Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 23, 2009
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.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
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
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
Monday, March 2, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
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.
Monday, February 16, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
