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).

Assignment #5, Part 2

1. Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and the U.S. did to increase their economic wellbeing? Why or why not?

This is a tough question for me to answer. I feel a pull in both directions. More and more countries must rely on their natural resources to secure their place in the global market. Yet, at the same time developed countries demand the natural resources of these countries are to be protected. As noted in Vig and Kraft, it is ironic because these developed countries are also the ones that often create the consumer demand for the destruction of these resources (2010). I believe that free market trade would allow for these countries to use their own resources. Developed nations should support and encourage developing nations in securing a place in the global market but by sustainable development- increasing development without damaging the environment (Vig & Kraft 2010) . It could actually be argued that developed nations have a "moral obligation to assist less fortunate ones" (Vig & Kraft 2010, p. 287). Another support could be in the form of riding corrupt governments that do not properly regulate environmental hazards. Another option is for developed nations like Europe and U.S. to more strictly regulate imports from countries that are not producing environmentally friend exports or goods (Vig & Kraft). Reducing the demand for such goods will automatically regulate the market and in turn regulate the environmental impact.

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

a. Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?

b. What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?

c. Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?

Industrialized nations should expect for developing nations to actively participate in the global fight against climate change, even if that nation values economic development more than the fight against climate change. Global warming affects all nations and all citizens of the globe. Every nation should actively fight against global warming. Industrialized and developed nations should ensure that developing nations participate in reducing emissions. If they neglect to participate "the consequences of environmental damage" will essentially be inflicted upon inhabitants of all nations (Vig & Kraft 2010, p. 304).

Industrialized nations should also expect developing nations to adhere to agreements and regulations regarding the global community. Developing nations should also improve environmental policies and practices, with the goal of environmental sustainability, in their own countries in order to receive continued support from developed countries (Vig & Kraft 2010).

As long as developing nations rely on the industrialized and developed nations for support and aid, there cannot be equity in the debate on climate change. However, developing should expect industrialized nations to do just as they are asked and work towards sustainability. Especially since the United States "leads the world in per-capita production of trash" and produces nearly "one-fifth of emissions that contribute to global warming" (Vig & Kraft, 2010, pp. 299-300). The United States and other developed nations that consume the majority of the worlds' goods and resources need to be held to the same standard, if not a higher standard than developing nations. Industrialized nations such as the United States have a moral obligation to help developing and poor nations combat the "consequences of environmental damage" (Vig & Kraft, 2010, p. 304).

Water Pollution & The Clean Water Act

The New York Times previously did a series on water pollution, clean water laws, and health costs associated with both. The NYT reports that in the last five year manufacturers and factories have violated clean water laws more than half a million times (2009). Unfortunately, not all of the violators are punished, due to officials ignoring the violations (Duhigg, 2009). The article also provides a link to a state by state overview of Clean Water Act violations.

Assignment #4

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/us/14kansas.html?emc=eta1

During the first part of the 20th Century, Treece, Kansas was a prosperous mining community. Treece is located in southeastern Kansas and, at one time, was a part of a "vast mining district" (Saulny, 2009) with land rich in lead, zinc, and iron ore. By the 1970s all the mines in the area had closed. All that remained of the land was a toxic dust. The EPA tried to clean up the land during the 1980s but the waste continued to cause problems in the area.

Less than a mile away from Treece, across the Oklahoma-Kansas state-line, is Picher, Oklahoma. Treece and Picher are apart of the same community. Well, at least they used to be apart of the same community. As of September 1, 2009, Picher was no longer a town. The federal government relocated the residents of Picher. However, approximately 140 residents of Treece remain living in the toxic community.

The remaining residents of Treece have been affected by the EPA's decisions to only relocated the residents of Picher. The residents have become isolated and abandoned in a toxic wasteland. There are no jobs and it is impossible to sell a home. The residents want to be relocated but the EPA has, so far, refused. The poverty level in Treece is over twice the national average (Saulny, 2009).

In his article, Konisky states that counties with higher levels of poverty have less regulatory enforcement (2009). This would be true for Treece, however, here the state and federal government have failed to appropriately respond to the town's environmental crisis. The poverty level is extremely high and the EPA refuses to relocate the few remaining residents.

During the 1990s, environmental justice made "a substantial leap forward" (Rast, 2006). All levels of government were to address and respond to real and perceived environmental inequities (Konisky, 2009). This was nearly two decades ago. Only recently, within the past few years, has the problem in Treece been addressed. It is still not resolved.

