporate sustainability into the planning process at the design stage by establishing technological benchmarks to gauge sustainable practice. As Wheeler points out, often times protocol, such as LEED, can be prohibitive (Wheeler, Pg. 94), but in this application it facilitates the project form that Bloomberg is trying to achieve, which is city commitment to the sustainability process and goal.
The article concludes by expanding the scope of the Mayor’s intent through announcing that the wind power concept will be expanded to the common area street lights, which will result in a cost savings and reduced carbon footprint through less electricity generation. The term carbon foot print was not stated in the article, but I contend that it was not an accident to conclude with the tone of money and energy. These subject hit home to, and the wallet of, everybody. The savings cited in both sectors may have been a subtitle way of public consensus building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-sustain.html?_r=1&sq=sustainability%20&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print
Article 2, “Luxury-Goods Makers Embrace Sustainability”
This article discusses the incorporation of sustainable practices and social responsibility into various markets of luxury goods. The article starts citing the implied oxy-moron of the term sustainable prefacing luxury. This distinction correctly illustrates that the presence of most luxury items are sustainable in design, and ultimately have led to global resource depletion. Since a number of luxury goods are often produced by resource and labor pools of developing countries for sale and consumption in the developed world, this can be classified as an issue of international planning.
Sustainability from the context of the developed and developing have two completely different connotation. Yet, as Wheeler cites, from a planning perspective there are common goals (compact urban form, control sprawl, employment, resource use etc...)(Wheeler, pg. 112)
This article implies and taps into the commonalities between the developed and developing world from the stand point of luxury goods. The ideas of fast and slow in a market context are applied to the fashion and food industries. The fast concept suggests quick, cheap, and perishable production of goods, which are designed to be consumed to completion quickly and then discarded only to be replaced by different goods. The slow concept suggests efficient production designed to last, which is cited to be based on the slow food idea that embraces slow cooking process, and the use of seasonally produced local resource stocks. The fast food concept is not sated, but certainly an implied metaphor.
Also referenced is the construction of water wells by the Ermenegildo Company to in Mongolia and Peru. The intent of the wells was to improve the wool harvest, but yielded a positive externality to local farmers in these traditionally water parched regions.
The conjoining interest of a market demand for socially responsible production can be attributed to education and outreach campaigns in the developed world to be sustainable and the well production and slow methods cited in this article give a conceptual viability to meeting this demand while recognizing that some of the affected countries are still addressing some of the basic challenges in the planning process.
Article 1, “NYC Opens 1st Building-Mounted Wind Turbine at Brooklyn Yard”
By title it appears that this article would focus on a $25 million building, which is powered by wind turbines at Brooklyn Yard. However, the real focus is on a plan that Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City unveiled to create a model sustainable industrial complex, which could lead to the creation of 1700 permanent jobs including construction sector and green collar employment.
What is demonstrated in the article is the City’s buy-in to the sustainable planning process through cooperation and financial backing of the greening of buildings in the Brooklyn Yard Complex. The city is implementing a $250 initiative that will add more than 1.5 million square feet of space that will foster a multitude of diverse development. In addition, the city has earmarked $2 million dollars to convert and redesign a 30,000 square-foot building, which is slated to be awarded a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating of platinum.
LEED is a mechanism to incorporate sustainability into the planning process at the design stage by establishing technological benchmarks to gauge sustainable practice. As Wheeler points out, often times protocol, such as LEED, can be prohibitive (Wheeler, Pg. 94), but in this application it facilitates the project form that Bloomberg is trying to achieve, which is city commitment to the sustainability process and goal.
The article concludes by expanding the scope of the Mayor’s intent through announcing that the wind power concept will be expanded to the common area street lights, which will result in a cost savings and reduced carbon footprint through less electricity generation. The term carbon foot print was not stated in the article, but I contend that it was not an accident to conclude with the tone of money and energy. These subject hit home to, and the wallet of, everybody. The savings cited in both sectors may have been a subtitle way of public consensus building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-sustain.html?_r=1&sq=sustainability%20&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print
Article 2, “Luxury-Goods Makers Embrace Sustainability”
This article discusses the incorporation of sustainable practices and social responsibility into various markets of luxury goods. The article starts citing the implied oxy-moron of the term sustainable prefacing luxury. This distinction correctly illustrates that the presence of most luxury items are sustainable in design, and ultimately have led to global resource depletion. Since a number of luxury goods are often produced by resource and labor pools of developing countries for sale and consumption in the developed world, this can be classified as an issue of international planning.
Sustainability from the context of the developed and developing have two completely different connotation. Yet, as Wheeler cites, from a planning perspective there are common goals (compact urban form, control sprawl, employment, resource use etc...)(Wheeler, pg. 112)
This article implies and taps into the commonalities between the developed and developing world from the stand point of luxury goods. The ideas of fast and slow in a market context are applied to the fashion and food industries. The fast concept suggests quick, cheap, and perishable production of goods, which are designed to be consumed to completion quickly and then discarded only to be replaced by different goods. The slow concept suggests efficient production designed to last, which is cited to be based on the slow food idea that embraces slow cooking process, and the use of seasonally produced local resource stocks. The fast food concept is not sated, but certainly an implied metaphor.
Also referenced is the construction of water wells by the Ermenegildo Company to in Mongolia and Peru. The intent of the wells was to improve the wool harvest, but yielded a positive externality to local farmers in these traditionally water parched regions.
The conjoining interest of a market demand for socially responsible production can be attributed to education and outreach campaigns in the developed world to be sustainable and the well production and slow methods cited in this article give a conceptual viability to meeting this demand while recognizing that some of the affected countries are still addressing some of the basic challenges in the planning process.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Week 11 Assignment
1. The definition formed by the Bruntland Commission, conceptualizes the notion of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This allows for the broad based application necessary to facilitate effective regulation.
Any policy direction that integrates social, environmental, or economic implications specifically into a sustainability frames work, as Goodman suggests, could be problematic, and thus shift spirit of the policy from its original intent.
2. Sustainability, as a policy directive or goal, can be difficult to implement into practice because of the different political, economic, and societal covenants that bound people.
