Assignment #7 - Part II

1) Panel Suggests 100 Ways Buildings Can Be Greener" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/science/earth/02green.html

2) The sustainability issue in the article is addressed a local level. New York City Council and Mayor Michael Bloomberg released a report, produced by a panel of experts, on how the city can make building codes more environmentally sound. The City Council still needs to approve proposals from the report.

Stakeholders such as the real estate industry, building industry, and environmental groups all participated in a briefing on the report. Educating the stakeholders is one way the local government can start to progress toward their long-term goal.

New York City is trying to reduce greenhouse gases. According to the article, 75 percent of the city's greenhouse gases are produced by the buildings (Navarro, 2010). The panel's proposal consists of ways the city can combat greenhouse gases produced from the buildings. The city's long-term goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030 (Navarro, 2010). This is substantially more than the one to four year projects usually seen in local government sustainability policies (Wheeler, 2004).

3) While the sustainability issue is a local issue dealing with buildings directly in the city, it would be possible for the issue to be addressed at a state level or a nation level. The national level would possibly be a more general and not as specific policy regarding the greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. At a national level, all cities would be subject to stricter policies whether or not they faced the same type of sustainability issue. It would also take longer for a national policy to be implemented than at the local level. At the city level, on the City Council needs to approve the proposal for a change in the city codes. At a national level, there are several more stakeholders as well.

The state level, while it would have been more specific and able to deal with the problem at hand, it may not adequately address the 75 percent greenhouse gas emissions in New York City. Other major cities in New York include, Albany, Buffalo, and White Plains. Those cities may not be facing such high greenhouse gas emissions and the new requirements will be costly.

The local level is the appropriate place to deal with such a sustainability issue. New York City is already in the process of working towards the long-term goal of reduction of greenhouse gases by 2030. Another level of government may not be able to meet that goal. If the goal was purposed on a larger level of government, all stakeholders may not respond as positively as the just the city stakeholders have.

Laundry

I recently purchased a new clothes washer and a new dryer. Although I purchased EnergyStar appliances, I was still curious about how my electricity, water, and gas bills would be effected. Specifically, how much energy does line drying save rather than using the dryer. I line-dry most of my clothes anyway, but I still wanted to know. I've definitely become more environmentally and fiscally conscious since purchasing my home. Here is an interesting link on washer/dryer appliances: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/dryers.html While the energy used to operate an electric or gas dryer does not vary too much, the money saved (over a lifetime) from operating a gas dryer is significantly less than an electric dryer. Still, according the the website, a clothes dryer is one of the most expensive appliances (second to the refrigerator) to operate. Since I live in such a beautifully sunny state it makes sense to line-dry my clothes when possible. I'm definitely going to make a goal of cutting down on my dryer usage.

Nuclear Weapons and the Environment

Last week as the United States and Russia were signing the New START Treaty, I was reading Steven Cohen's book for class. I was thinking of nuclear weapons and whether they could be considered an environmental policy issue, separate from foreign policy. As I thought about this, I re-read the Preface of Understanding Environmental Policy. Cohen uses a quote from one of President Kennedy's speeches on the danger of nuclear war (2006):

For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

John Kennedy, American University, June 10, 1963

I thought this quote was appropriate for the nuclear arms issue and nuclear summit currently taking place. So often, economic policy is tied to environmental policy. It is interesting to see such a pronounced foreign policy issue as an environmental policy issue. The fall-out from nuclear weapons would have an absolutely devastating effect on the environment. Below are two links that I found regarding the White House and the nuclear arms issues.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/12/effort-achieve-nuclear-security-0

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/world/14summit.html

Assignment #6- H.R. 54 and Cohen's Frameworks

1. Values Framework

H.R. 54, a.k.a. The Great Lakes Water Protection Act, would amend the Federal Pollution Control ACt and prohibit any publicly owned treatment-works from intentionally bypassing a treatment facility and dumping waste into the Great Lakes. This bill is in-line with Cohen's argument that we should adopt environmental policies that "focus on developing less destructive methods for fulfilling the current consumer ethic" (2006, p. 15). Although a great deal of clean-up has been done to the Lakes over the past few decades, "toxic, human, animal and industrial wastes," (Gray et al., 2007, p. 1) and other substances continue to pollute the Great Lakes (Gray et al., 2007). H.R. 54 will not entirely solve the Great Lakes pollution problem but it will assuage one known harm to the Lakes. It will also penalize those that knowingly pollute the lakes. There is a right and wrong value issue because the bill aims to create a harsher penalty for illegal dumping.