However, last month the EPA decided to take public comment regarding the relation of Treece residents.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/722214A0DF961094852576C800734309

Exports, Imports, and Pollution

I read this article last week. I felt it went along with some of the previous readings, especially chapter 12 in Vig. If critical climate changes are the result of human behavior, exports and imports definitely have to contribute. The article makes an interesting in point in that those developed nations (some with lower per-capita emissions) that benefit from goods made elsewhere should accept some of the responsibility for the clean-up of the emissions produced from those goods. I agree with this statement. The economies of developed nations, like the United States and those in the EU, benefit from goods produced in China. All the while, China's carbon footprint surpasses all others. Both Vig and the article reference China as the world's leading CO2 emitter. If reducing emissions in developed countries raises CO2 emissions in developing nations, are we doing anything to help the climate? And if wealthy developed nations are contributing to the CO2 emissions in developing nations, should they be obligated to help clean-up those countries? Those are the two questions in the article that stood out to me. Thoughts?

Environmental Outlook: Freshwater Fish

The Diane Rehm Show this morning focused on the effects of fisheries and introduction of non-native fish to ecosystems across the United States. The main focus was the Rainbow Trout and it's effects on native fauna. Inconjuction with the fishery discussion was the Californa Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the need for public participation and disclosure about the fish and the impact they have on the environment. CEQA was passed in California shortly after NEPA.

Environmental Outlook: Freshwater Fish

Posted using ShareThis

Assignment #3

13. Yes, public managers and environmental planners should engage the public even if the issue is complex or the public's knowledge is limited. Public participation is essential to developing environmental policy, especially local environmental policy. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to make sure presentations are not overloaded with scientific jargon that will prohibit the public from understanding the impact of the proposed program. I believe that public hearings or meetings would be very effective, in that they would allow the public to ask questions about terms, processes, or effects they do not understand. Utilizing a public information officers is another way to get information to the public. If the PIO is adequately informed the information should be easily relayed to the public.

14. Contingent valuation could be used in fining business or firms that contaminate groundwater or dump toxic electronic waste. Both of these scenarios destroy natural resources and have a direct affect on human life. I believe that estimating a true willingness-to-pay, or close to it, would be easy. Issues that directly affect humans are easier to use contingent valuation. The respondents answer are probably more likely to be accurate than if they are asked about willingness-to-pay for a nonuse value.

15. Contingent valuation would not be as useful in estimating nonuse values, such as saving the polar ice caps from melting and global warming (in a generic sense). I'm not sure that there would be an accurate true willingness-to-pay estimate.

Bloom Energy- CBS 60 Minutes

This news piece aired on 60 Minutes on Sunday. It's about alternative energy. Many large corporations in California are "testing" the Bloom box energy. View the video now.

Obama, the State of the Union, and Environmental Advocates

Yesterday, The New York Times, reported that some of President Obama's strongest campaign supporters are disgruntled with the President's recent endorsement of nuclear energy use. The President's supporters, environmental advocates, are not pleased with progress that has been made in environmental policy. They are now doubtful of seeing his campaign promises come to fruition due to the compromise the President is making for Republican votes. Click here to view the article.

Op-Ed Analysis

During the 1970’s the public became increasingly more concerned with environmental policy and issues such as air pollution. In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, which created the Council on Environmental Quality and required for environmental impact statements for most federal actions (Vig, 2010). President Richard Nixon signed NEPA into law in 1970 (Vig, 2010). Shortly thereafter, on April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day was recognized (Vig, 2010).

President Ronald Reagan took a different approach environmental policy. Reagan’s administration was not focused on reducing air pollution or strengthening environmental protection. In fact, Reagan went into office with an “anti-environment agenda” (Vig, 2010, p. 79). The Reagan administration was focused on smaller government, budget cuts, and industry (Vig, 2010). However, Reagan gave new strength to environmental organizations by creating political issues regarding the environment (Vig, 2010). In order to accomplish his anti-environment agenda, Reagan appointed hostile agency directors, cut staff and budgets of environmental councils, and changed regulations regarding agency policies (Vig, 2010). The public did not support President Reagan in his anti-environment policy (Vig).

Although President George H.W. Bush followed fellow Republican Ronald Reagan to the White House, he was a pro-environment president (Vig). Unlike Reagan, Bush listened to environmentalist and agency heads (Vig). Although some of his appointments were conservative and ideologically similar to of Reagan’s appointments (Vig). While in office, President Bush passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Vig). However, he failed to do much more in regards to environmental policy (Vig).