Each section of society has a different set priorities based on its specific needs, which can change based on conditions at any moment in time. Policy has the tendency to be designed around a specific lobby or special interest, which is usually in conflict with another thus establishing winners and losers. This predisposition to win can conflict with societal sustainability.
A free market economy, which has its place in the policy making process, states follows some form of the capitalist principle of self interest, which history has proven can be in conflict with planet interest that a sustainability framework would support.
This is not to invalidate the need for social, environmental, or economic sustainability, but only to point that these paradigms often conflict with one another.
3. An effectively designed sustainability framework would have to follow the cliché principle of equal opportunity inclusion of stakeholders. Experts, such a engineers, planners, and other disciplines as deemed necessary for each application are necessary to the process. Sustainability operates from a technological stand point of efficiency whether the area economic, ecological, social, or environment. The experts have knowledge and training to most effectively achieve the benchmarks a policy framework would desire.
Citizen or the general public also has to buy in the process. Inclusion of the public into the process allows the experts to gain an understanding of a particular expertise that they do not posses, which that of everyday application of the process. Those who are expected to follow the process and live by policies should have input into the design process as they see the process and will partake in its evolution or sustainable evolution.
The cliché think local act global should have a principle purpose into the policy process and implement action at the local level and the global goals be achieved through a trickle up effect.
4. Long-term sustainability planning in a society based on short increment quick fix is an oxymoron in concept. The stability of the planet and societies within it is contingent on that oxymoron becoming a reality. While there are a multitude of publications that discuss principles of the three E’s, the implications climate change, over consumption, and pollution, as well as quantification tools such as the ecological foot print or life cycle analysis, most will only local at the issues facing them right now. This is the result of choice or circumstance.
Only through a paradigm shift that results in a true buy in to the practice of long-term sustainability and resource planning will any of the conceptualized scenarios of stabilization become a reality.
Any policy direction that integrates social, environmental, or economic implications specifically into a sustainability frames work, as Goodman suggests, could be problematic, and thus shift spirit of the policy from its original intent.
2. Sustainability, as a policy directive or goal, can be difficult to implement into practice because of the different political, economic, and societal covenants that bound people.
Each section of society has a different set priorities based on its specific needs, which can change based on conditions at any moment in time. Policy has the tendency to be designed around a specific lobby or special interest, which is usually in conflict with another thus establishing winners and losers. This predisposition to win can conflict with societal sustainability.
A free market economy, which has its place in the policy making process, states follows some form of the capitalist principle of self interest, which history has proven can be in conflict with planet interest that a sustainability framework would support.
This is not to invalidate the need for social, environmental, or economic sustainability, but only to point that these paradigms often conflict with one another.
3. An effectively designed sustainability framework would have to follow the cliché principle of equal opportunity inclusion of stakeholders. Experts, such a engineers, planners, and other disciplines as deemed necessary for each application are necessary to the process. Sustainability operates from a technological stand point of efficiency whether the area economic, ecological, social, or environment. The experts have knowledge and training to most effectively achieve the benchmarks a policy framework would desire.
Citizen or the general public also has to buy in the process. Inclusion of the public into the process allows the experts to gain an understanding of a particular expertise that they do not posses, which that of everyday application of the process. Those who are expected to follow the process and live by policies should have input into the design process as they see the process and will partake in its evolution or sustainable evolution.
The cliché think local act global should have a principle purpose into the policy process and implement action at the local level and the global goals be achieved through a trickle up effect.
4. Long-term sustainability planning in a society based on short increment quick fix is an oxymoron in concept. The stability of the planet and societies within it is contingent on that oxymoron becoming a reality. While there are a multitude of publications that discuss principles of the three E’s, the implications climate change, over consumption, and pollution, as well as quantification tools such as the ecological foot print or life cycle analysis, most will only local at the issues facing them right now. This is the result of choice or circumstance.
Only through a paradigm shift that results in a true buy in to the practice of long-term sustainability and resource planning will any of the conceptualized scenarios of stabilization become a reality.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Basic Framework Applied to EPCRA Proposed GHG Registry
Values Framework:
The excessive emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere can be equated into being a direct result of the over consumptive activity and behavior of the human race. The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) has four major provisions:
· Emergency planning
· Emergency release notification
· Hazardous chemical storage reporting requirements
· Toxic chemical release inventory (Section 313).
The bill under examination in this case is a proposed GHG registry under EPCRA, which under Cohen’s criteria raises some critical questions of values. Given that the foundation of this bill is the creation of GHG registry for the purpose of reporting under what is commonly referred to as the “Right to Know” Act, the issue of right and wrong seems oblivious to based solely on the need to create such a registry and subsequently report it to the EPA.
Tradeoffs of economic well being, which Cohen states is a function of value (Cohen pg. 14), are paramount in this legislation. Cohen states in the text the good life “includes a high level of resource consumption” (Cohen pg. 14), which is directly proportion to atmospheric GHG emission in the post industrial revolution era.
Ethics and conflicting value are at the heart of the GHG and climate change debate. Most commonly associated with the conflict between sustainability and the need account for future generations, and the converse that all resources are for the dominion of man and should be exploited to maximize current well being are in direct conflict.
The developed and developing economies face such when one side is pleading with international law makers to create climate change frameworks when other economies may not survive to have a future generation.
What the GHG registry would is establish increase public accessibility to information and knowledge about who is contributing to GHG emission and by how much.
Political:
Politics associated with the need to address GHG emissions in the United States and abroad are sharply divided into two respective camps, which are those who are in strong support, and those who are in strong opposition to the climate change agenda. By virtue of the fact that a proposed GHG registry is in congress, its political legitimacy is apparent.
As Cohen cites property rights have been made to counter balance the environmental movement (Cohen pg. 21), however with GHG there are no administrative boundaries to define these rights, but winners and losers exist in the registry process.
Under the registry, affected facilities will be required to report GHG emissions and processes which generate these emissions. This will either force cost prohibitive change to their production practices or being viewed as an environmental bad actor in the public eye. Winners will be the planet, the atmosphere future generation, and those who choice to engage in development, which is conducive with less GHG production.
