City Launches New Compost Pickup Program as Part of Zero Waste Strategy

Sustainable Seattle: City Launches New Compost Pickup Program as Part of Zero Waste Strategy, Democracy Now, March 30, 2009

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/30/sustainable_seattle_group_part_of_movement

At the Local Government Level
The “Zero Waste Strategy” proposed by the Seattle City Council, as a local government plan for sustainability represents a great pace beyond individual or city recycling programs. The Zero Waste Strategy essentially provides a way for everyone in the community or city to participate in the compost program by supplying the necessary carts and weekly pick up service. The City Council representative stated “We actually send our garbage to a landfill in eastern Oregon. And every day, we send a mile-long train of garbage out of Seattle to that landfill in eastern Oregon.” Encouraging city-wide involvement by composting will drastically reduce the amount of waste overfilling landfills in neighboring states.
Analyzing the sustainability of the Zero Waste Strategy at the local government level demonstrates city’s planning goals to go beyond recycling, and tackle waste reduction. The city of Seattle has another program, mentioned in the text, “Seattle Beige” where latex paint is reused for local schools and hospitals in the area. By continuing their sustainability efforts through the city council and local citizenry, Seattle will be able to not only change public sector procurement policies, as mentioned in the text, but also allow the community to take part of the planning of sustainability in their community.

Reviewing Sustainability at the Regional Planning Level
As demonstrated in the article previously mentioned, the city’s proposed “Zero Waste Strategy” was easily implemented in a progressive environmentally conscious citizenry. Although this program can successfully be implemented at the local government level, this issue can also be reviewed at the regional level, including suburbs of Seattle, and parts of Oregon.
Considering that the neighboring state, Oregon, is the home of the garbage and waste coming from the city of Seattle, it seems reasonable to be able to gain political and/or local government support in Oregon to establish this “Zero Waste Strategy” throughout Washington and Oregon. Although both neighboring states may agree that waste reduction is necessary, it may be difficult to come to an agreement as to the process of this reduction, in this case, the composting of household waste.
Now considering the environmental conscious bias of residents in Oregon and Washington, the regional planning level may be politically and socially feasible in this example. Now considering Arizona, and its neighboring state, California, I doubt the same consensus would occur due to the differing environmental sustainability viewpoints of the two. In consideration of the current “Zero Waste Strategy”, it would seem likely that environmental quality would improve with regional planning in conjunction with policy makers.

Policy & Sustainability

1. How do you believe sustainability should be defined for policy-making?

Frameworks for Environmental Policy

1. Values Framework: Which components of your policy issue (for your Final Paper) are most relevant for Cohen’s “Values” Framework?

In utilizing the values framework from Cohen, the policy being analyzed clearly stems from our lifestyle choices in the US. Our society has this fundamental behavior dysfunction that our way of life and consumption are entitlements; this is where our issue stems from. The simple act of excluding 1.5 million acres of land in Alaska’s arctic coastal plain was not only an economic choice, but one of human selfishness, to benefit from drilling oil to maintain our increased consumption. Now, almost 30 years later, the “Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act” H.R.39 is trying to mitigate the important and significant trade-off between economic well-being and ecological well-being. The proposed bill will indeed favor ecological well-being over that of human well-being, in this case, the ability to drill for oil in Alaska’s arctic coastal plain.

2. Political Framework: Which components of your policy issue (for your Final Paper) are most relevant for Cohen’s “Political” Framework?

Currently H.R. 39 and S. 231, both to reallocate the arctic coastal plain as part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, have both been introduced in the corresponding Congress, have been read, and referred to committees. Neither bill has been voted or scheduled for a vote at this time; this may be due to the controversy behind the potential oil drilling of this land.

This bill involves many stakeholders, and of course winners and losers. Political stakeholders include the House and the Senate, as well as Alaska and their political appointments, as well as the Presidential appointments. If this issue was purely about environmental conservation, the stakeholders would be a little different than the current situation. But since this land has the potential to create domestic oil production, there are several issues that are present with the conservation of this land. Obviously, if this bill passes as written, oil drilling will not be allowed in the 1.5 million acres designated in this bill, therefore oil companies, and their shareholders will be the losers in this policy. While there will be winners if this passes, the battle will continue about oil drilling in other parts of Alaska.

3. Science & Technology Framework: Which components of your policy issue (for your Final Paper) are most relevant for Cohen’s “Science & Technology” Framework?