President Bill Clinton was unlike his predecessors. He was extremely pro-environment and had an environmental agenda when he took office. Shortly after taking office, Clinton established the Office of Environmental Policy (Vig). Clinton also successfully reversed the anti-environmental policies and regulations of the previous Republican presidents (Vig). However, Clinton and the Republican Congress were at odds over environmental policies and he was unable to achieve most of the agenda he had when he entered office (Vig). President Clinton was unable to address issues like climate change and carbon-emissions.

President George W. Bush entered office with an anti-regulatory agenda, which was not good for environmental policy. President Bush, like Clinton and Reagan before him, used his executive powers to achieve his agenda goals (Vig). Bush’s appointments to the EPA and Department of Interior did little for the missions of their agencies (Vig). Bush environmental agenda was set mostly in interest of business and anti-regulation of mining, oil, agriculture, and timber (Vig). The administration did little to draw attention to unfavorable environmental policies (Vig). Most policies were overshadowed by the wars on terriorisim and Iraq.

President Obama promised much progress in the way of environmental policies. This is similar to the Clinton campaign promises. Obama’s agenda was largely focused on the promotion of green technologies and the creation of green jobs (Vig). President Obama tried to be very clear and transparent in the environmental policies that he would pursue. When President Obama took office, the economy was the major focus of the American public. With high unemployment it was necessary for the President to combine environmental policy with economic stimulation. President Obama’s call for the development of high-speed trains created “green jobs” as well as sustainable transportation.

During his first year in office, President Obama called for a $10.5 billion budget for the EPA (Vig, 2010, p. 92). Although he was able to achieve this for the first year of his term, he was unable to achieve it again in his second term due to the ban on government spending imposed due to the deficit. Economic troubles plagued Obama’s administration and he was not able to implement as many environmental policy changes as he would have liked.

Obama was successful in increasing fuel economy standards and remained committed to his goal of breaking America’s dependence on oil, not just foreign oil. He strived to create jobs while promoting green technologies and the development of alternative, renewable recourses.

High Speed Rail's and the Obama Administration

Shortly after President Obama's State of the Union address, Time Magazine had an interesting article on Obama's call for construction of high-speed rails to reduce carbon emissions. Click here to read the article.

Not only will the use of high-speed trains reduce carbon emissions, but their creation will create "green jobs." And create jobs relatively soon. Construction on a high-speed rail from Tampa to Orlando is scheduled to open by 2015. The Obama administration and the Federal Railroad Administration have given Florida $1.3 billion grant for the construction of the high-speed rail. They are disbursing $8 billion to 31 states for the construction or improvement of such rails. Perhaps Florida is receiving such a large portion of the stimulus funds because the plan has already been approved, most of the lands are public owned, and an environmental impact statement has been completed. However, most other states are not that far along in the process and may spend the money on updating or maintaining the current system.

This a departure from the Bush administration's stance on reducing carbon emissions. The Bush administration favored "to dramatically increase development of U.S. oil and natural gas supplies on public lands" (Vig, 2010, p. 1).

The EPA under the Clinton administration looked for sustainable development (Vig, 2010). Obama's call for the development of high-speed rails definitely falls in line with the sustainable development sought during the Clinton administration.

I agree with Obama's call for the development of high-speed trains. It will be a more efficient and effective way to travel in this country. Most other developed nations have some from of high-speed trains. It would be nice to have the environmental and economical benefits of such a rail system.

Kettleman City Deaths and Birth Defects

Today, The New York Times posted an article about Kettleman City, California and the largest Waste Management landfill West of the Mississippi. The Environmental Protection Agency, the California State Department of Public Health, and the California Environmental Protection Agency are investigating an "abnormal percentage of birth defects" and childrens' deaths in Kettleman City. The agencies' investigations will include a review of the drinking water, which is often well water, in Kettleman City and Kings County. A Kings County public health official believes the deaths and birth defects to be a "statistical anomaly", but residents aren't so certain. Results are to be reported to the board of supervisors on Tuesday.

About Me

Hello everyone! I thought I would take the opportunity to tell you about myself. I'm originally from Phoenix and moved back here eight years ago when I graduated from BYU. I'm currently in the MPA program and love being back in school. I'm looking forward to this semester and reading everyone's blogs.