EPCRA is a federally managed framework, but the issue of GHG production and climate change is intertwined in all levels of government as the issues legitimacy is politically sensitive. The Bush administration’s removal of the United States from the Kyoto process resulted in various administrative and legal action at the state and local with regard to GHG production, reduction, mitigation and targets technologies. The legality to regulate GHG under the CAAA itself has made it all the way to the nine wise souls in Washington.
Science and Technology:
The GHG registry is pertinent due the potential impacts of climate change and/or global warming to the planet. Scientific certainty of the impact of anthropogenic GHG to the climate is at the heart of the matter when it comes any issue regarding potential cost prohibitive regulatory action.
The science is leaning toward validating GHG impacts to the climate however given the limited and disputed knowledge of climatic patterns a costly registry and reporting process can be a difficult sale especially in current economic times.
Technologies to eliminate or reduce GHG emission are available; however their cost effectiveness is highly volatile and subject to market manipulation. The price of oil has risen and fallen and supply and demand has not been the only factors. Given the large financial and political resources of the petroleum industry, along with price fluctuation, the viability of technological alternative to GHG producing activity changes by the day.
GHG activities can be halted, but at what real and opportunity cost and to whom. The logical assumption would be for developed countries to limit their GHG activity and allow developing countries some latitude to offset past sins. The GHG registry will allow the government to ascertain the magnitude of such activity by facility and sector.
Policy Design:
The GHG registry is the combination of a burden information disclosure and formal reporting being pleased on the affect facilities for the purpose of informing the government and the public of activity with respect to GHG production as well as establishing a formal methodology of tracking GHG producing activity.
The registry is a strategic process because it is established under the “Right to Know” act and heavy generation can be viewed by the public as bad acting, and no facility would want to fall in the classification of public opinion. It seems clear that industry is aware of why they have to report such activity although some do not agree with it.
From a public stand point there is only gain and non burden associated with regulation GHG activity in any way, but some could argue that the cost of compliance will be passed on to the consumer or result in a purging of the industry. Opinions in these matters usually mirror U.S. political party lines.
The incentive to comply with the GHG registry is to reduce GHG activity to avoid being subject to reporting or at least reporting data on the high end of the spectrum. There are a multitude of alternative technologies, tax and fee incentives, and regulatory waivers to encourage process GHG reduction.
Environmental Management:
The GHG registry is similar in design to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)currently regulated under EPCRA, what the proposed legislation would do is expand the scope of EPCRA authority to cover GHG emission based on their anticipated “toxic” to the climate or planet.
EPCRA has the experience to regulate and manage such a registry because the TRI has been in place for almost a generation and affected facilities have been subject to the compliance and enforcement process for most of that time. The reporting process will mirror the TRI so the EPA has a proven methodology of success to guide this program. This is not to infer that the TRI program is perfect, but it is functional.
Leadership in the EPA, which manages EPCRA changes depending on the ideology of the current administration however given the overwhelming public awareness in the developed world of GHG emission and their potential impacts, time will only lead toward a paradigm shift toward GHG reduction and mitigation the EPA will maintain a positive flow in the registry process.
The excessive emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere can be equated into being a direct result of the over consumptive activity and behavior of the human race. The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) has four major provisions:
· Emergency planning
· Emergency release notification
· Hazardous chemical storage reporting requirements
· Toxic chemical release inventory (Section 313).
The bill under examination in this case is a proposed GHG registry under EPCRA, which under Cohen’s criteria raises some critical questions of values. Given that the foundation of this bill is the creation of GHG registry for the purpose of reporting under what is commonly referred to as the “Right to Know” Act, the issue of right and wrong seems oblivious to based solely on the need to create such a registry and subsequently report it to the EPA.
Tradeoffs of economic well being, which Cohen states is a function of value (Cohen pg. 14), are paramount in this legislation. Cohen states in the text the good life “includes a high level of resource consumption” (Cohen pg. 14), which is directly proportion to atmospheric GHG emission in the post industrial revolution era.
Ethics and conflicting value are at the heart of the GHG and climate change debate. Most commonly associated with the conflict between sustainability and the need account for future generations, and the converse that all resources are for the dominion of man and should be exploited to maximize current well being are in direct conflict.
The developed and developing economies face such when one side is pleading with international law makers to create climate change frameworks when other economies may not survive to have a future generation.
What the GHG registry would is establish increase public accessibility to information and knowledge about who is contributing to GHG emission and by how much.
Political:
Politics associated with the need to address GHG emissions in the United States and abroad are sharply divided into two respective camps, which are those who are in strong support, and those who are in strong opposition to the climate change agenda. By virtue of the fact that a proposed GHG registry is in congress, its political legitimacy is apparent.
As Cohen cites property rights have been made to counter balance the environmental movement (Cohen pg. 21), however with GHG there are no administrative boundaries to define these rights, but winners and losers exist in the registry process.
Under the registry, affected facilities will be required to report GHG emissions and processes which generate these emissions. This will either force cost prohibitive change to their production practices or being viewed as an environmental bad actor in the public eye. Winners will be the planet, the atmosphere future generation, and those who choice to engage in development, which is conducive with less GHG production.
EPCRA is a federally managed framework, but the issue of GHG production and climate change is intertwined in all levels of government as the issues legitimacy is politically sensitive. The Bush administration’s removal of the United States from the Kyoto process resulted in various administrative and legal action at the state and local with regard to GHG production, reduction, mitigation and targets technologies. The legality to regulate GHG under the CAAA itself has made it all the way to the nine wise souls in Washington.
Science and Technology:
The GHG registry is pertinent due the potential impacts of climate change and/or global warming to the planet. Scientific certainty of the impact of anthropogenic GHG to the climate is at the heart of the matter when it comes any issue regarding potential cost prohibitive regulatory action.
The science is leaning toward validating GHG impacts to the climate however given the limited and disputed knowledge of climatic patterns a costly registry and reporting process can be a difficult sale especially in current economic times.
Technologies to eliminate or reduce GHG emission are available; however their cost effectiveness is highly volatile and subject to market manipulation. The price of oil has risen and fallen and supply and demand has not been the only factors. Given the large financial and political resources of the petroleum industry, along with price fluctuation, the viability of technological alternative to GHG producing activity changes by the day.
GHG activities can be halted, but at what real and opportunity cost and to whom. The logical assumption would be for developed countries to limit their GHG activity and allow developing countries some latitude to offset past sins. The GHG registry will allow the government to ascertain the magnitude of such activity by facility and sector.