2. Political Framework

H.R. 54 was introduced by Illinois Representatives Mark Kirk and Daniel Lipinski. However, the issue affects all levels of government, local governments like Chicago, state and federal governments, and even international governments. The United States shares the Great Lakes with our neighbor to the north, Canada. It is important that all governments work together in order to efficiently implement and manage environmental policies surrounding the Great Lakes.

3. Science & Technology Framework:

As new technologies emerge for treating water, it is necessary to use the technologies to improve treated water quality. The illegal dumping of sewage into the Great Lakes devastates the environment. There is a proven cause and effect relationship between wastewater dumping and the deterioration of the Great Lakes environment and water quality. H.R. 54 would make it more difficult for treatment-works facilities to bypass water treatment to dump waste water directly into the Great Lakes. Using treatment facilities is not a new technology, but creating stricter guidelines for their use will improve water quality in the Lakes.

4. Policy Design Framework:

H.R. 54 uses disincentives, or civil penalties, to influence behavior. If H.R. 54 passes, starting January 1, 2029, the maximum civil penalty to bypass violations would be $100,000 per day. The bill would also create a Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund from the fines collected for violations starting January 1, 2029. The Great Lakes States would then receive monies from the fund to use for habitat protection, wetland restoration, and programs for the improvement of wastewater discharges or bypasses (H.R. 54).

5. Management Framework

H.R. 54 would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which enforced and regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. H.R. 54 would affect several states and uniform oversight would be necessary. Each state's environmental protection agency would also possibly enforce the new regulations. Since illegal dumping is already regulated for the Great Lakes, regulating illegal bypasses would not require creation of a new organization or leadership. The Great Lakes Clean-up Fund, however, will require the creation of a new organization. Given that the funds would be distributed to several states, new operating procedures would need to be developed.

National Geographic- Water

As I was going through my stack of dusty magazines over the weekend, I picked up this month's National Geographic. The entire issue is dedicated to water and why we should care about water. As I was reading the articles and reviewing the fabulous pictures, I was thinking about this class. Unfortunately, links are not available to all of the articles I would like to comment about! I was curious enough to peruse the NG website. There is an entire subsection devoted to environment. Check it out. There's a lot of information on global and national environmental issues.

One article/link I found is about the hidden water use in every day life. It tells how much water goes into making the things we use every day and don't even make the connection. By clicking on the products you can see how much water it takes to make a cup of tea, a bottle of wine, or a gallon of milk. It really sunk in that good clean water is essential for our survival. All life is dependent on water. We should do all that we can to ensure we use that precious resource wisely.

New Limits on Car Emissions

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/science/earth/02emit.html?ref=global-home

The federal government has issued new emissions regulations in order to cut green-house gases. This seemed to be a rather quiet story since President Obama announced he would support off-shore drilling. To me, the shocking news was that these new regulations will cut greenhouse emissions by 30% between 2012 and 2016 (Broder, 2010). That seems like a substantial decrease in greenhouse emissions. Of course the new regulations will increase the costs of cars built under the new law, but consumers should recoup the costs in fuel efficiency. By 2016, vehicles should be saving consumers $3,000 in over the live of the vehicle (Broder, 2010). Overall, this is a huge step for the federal government in improving air quality and fuel efficiency.

Assignment #5, Part 3

H.R. 54 was introduced in January 6, 2009 by Illinois Representatives Mark Kirk and Daniel Lipinski. The purpose of H.R. 54 is "to amend the Federal Water Pollution COntrol Act to establish a deadline for restricting sewage dumping into the Great Lakes and to fund programs and activities for improving wastewater discharges into the Great Lakes" (H.R. 54). In short, this bill may be called the "Great Lakes Water Protection Act" (H.R. 54). The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I assume it went to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, although the website does not specify which subcommittee it is currently in.

The bill would prohibit any publicly owned treatment works from intentionally bypassing a treatment facility and dumping waste into the Great Lakes. The bill does make provisions for loss of life, personal injury, property damage, and if there is not a feasible alternative to the bypass (intentional diversion of waste from a treatment facility into the Great Lakes) (H.R. 54). If a bypass is necessary, the publicly owned treatment works must provide proof that steps have been taken or planned in order to prevent another bypass in the future (H.R. 54).

If the bill passes, it would also increase the maximum civil penalty for violations. Starting January 1, 2029, the maximum civil penalty for violations would be $100,000 per day. H.R. 54 will also create a Great Lakes Clean-up Fund. Appropriations would come from the fines collected for violations starting January 1, 2029. The funds will the be distributed to the Great Lakes States for habitat protection, wetland restoration, and programs for the improvement of wastewater discharges ( H.R. 54).