In response the science and technology framework, there is scientific uncertainty in regards to the actual usability of the oil produced from the land discussed in the proposed bill. In fact, the main discussion is the quantity and quality of potential oil produced from this land that is frequently debated among those designated to report their findings. These studies have been updated every few years or so to update the potential oil production based on current scientific and technology findings. It is difficult for decision makers, those in the House and Senate to vote on a bill with an environmental conservation component without appropriate data to support such a decision. There are far too many individuals and decision makers that would prefer to drill oil instead of conserving this land. At this time, we should place emphasis and investment on alternate fuel technologies or “green” energy instead of arguing about some acreage in Alaska with minimal oil supply.
4. Policy Design Framework: Which components of your policy issue (for your Final Paper) are most relevant for Cohen’s “Policy Design” Framework?

The current policy being discussed, the “Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act” reflects the influence of political considerations, and stakeholder compromises, nothing to do with strategic thinking, or lucky guesses. The current bill being proposed does not add any additional Alaskan land to the ANWR, it only reallocates a mere 1.5 million acres that was deliberately excluded some 30 years ago with the intent of domestic oil production. Unfortunately the regulated community and non regulated parties are aware of the proposed bill as it is in fact the same bill proposed since 1991. It is difficult to gain their support on this bill without any progress in over 15 years. It may be true that they support the policy design, but active participants are difficult to retain over time, although this may change now that domestic oil production seems to be a big talking point in politics. If this bill passes, the progress would finally be a decision to conserve our environment rather than choosing the economic gain. Past and current environmental policies usually succeed if this trade-off does not seem important.

5. Management Framework: Which components of your policy issue (for your Final Paper) are most relevant for Cohen’s “Management” Framework?

In reviewing the management framework, there is organizational capacity to encourage the use of technology to prevent the environmental issue at hand. Current legislation in the economic stimulus bill places emphasis on creating energy independence and reducing our society’s need for oil. With this strategic plan in place, it may control the current issue about the coastal plain in Alaska currently under attack. Unfortunately, it is uncertain if the appropriate organization capacity is available at this time, maybe with the current talk of energy sustainability we may develop this capacity. At this time, considering the current economic shortfall, and the delay in economic stimulus money, procedures are still being developed in terms of energy conservation and alternative fuel sources. At this time, we have a lot we need to learn about other sources of fuel, and that will take some time.

Population Regulation

1) Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and the US did to increase their economic well-being?

In all fairness and equality, yes developing countries have the right to exploit their own resources in their own countries as did Europe and the US. But we, as wealthy and sustainable countries have the responsibility to these developing countries to assist them without forcing them to exploit their natural resources for economic well-being. We are in a time where we realize the importance of these resources, and we have the economic gain (even in our current economic crisis) to assist those around us. If we can create an environment where countries help each other when they really need help, like the creation for UN or other coalitions, we can share resources to save those resources that cannot be recreated.

2) What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?

General expectations of developing nations would be low considering the desire to gain economic well-being in lieu of global warming reductions. As discussed in the environmental Kuznets curve, development takes priority over pollution abatement until per capita income reaches $5000-8000, and clearly our developing nations are well below this statistic. In order to promote equity between both industrialized and developing nations in the goal of reducing global warming, an economic incentive needs to be produced for the poorer nations to participate. When families and countries have to choose between environmental conservation and feeding their families, clearly their view of the climate change debate will vary drastically from the industrialized nations.
Establishing that equity is not present between industrialized and developing nations, it is the responsibility of the wealthier countries to promote sustainable environments to reduce climate change. Putting a very complex issue in simple context: What’s in it for me? Without this type of incentive, we cannot expect much of developing nations at this time; their choices are far different than ours at this time.

Final Paper Topic: “Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act”

111th Congress: H.R. 39 and S.231

The purpose: of “Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act” is to reallocate the arctic coastal plain (approximately 1.5 million acres) as part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska as wilderness. This act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System under the Wilderness Act.

Some History: In December 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). ANILCA designated most of the original Arctic National Wildlife Range as Wilderness except for approximately 1.5 million acres on the Refuge's coastal plain. Section 1002 of this act required study assessments of fish and wildlife, as well as the potential petroleum resources to be reported to Congress.

This bill has been re-introduced in the Senate in the 102nd Congress (1991) to the current 111th Congress.

The Assessment: The revised and recent assessment of petroleum in the 1002 area (1.5 million acres) establishes probable estimates of 7.7 billion barrels of crude oil over significant time.

Based on the United States current usage of approximately 21 million barrels a day, the most we can anticipate is one year of oil consumption on the destruction of the arctic coastal plain.

· http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
· http://arctic.fws.gov/1002man.htm
· http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/
· http://science.howstuffworks.com/us-gas-addiction.htm

Small-town Residents Living on Deadly Ground

http://www.srwolf.com/wolfsoc/articlearchives/2008/05/smalltown_residents_living_on.html
By Rowan on May 6, 2008 7:10 PM Ronnie Greene. Miami Herald. 5/03/2008.