Policy Design:
The GHG registry is the combination of a burden information disclosure and formal reporting being pleased on the affect facilities for the purpose of informing the government and the public of activity with respect to GHG production as well as establishing a formal methodology of tracking GHG producing activity.
The registry is a strategic process because it is established under the “Right to Know” act and heavy generation can be viewed by the public as bad acting, and no facility would want to fall in the classification of public opinion. It seems clear that industry is aware of why they have to report such activity although some do not agree with it.
From a public stand point there is only gain and non burden associated with regulation GHG activity in any way, but some could argue that the cost of compliance will be passed on to the consumer or result in a purging of the industry. Opinions in these matters usually mirror U.S. political party lines.
The incentive to comply with the GHG registry is to reduce GHG activity to avoid being subject to reporting or at least reporting data on the high end of the spectrum. There are a multitude of alternative technologies, tax and fee incentives, and regulatory waivers to encourage process GHG reduction.
Environmental Management:
The GHG registry is similar in design to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)currently regulated under EPCRA, what the proposed legislation would do is expand the scope of EPCRA authority to cover GHG emission based on their anticipated “toxic” to the climate or planet.
EPCRA has the experience to regulate and manage such a registry because the TRI has been in place for almost a generation and affected facilities have been subject to the compliance and enforcement process for most of that time. The reporting process will mirror the TRI so the EPA has a proven methodology of success to guide this program. This is not to infer that the TRI program is perfect, but it is functional.
Leadership in the EPA, which manages EPCRA changes depending on the ideology of the current administration however given the overwhelming public awareness in the developed world of GHG emission and their potential impacts, time will only lead toward a paradigm shift toward GHG reduction and mitigation the EPA will maintain a positive flow in the registry process.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Week 9 Posting RD
1. Based on the definition on exploit provided in a comment by one of our fellow students, use to greatest advantage, developing would and should have the right to exploit natural resources such as forest wood or oil reserves. If you follow a free market environmentalist point of view, which mandates all problems shall be correct through the proper definition of property rights then a developing country could use any resource they chose as they see fit, so long as they own it. Hardin’s lifeboat analogy in the reading is a valid point, and a viable one, if you’re one of the 50 on the boat. For the rest of the stragglers, if the boat capsized they would be no worse off than before.
So, may take is if divvy-up all of the resources and assets in the world evenly then resources exploitation would not be a right. Otherwise, as a member of the developed rich, I’ll do my best to educate and inform the developing world of the implication of exploitation, but not blame them if they ignored me as a hypocrite.
2. With respect to climate change the same rational applies. “Do as I say not as I have done” is a tough sale, especially if the only loser by non-action is me, and those who have done as I have.
The token response to question and issues such as this is to educate, inform, and set the standard with emissions reduction. Blah, blah, blah…
At the end of the day, there are winners and losers in every facet of life. So, should equity be the goal, absolutely, but as far as emissions reduction goes, what about the sins of the past. Hardin says they can’t be undone. True, but the proceeds can be redistributed to justify global participation in the program. Wait, that would mean real long-term change and who wants that… Who is really willing to make a true sacrifice that would actually reduce their standard of living? Sure, give to charity, but would you cut your own food rations to help out starving farmer in Africa. Would Bush, Clinton, Gore, Buffet, Gates, Oprah or anybody else really change their consumption habits in such a manner? Don’t even give me that charity stuff, they like everybody in the developed world over consume and exploit world resources.
Should developing nations participate in emission reduction? What do you think? They’re starving and Al Gore flies around the world and talks about GHG reduction at $250,000 a pop. Sign me up…
What expectations should we have of developing nation? If they were smart, they’d tell us to go pound sand, so long as we did it with a clean burning motor and not in their backyard.
I know, I’m a heathen, but the truth is I believe in environmental justice and resource equity with every fiber of my existence. I’d give up me share if everybody else did, and you know what else, so would most of you, but there are those that wouldn’t and they would let everybody suffer to increase their own bottom line. Liberal, and conservative a like we all know who they, and they run the country.
George, Dick, Barack, Joe, Hank, Tim, Condy, Hillary, and on and on…
They’re all rich and they all scammed others to get there.
So, may take is if divvy-up all of the resources and assets in the world evenly then resources exploitation would not be a right. Otherwise, as a member of the developed rich, I’ll do my best to educate and inform the developing world of the implication of exploitation, but not blame them if they ignored me as a hypocrite.
2. With respect to climate change the same rational applies. “Do as I say not as I have done” is a tough sale, especially if the only loser by non-action is me, and those who have done as I have.
The token response to question and issues such as this is to educate, inform, and set the standard with emissions reduction. Blah, blah, blah…
At the end of the day, there are winners and losers in every facet of life. So, should equity be the goal, absolutely, but as far as emissions reduction goes, what about the sins of the past. Hardin says they can’t be undone. True, but the proceeds can be redistributed to justify global participation in the program. Wait, that would mean real long-term change and who wants that… Who is really willing to make a true sacrifice that would actually reduce their standard of living? Sure, give to charity, but would you cut your own food rations to help out starving farmer in Africa. Would Bush, Clinton, Gore, Buffet, Gates, Oprah or anybody else really change their consumption habits in such a manner? Don’t even give me that charity stuff, they like everybody in the developed world over consume and exploit world resources.
Should developing nations participate in emission reduction? What do you think? They’re starving and Al Gore flies around the world and talks about GHG reduction at $250,000 a pop. Sign me up…
What expectations should we have of developing nation? If they were smart, they’d tell us to go pound sand, so long as we did it with a clean burning motor and not in their backyard.
I know, I’m a heathen, but the truth is I believe in environmental justice and resource equity with every fiber of my existence. I’d give up me share if everybody else did, and you know what else, so would most of you, but there are those that wouldn’t and they would let everybody suffer to increase their own bottom line. Liberal, and conservative a like we all know who they, and they run the country.
George, Dick, Barack, Joe, Hank, Tim, Condy, Hillary, and on and on…
They’re all rich and they all scammed others to get there.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Greenhouse Gas Registry to be Included in EPCRA
The Federal Greenhouse Gas Registry Act of 2008 (S.1387) is bill that was introduced in the 110th Congress for the purpose of amending the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) to provide for greenhouse gases.
