Monday, February 22, 2010
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.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
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.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)