Summary: The residents of Tallevast, Florida, a small 80 home neighborhood is experiencing exposure to cancer-causing chemicals in their drinking water as a result of an old beryllium plant leaking into their ground water over the past decade. The community is experiencing frequent cancer related deaths in the neighborhood as well as information withheld regarding the ground water leakage situation.

The Issue: The main information that could be used to demonstrate this situation as an environmental justice issue is the deliberate exclusion of the groundwater leakage to residents of the community. Not only did the company, Lockheed Martin, owner and seller of the old beryllium plant become aware of the leak, but the state of Florida was also aware of leak and Lockheed Martin’s liability to clean it up. Lockheed Martin’s knowledge of the poisonous chemical was established in early testing of the materials in 1997, followed by their groundwater testing in 2000. Testing reports showed the groundwater was tainted with a string of toxins including trichloroethylene, or TCE, a solvent that removes grease from metal parts; this is a known cancer risk in drinking water. The numbers were stunning. In one spot, the concentration of cancer-causing TCE was 10,000 times above state standards. Five of the seven irrigation wells the state sampled showed levels of TCE above Florida drinking-water standards by reported by Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection. Testing continued through 2003 without resident notification. Only by accident was a nosy resident notified that their groundwater was contaminated.

Those Affected: The small black community of Tallevast, Florida is the group primarily affected by the groundwater contamination caused by the old beryllium plant owned by Lockheed Martin. These residents have experiences various symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, and different types of cancer, predominantly lymphoma. Granted Florida’s DEP and Lockheed Martin also are affected by this case, mostly financially whether in research or litigation. But the residents are the ones at significant risk, without proper assessment of real physical health risk.

“Florida health officials cite an elevated cancer risk for Tallevast residents exposed to toxic groundwater over long periods, but a definitive study linking exposure to cases has not been done.”

Relevant Text: The above situation in Tallevast is similar to the Chester, Pennsylvania case discussed in the Ringquist chapter of the text of environmental racism. As discussed in the text, the Chester case, where TSDF’s were common place is not an isolated example. Frequently these chemical plants, whether new or old are in the same vicinity as those in certain minority or income groups.
Some research has been done as to the reasoning of the correlation of minorities and health damaging pollutants. The article written by Konisky mentions that studies have shown that there is a correlation between lower pollution levels and political mobilization resources. Other studies also mentioned in this article have shown that party affiliation of the governor, or party control influences that area’s environmental legislation. Clearly a small town or neighborhood of 80 homes is not going to generate much political capital from its state legislators or governor about local health concerns.

The result: Depending on the public health risk or public outcry, i.e. cancer causing chemicals, a small neighborhood like Tallevast, In 2005, prompted a change in state law that requires polluters to notify communities within 30 days and survey all wells near a contamination source. It's called the Tallevast Bill.

Contingent Valuation Debate: To use or not to use?

Environmental problems that could be conducive to the contingent valuation model would be any situation where local environmental issues are being considered. The collection of individual willingness to pay for the preservation of that good would be directly related to the issue at hand. There needs to be a relationship between the situation and the individual for them to have a “willingness to pay”. An example of the use of the CV model to develop the existence value would be the Grand Canyon, although Arizonian’s are not the only ones to value this natural resource, it would be plausible to develop a willingness to pay to ensure the preservation for the Grand Canyon for centuries to come.

The first environmental problem that would not be conducive to the CV model that comes to mind is global warming. I think the problem is too wide spread to provide individual assessment of existence valuation or a willingness to pay. Although I believe that a lot of individuals would agree that global warming is “bad” but would not agree to trade in their cars, or household items to reduce their carbon footprint. Another example of an environmental problem that would not be conducive to the contingent valuation model would be anything potentially controversial. If a particular situation is controversial in the ideas of the public and the media, I do not believe that any information gained from the CV model would provide any reliable analysis that would be usable.

Public Engagement

Public involvement in the policy process should always be accommodated in the decision making progression. It is the foundation of our democratic process of “government by the people” in the United States. Undoubtedly the limited scientific knowledge by the public will require more involvement in the informational segment of the decision making process, but as demonstrated by the recently assigned articles, the benefits received and relationships formed from proactive involvement cannot be replicated in any alternative way. The public already distrusts government and are very skeptic of the policy process, voluntary participation by both parties help rebuild the trust of our bureaucratic system.
The development of a public involvement and response plan (PIRP) in the Unexploded Chemical Munitions case study as discussed in the Shepherd and Bowler article used many positive ways of including the public through the mail, phone calls, public meetings, site visits, monthly newsletters, and my favorite the Zone Captains. Assigning “Zone Captains” in the community you are dealing with can be an effective way to deliver information the masses without having to personally contact each individual, as well as provide an outlet for the community to discuss the information together. The PIRP developed in this case study could be utilized by public managers and environmental planners to engage the community in their projects.