EPCRA establishes requirements for Federal, State and local governments, Indian Tribes, and industry regarding emergency planning and the community's "right to know" by way reporting requirements on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The right to know piece of the act provides education to the public with knowledge and access to information with regards to hazardous chemicals and their application.
The Federal Greenhouse Gas Registry Act of 2008 intends to establish a registry for greenhouse gases that:
(1) Is complete, consistent, transparent, and accurate;
(2) Will collect reliable and accurate data that can be used to design efficient and effective energy security initiatives and greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies
(3) Will provide appropriate high-quality data to be used for implementing greenhouse gas reduction policies.
The proposed act will further require that the registry:
(1) Builds upon the final rule promulgated under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(2) Will make changes necessary to achieve the purposes of the Act
(3) Require emission reporting to begin by not later than January 1, 2011. Sets forth the duties of the Administrator in establishing the registry, including designing and operating the registry, establishing an advisory body to guide the development and management of the registry, providing coordination and technical assistance, and developing an electronic format for reporting.
The EPA must promulgate the final regulations for implementing the registry no later than July 1, 2009.
The act will also authorize the EPA to bring a civil action against the owner or operator of an affected facility that fails to comply with the Act, and imposes a $25,000 per day for each violation of this Act.
reference:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/Dd110:51:./temp/~bdt3jH:@@@L&summ2=m&/bss/d110query.html
http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/chem/epcra.pdf
EPCRA establishes requirements for Federal, State and local governments, Indian Tribes, and industry regarding emergency planning and the community's "right to know" by way reporting requirements on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The right to know piece of the act provides education to the public with knowledge and access to information with regards to hazardous chemicals and their application.
The Federal Greenhouse Gas Registry Act of 2008 intends to establish a registry for greenhouse gases that:
(1) Is complete, consistent, transparent, and accurate;
(2) Will collect reliable and accurate data that can be used to design efficient and effective energy security initiatives and greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies
(3) Will provide appropriate high-quality data to be used for implementing greenhouse gas reduction policies.
The proposed act will further require that the registry:
(1) Builds upon the final rule promulgated under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(2) Will make changes necessary to achieve the purposes of the Act
(3) Require emission reporting to begin by not later than January 1, 2011. Sets forth the duties of the Administrator in establishing the registry, including designing and operating the registry, establishing an advisory body to guide the development and management of the registry, providing coordination and technical assistance, and developing an electronic format for reporting.
The EPA must promulgate the final regulations for implementing the registry no later than July 1, 2009.
The act will also authorize the EPA to bring a civil action against the owner or operator of an affected facility that fails to comply with the Act, and imposes a $25,000 per day for each violation of this Act.
reference:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/Dd110:51:./temp/~bdt3jH:@@@L&summ2=m&/bss/d110query.html
http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/docs/chem/epcra.pdf
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Environmental Justice for All? The Navy's Recent Failure to Protect North Carolina's Citizens
In 2000, the United States Navy determined that Washington County, North Carolina was the preferred site for its new Outlying Landing Field (OLF) relocation project. At the time OLF was located in Chesapeake, Virginia. The author cites that it initially appeared that the Navy selected the North Carolina location after a thorough review of the alternatives generated during the required NEPA process. After a dissection of the issues surrounding the process, it became clear that Washington County was a preselected and a reverse engineering of the NEPA process to create favorable conditions had occurred. The OLF location, at the time, was a wealthy area of Virginia where the Navy was constantly at odds with residents of the area over noise pollution generated from the field.
The U.S. District Court of North Carolina issued a sweeping injunction on the project based on the systematic deficiency of the Navy’s EIS and the subjective intent of the Navy in placing the OLF in Washington County, North Carolina. On appeal by the Navy, The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Navy failed to take a “hard environmental look” at environmental impacts, but lifted the subjective intent injunction incorrectly dismissing it as irrelevant.
A simple demographic analysis would shed some light on that subject. The area around the Virginia OLF had a median household income of approximately $51,000 per year with only 7 percent of the city’s residents living at or below the poverty line. Median income in
Washington County area was just under $29,000 per year, with 22 percent of the population at or below the poverty line. The Chesapeake area is 29 percent African-American, compared to 49 percent of the Washington County area 1. After a review of the Record of Decision from the court of appeals, the author determined that it was an issue of economics and politics. The Navy chose the location it did because the residences were less likely to interfere with their operation, and they did not possess the political or economic means that the residents around the Virginia did.
The author cited the Navy’s DEIS and SEIS as a blatant disregard for the NEPA process and most striking of the specific failures identified in the article was the Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) analysis that the Navy was required to perform. The Navy concluded that the strike hazard was minimal and the risk to pilots was not significant. Many flight operations experts disagreed and with a retired air force colonial calling the Navy selection one of the worst areas in the U.S. with respect to a potential BASH hazard. In addition to the BASH analysis, it was cited that the Navy also failed to disclose negative evidence to their position, failed to properly conduct comparative analysis and did not assess the cumulative environmental impacts.
In the text there was a distinction direct and indirect intent. This case could prove difficult to classify in that context, but I would be inclined to argue for direct discrimination based on the through reverse engineering process engaging in by the Navy as well as the omission of facts relevant to the issues at hand. One could argue for market rationality based of the value of land and the location of the Washington county land to Naval Support Operations, but as the author described the Navy’s disregard of the NEPA process with the subjective intent being clear. Also the weakened political strength on the Washington County Area as well as the States economics reliance on the Navy’s presence in the areas supports a position of direct intent.
Eubanks, William S., Environmental Justice for All? The Navy's Recent Failure to Protect North Carolina's Citizens(April 15, 2008). North Carolina Central Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 206, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1285559
1. A Source of the demographical statistics was not provided in the article.
The U.S. District Court of North Carolina issued a sweeping injunction on the project based on the systematic deficiency of the Navy’s EIS and the subjective intent of the Navy in placing the OLF in Washington County, North Carolina. On appeal by the Navy, The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Navy failed to take a “hard environmental look” at environmental impacts, but lifted the subjective intent injunction incorrectly dismissing it as irrelevant.
A simple demographic analysis would shed some light on that subject. The area around the Virginia OLF had a median household income of approximately $51,000 per year with only 7 percent of the city’s residents living at or below the poverty line. Median income in
Washington County area was just under $29,000 per year, with 22 percent of the population at or below the poverty line. The Chesapeake area is 29 percent African-American, compared to 49 percent of the Washington County area 1. After a review of the Record of Decision from the court of appeals, the author determined that it was an issue of economics and politics. The Navy chose the location it did because the residences were less likely to interfere with their operation, and they did not possess the political or economic means that the residents around the Virginia did.
The author cited the Navy’s DEIS and SEIS as a blatant disregard for the NEPA process and most striking of the specific failures identified in the article was the Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) analysis that the Navy was required to perform. The Navy concluded that the strike hazard was minimal and the risk to pilots was not significant. Many flight operations experts disagreed and with a retired air force colonial calling the Navy selection one of the worst areas in the U.S. with respect to a potential BASH hazard. In addition to the BASH analysis, it was cited that the Navy also failed to disclose negative evidence to their position, failed to properly conduct comparative analysis and did not assess the cumulative environmental impacts.
In the text there was a distinction direct and indirect intent. This case could prove difficult to classify in that context, but I would be inclined to argue for direct discrimination based on the through reverse engineering process engaging in by the Navy as well as the omission of facts relevant to the issues at hand. One could argue for market rationality based of the value of land and the location of the Washington county land to Naval Support Operations, but as the author described the Navy’s disregard of the NEPA process with the subjective intent being clear. Also the weakened political strength on the Washington County Area as well as the States economics reliance on the Navy’s presence in the areas supports a position of direct intent.
Eubanks, William S., Environmental Justice for All? The Navy's Recent Failure to Protect North Carolina's Citizens(April 15, 2008). North Carolina Central Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 206, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1285559
1. A Source of the demographical statistics was not provided in the article.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Contingent Valuation General Questions
Contingent valuation can be simply explained as a valuation assignment to a non-market good, such as personal health and safety or environmental protection, through a direct method, such as a survey, to determine willingness to pay to mitigate or willingness to travel to utilize a national park. By application of this definition any environmental problem would be candidate for valuation by survey. however, some areas are more applicable to the approach than others.
The preservation and protection of a riparian habitat area is an excellent environmental issue of concern that is conducive to quantification through contingent valuation. The habitat is a public good that’s economic valuation can determined by consumer willingness to pay to preserve, maintain or restore the area. Also, public willingness to pay to utilize the amenities through a survey based on distance willing to travel and an acceptable price of entrance. Such a survey was conduct area use of the area around the San Pedro River in southern Arizona, and concluded that the affected public placed a valuation on the riparian habitat.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/176665/visitor_values_and_local_economic_impacts_of_riparian_habitat_preservation/
The value of clean air is another environmental area of concern that can be evaluated through contingent valuation by virtue of the fact that clean air does not have a direct market value assigned to it. Take the scenario, if a tax to fund a traffic reduction strategy, which could result in a reduction of urban smog, through a 30 percent reduction in peak time traffic along the I-10 interchange, was proposed for the Ahwatukee area. Public buy-in to this plan could readily be determined through surveys in the area as well as commuters on the freeway.
Public willingness to pay to mitigate the urban heat island effect would be an excellent application of a contingent valuation survey. Specifically because the negative impact could be subjective and in most cases indirectly correlated such as increased energy cost because of increased nighttime air conditioner usage.
Environmental issues not particularly conducive to contingent valuation have a specific impact that can be measured directly through a quantitative analysis.
Mitigation of an oil spill in a river that would result in direct damage to a surface water treatment facilities’ process, which can be measured in terms of monetary value would not be appropriate for as contingent. Public willingness to pay for such a project may hold value for informational purposes, but would have little impact as to whether a cleanup would actually occur. I could be argued that a public survey would hold value as to what means the enforcement body would pursue reimbursement.
Another area that would not be conducive to contingent valuation is the mitigation of a contaminated groundwater aquifer. There is also a direct valuation that can be determined and mitigation would not be based on public willingness to pay. Mitigation strategy such as abandonment, treatment or alternative supply source would be based on cost benefit analysis.
The preservation and protection of a riparian habitat area is an excellent environmental issue of concern that is conducive to quantification through contingent valuation. The habitat is a public good that’s economic valuation can determined by consumer willingness to pay to preserve, maintain or restore the area. Also, public willingness to pay to utilize the amenities through a survey based on distance willing to travel and an acceptable price of entrance. Such a survey was conduct area use of the area around the San Pedro River in southern Arizona, and concluded that the affected public placed a valuation on the riparian habitat.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/176665/visitor_values_and_local_economic_impacts_of_riparian_habitat_preservation/
The value of clean air is another environmental area of concern that can be evaluated through contingent valuation by virtue of the fact that clean air does not have a direct market value assigned to it. Take the scenario, if a tax to fund a traffic reduction strategy, which could result in a reduction of urban smog, through a 30 percent reduction in peak time traffic along the I-10 interchange, was proposed for the Ahwatukee area. Public buy-in to this plan could readily be determined through surveys in the area as well as commuters on the freeway.
Public willingness to pay to mitigate the urban heat island effect would be an excellent application of a contingent valuation survey. Specifically because the negative impact could be subjective and in most cases indirectly correlated such as increased energy cost because of increased nighttime air conditioner usage.
Environmental issues not particularly conducive to contingent valuation have a specific impact that can be measured directly through a quantitative analysis.
Mitigation of an oil spill in a river that would result in direct damage to a surface water treatment facilities’ process, which can be measured in terms of monetary value would not be appropriate for as contingent. Public willingness to pay for such a project may hold value for informational purposes, but would have little impact as to whether a cleanup would actually occur. I could be argued that a public survey would hold value as to what means the enforcement body would pursue reimbursement.