Obama Administration Trumps Previous Administrations on Environmental Policy

During the course of Barack Obama’s first term as President of the United States, 2008-2012, it was apparent to the nation that environmental policy has taken a back seat to the increasing costs of two wars overseas and a declining economy. In spite of financially strapped situation, Obama felt it was absolutely necessary to promote environmental issues like energy independence and fuel efficiency. Considering the historical trends, the ups and downs of the industry, different presidential administrations created numerous legislation and varying priorities on the topic.

Previous environmental policy trends among past administrations have neglected these important issues. In reviewing the historical trends of the 1970’s, the first Earth Day of 1970 demonstrated the need for environmental policy to become part of the political agenda.

During this time President Nixon felt regulation on air pollution and control were important aspects policy that needed to be implemented. During the course of his administration, the passage of several environmental policies was implemented. For example, National Environmental Policy of 1969, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, and the Marine Protection Act of 1972 marked some of the legislation passing during this time.

The Ford administration also demonstrated some environmental conscious by passing the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980.

Reagan initiated a very significant policy, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, a much contested topic of waste disposal and prevention almost 30 years later. Other legislation that was passed during the Reagan administration was The Food Security Act of 1985, and the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986.

The first Bush administration, George H. Bush authorized the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, set new requirements for the Clean Air Act of 1990, and the initiation of the Energy Policy Act. Finally a comprehensive policy for energy dependency from foreign oil passed in this act.
The Clinton administration implemented a new approach to the issue of food sanitation and pesticides, and passed the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Unfortunately during the course of this administration, not many environmental policies were passed during this time. Although environmental policy was important to his administration, conflicting polices and public opinion made it difficult to produce any worthwhile policies during this time.

Then came the dreaded George W. Bush administration that trampled any historical environmental trends or progress that would have benefited the environment, people or animal. The so called “Healthy Forests Restoration” was nothing by the name of the bill, but actually allowed the cutting down of forests. The brief little summaries of this act portray forests needing healthy pruning, but were not the intent of this particular president. One of the most significant decisions in environmental policy by this administration was the United State’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in climate change.

“George W. Bush will go down as the worst environmental president in our nation’s history”

This quote by Robert F Kennedy Jr. from 2004 still stands true eight years later.

Now at the end of President Barack Obama’s first term as president of the United States, his initiatives in improving fuel efficiency, energy independence, improving technology, and improving the national economy cannot be taken lightly. Not only was he presented with the greatest financial distress since the Great Depression almost 80 years ago, the largest federal budget deficit, two world wars with no end in sight, and a nation with no hope for the future, he was able to turn around the scary place the nation was heading. The Obama administration was able to learn from the previous administration, and utilized the positives of the legislation that passed during previous administrations, like the Nixon and Reagan administrations. Although those previous administrations were dealing with far more simplistic environmental issues than are presently now considered, for example, global warming.

It takes great insight to realize that strong environmental policy does have its costs, but a far greater return on its investment. Can you imagine that people drove Hummers and Yukons on our residential streets getting 8 miles a gallon and creating obnoxious emissions? In only four years time, we have a greater variety of hybrid vehicles that almost any family can afford to purchase as well as gasoline vehicles that perform at least 40 miles per gallon. That initial push for increased fuel efficiency by the car industry at the beginning of his term was the momentous occasion when everyone realized that finally environmental policy has a place on the political agenda, and it wasn’t going anywhere!

Obama's Move on Fuel Efficiency: A Clean Win for Greens

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1874106,00.html?imw=Y?iid=perma_share

Obama's Move on Fuel Efficiency: A Clean Win for Greens
By Bryan Walsh Monday, Jan. 26, 2009 Time Magazine

"President Obama has done more in one week to reduce oil dependence and fight global warming than President Bush did in eight years," said Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress. It truly is a change. (Quoted from the article)

The subject about fuel efficient cars and oil dependency is something that is commonly discussed among all political affiliations. I am impressed that Obama has decided to take the lead and honor his word on the campaign trail about reducing oil dependency and promoting energy efficiency. Reading the Vig & Kraft text was the first time I had heard about the more stringent requirements that California was requested from auto makers. I thought it was significantly interesting that this article appeared within the same few days with a positive result. I just hope allowing these new restrictions will motivate the auto industry to innovate and build more efficient cars.

New Blogger Beware

So, I am completely new to blogging, as this is my first time for creating one and even responding to one. So, if anyone has any suggestions for newbies like me, feel free to let me know.