Another area that would not be conducive to contingent valuation is the mitigation of a contaminated groundwater aquifer. There is also a direct valuation that can be determined and mitigation would not be based on public willingness to pay. Mitigation strategy such as abandonment, treatment or alternative supply source would be based on cost benefit analysis.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Week 4 General Question
Environmental Planners should engage the public when dealing with environmental issues of any kind especially if it is an issue that the public knowledge is limited about. As professionals we have a moral and ethical responsibility to provide information to stakeholder in a media in which they can understand it. Also, public comment is a require part of the NEPA process. The letter and spirit of NEPA is create a harmony between humans and their environment, and
The Council for Environmental Quality does provide professional guidance on this matter, and if you are a certified planner (AICP) then your code of conduct also requires that you actively inform stakeholders and work to include public participation in the planning process.
Given the current state of distrust with government, through education and the communication of accurate information the likelihood of community buy-in may be significantly increased if the public is educated on the matter, and they feel the development and technical teams have been forthcoming with them throughout the process.
Collaboration in a project means the stakeholder will assume ownership in ensuring a timely and positive outcome.
A more challenging concept would be to justify why the public shouldn't be informed on matters of environmental concern.
The Council for Environmental Quality does provide professional guidance on this matter, and if you are a certified planner (AICP) then your code of conduct also requires that you actively inform stakeholders and work to include public participation in the planning process.
Given the current state of distrust with government, through education and the communication of accurate information the likelihood of community buy-in may be significantly increased if the public is educated on the matter, and they feel the development and technical teams have been forthcoming with them throughout the process.
Collaboration in a project means the stakeholder will assume ownership in ensuring a timely and positive outcome.
A more challenging concept would be to justify why the public shouldn't be informed on matters of environmental concern.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Weekly Assignment 3
Over the last 42 years environmental policy have largely been a factor of politics and the platform of the controlling party’s agenda. There has been a large conflict between economy and environment, and the conflict only proved more challenging when the general public is becoming increasing aware and supportive of environmental protection. This same public also wants to achieve the most for the least. From 1970 to 2012 the direction of environmental policy has been positive however the direction of policy has been a pendulum swinging with each election and change of power. Only in the last 12 years have there been chief executives in power that had the means to make singular change. From 2000-2008 congress was distracted with war at home and abroad to provide the necessary oversight and President Obama had a party majority in both houses. Each administration followed the direction of the core constituents, with only the latter making any real beneficial change to the environment.
Environmental policy in the United States was relatively dead until the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The purpose of NEPA was to establish a harmony between humans and their environment, and was the result of increased public concern over environmental issues and quality of life. The act required preparation of Environmental Impacts Statements (EIS), and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that communicated directly with the president and congress on issues of environmental concern.
Sweeping policy was created in the early part of the 70’s decade including the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1970, the Clean Water Act, which was the result of a congressional veto override, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Also, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted, but signed into law in 1980. This act resulted in the Superfund, which created a one billion dollar poll of resources to assist with the cleanup of toxic waste sites. The result of these policies was an accountability matrix that made it a matter of law, and economics, for polluters to assume responsibility for environmental degradation as well as establish preventative and/or mitigation solutions for their actions.
As double digit inflation, an oil embargo and the resulting unemployment hit, political circles and the court of public opinion began to shift towards economy over environment. This resulted in the 1980 landslide election of, conservative, California Governor Ronald Reagan
By the time President Reagan was elected, the economy was in recession, and he pledged an agenda of less government, decentralization of power and more reliance on the private sector. This resulted in a complete review of all of the environmental policies of the previous three administrations. Initially congress support this stance, however public scrutiny and concern over the environmental ultimately prevailed. During the Reagan years, the CAA, CWA, SDWA, RCRA and Superfund were all strengthened. It should also be noted that the economy improved during Reagan’s tenure and his laissez faire attitude toward environmental enforcement resulted in what could be dubbed a win-win scenario, as it caused an increase in national support for environmental issues. In the later part of the decade, a new president was elected, and George H. Bush was an extension of the previous regime, however he did seek to have a more positive public perception on environment than his former boss, and demonstrated this with the passage of the CAAA of 1990.
As Bill Clinton took office in 1992, the Earth Summit in Brazil had concluded and future buzz phrases such as climate change, global warming, energy independence, and sustainability were starting to make their way onto to the political and environmental scene.
President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore had a favorable stance on environmental issues. Their commitment could be subject to question as there was no major act that was signed into law during their tenure, however their administration did reverse most of the executive orders that were favored by business, and opposed by environmental groups. The Clinton Administration made a lot of pro environmental appointments and where they lacked in policy they flourished in action with the creation of a council on sustainable development, leadership in the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), opposition to oil exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and its overall support of spending and funding of environmental projects at home and abroad. While the US took a leadership role in the development of the IPCC’s Kyoto Protocol, it was never ratified by the United States under Clinton’s administration.
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected president, and in conflict with the direction of his processor he made a multitude of conservative pro-economy appointments throughout his administration. President Bush chose a fellow oil person to be his number two in Dick Cheney. Policy during the Bush/Cheney era favored the direction of energy producer and economic interests. There was significant push by his administration to achieve energy independence through an increase in domestic supply by way of lifting offshore drilling bans and new exploration and drilling in ANWR. The Bush administration can be highlighted his a repeal of new source review requirements under the CAAA of 1977, suspension of changes to the Arsenic Rule, complete withdrew from the IPCC’s Kyoto Protocol thus declaring it “dead”, removal of State rights to apply fuel efficiency standards to vehicles and its commitment to its party’s core constituency over the environment.
In 2008 Barack Obama was elected president. The economic situation that Obama inherited was very similar to that of Reagan in 1980 however their political ideologies were different. The Obama administration’s proactive approach began with a change in direction from his predecessor, which allowed states to exceed federal fuel efficiency requirements on automobiles. While Obama was working on the Obama Act, which has already begun to remedy the housing and credit crisis that came to light four years ago, he also initiated policy that would impose mercury discharge limits on power plants. This was well received by public health officials, and environmental groups the like. Former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop call the policy “a bridge between public and environmental health never before built”, as mercury is the second most toxic substance on the planet behind plutonium. At the 15th Conference of Parties, the United States recommitted to the international guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol and had taken a leadership in the adoption of the Son of Kyoto slated for a 2012 signature of parties.
The 1st Obama administration was highlighted by a proactive environmental stance and with the support of a bipartisan congress and moderate high court an agenda of energy independence, environmental sovereignty and a sustainable future are within our reach.
Environmental policy in the United States was relatively dead until the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The purpose of NEPA was to establish a harmony between humans and their environment, and was the result of increased public concern over environmental issues and quality of life. The act required preparation of Environmental Impacts Statements (EIS), and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that communicated directly with the president and congress on issues of environmental concern.
Sweeping policy was created in the early part of the 70’s decade including the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1970, the Clean Water Act, which was the result of a congressional veto override, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Also, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted, but signed into law in 1980. This act resulted in the Superfund, which created a one billion dollar poll of resources to assist with the cleanup of toxic waste sites. The result of these policies was an accountability matrix that made it a matter of law, and economics, for polluters to assume responsibility for environmental degradation as well as establish preventative and/or mitigation solutions for their actions.
As double digit inflation, an oil embargo and the resulting unemployment hit, political circles and the court of public opinion began to shift towards economy over environment. This resulted in the 1980 landslide election of, conservative, California Governor Ronald Reagan
By the time President Reagan was elected, the economy was in recession, and he pledged an agenda of less government, decentralization of power and more reliance on the private sector. This resulted in a complete review of all of the environmental policies of the previous three administrations. Initially congress support this stance, however public scrutiny and concern over the environmental ultimately prevailed. During the Reagan years, the CAA, CWA, SDWA, RCRA and Superfund were all strengthened. It should also be noted that the economy improved during Reagan’s tenure and his laissez faire attitude toward environmental enforcement resulted in what could be dubbed a win-win scenario, as it caused an increase in national support for environmental issues. In the later part of the decade, a new president was elected, and George H. Bush was an extension of the previous regime, however he did seek to have a more positive public perception on environment than his former boss, and demonstrated this with the passage of the CAAA of 1990.
As Bill Clinton took office in 1992, the Earth Summit in Brazil had concluded and future buzz phrases such as climate change, global warming, energy independence, and sustainability were starting to make their way onto to the political and environmental scene.
President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore had a favorable stance on environmental issues. Their commitment could be subject to question as there was no major act that was signed into law during their tenure, however their administration did reverse most of the executive orders that were favored by business, and opposed by environmental groups. The Clinton Administration made a lot of pro environmental appointments and where they lacked in policy they flourished in action with the creation of a council on sustainable development, leadership in the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), opposition to oil exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and its overall support of spending and funding of environmental projects at home and abroad. While the US took a leadership role in the development of the IPCC’s Kyoto Protocol, it was never ratified by the United States under Clinton’s administration.
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected president, and in conflict with the direction of his processor he made a multitude of conservative pro-economy appointments throughout his administration. President Bush chose a fellow oil person to be his number two in Dick Cheney. Policy during the Bush/Cheney era favored the direction of energy producer and economic interests. There was significant push by his administration to achieve energy independence through an increase in domestic supply by way of lifting offshore drilling bans and new exploration and drilling in ANWR. The Bush administration can be highlighted his a repeal of new source review requirements under the CAAA of 1977, suspension of changes to the Arsenic Rule, complete withdrew from the IPCC’s Kyoto Protocol thus declaring it “dead”, removal of State rights to apply fuel efficiency standards to vehicles and its commitment to its party’s core constituency over the environment.
In 2008 Barack Obama was elected president. The economic situation that Obama inherited was very similar to that of Reagan in 1980 however their political ideologies were different. The Obama administration’s proactive approach began with a change in direction from his predecessor, which allowed states to exceed federal fuel efficiency requirements on automobiles. While Obama was working on the Obama Act, which has already begun to remedy the housing and credit crisis that came to light four years ago, he also initiated policy that would impose mercury discharge limits on power plants. This was well received by public health officials, and environmental groups the like. Former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop call the policy “a bridge between public and environmental health never before built”, as mercury is the second most toxic substance on the planet behind plutonium. At the 15th Conference of Parties, the United States recommitted to the international guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol and had taken a leadership in the adoption of the Son of Kyoto slated for a 2012 signature of parties.
The 1st Obama administration was highlighted by a proactive environmental stance and with the support of a bipartisan congress and moderate high court an agenda of energy independence, environmental sovereignty and a sustainable future are within our reach.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Weekly Assignment 2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_greenhouse_gases
It is interesting that the Obama administration has acted so swiftly on this issue considering the state of the economy.
It shows a proactive interest in air quality as well as efficient resource management by way of the delegation of authority to the States.
I remember feeling perplexed when I read about the EPA's denial of California's request because republican administrations traditionally favor delegation to the State
The article also stated, without actually saying which direction he would go, that President Obama will order new fuel economy guidelines. I expect the standard to either increase in MPG, or tighten the timeline.
The linking of a policy proposal to clean energy supplies and the word "green" was also a nice tough.
It is interesting that the Obama administration has acted so swiftly on this issue considering the state of the economy.
It shows a proactive interest in air quality as well as efficient resource management by way of the delegation of authority to the States.
I remember feeling perplexed when I read about the EPA's denial of California's request because republican administrations traditionally favor delegation to the State
The article also stated, without actually saying which direction he would go, that President Obama will order new fuel economy guidelines. I expect the standard to either increase in MPG, or tighten the timeline.
The linking of a policy proposal to clean energy supplies and the word "green" was also a nice tough.
Friday, January 23, 2009
A policy issue of note to me has been the legal conflict of Prescott's plan to build a 36" transmission main for the purpose of importing water from the Big Chino Aquifer into their Active Management Area. This will allow them to achieve "safe yield" as required by the Groundwater Management Act of 1980.
Law:
Under current law, groundwater is open access and any user can pump from land they own. Surface water law established "senior vested rights" based who was there first.
Conflict:
Prescott says that, under open access law, they can move the water from Big Chino because they bought ranch land that sits on it. SRP states that Prescott cannot move the water because the exportation would reduce the headwaters of the Verde River by 86 percent. Under current law, SRP was "senior vested" surface water rights.
SRP plans to take Prescott to court over this matter.
Also, it is only fair to say the Center for Bio-diversity has weighed in on this issue in favor of the SRP position due to the threat that an 86 percent reduction to the headwaters would pose to the riparian habitat along the river.
Any thoughts on who will prevail and why...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
