Local Sustainablility Planning

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lawater18-2009apr18,0,2991632.story

In this article the LA City Council approved a measure to increase the water bill for anyone who goes above a specific alotted usage per month. Since LA county is currently in a drought they are looking for ways to save water and conserve over time. For those that meet or use less than the alloted amount of water they will see a 15% reduction on their bill. However, those who use more water than allocated will see a 44% increase.
This plan will help LA County to increase funds for the city as well as continue to develop ways to conserve water and increase their sustainability especially in times of a drought. Not everyone has the same limit of water use. The new system will be based on lot size and temperature zone. The council feels that this is a sufficient answer to their dought problems and their budget shortfall as well. Citizens will be informed on their bills how to cut water usage in order to take advantage of rate reduction. The council is working with the Department of Water and Power (DWP) to implement this process smoothly and quickly.
The council also feels that other cities should follow their lead and adopt a similar policy in order to conserve water. This policy is one that has been used over time to reduce pollution by charging companies more that pollute or taxing them more. However, in this situation the citizens have the opportunity to use less water and receieve a benefit from doing so.
Considering that the department of water and power is a large company it does not service all of California. However, if the all of the water companies worked with their local governments in California this could be implemented state wide. Cities could be rewarded for using less water and in turn larger communities could receive more water and increase their sustainability. The extra money could go to help other programs in the state of California become more sustainable and fight other environmental problems. It would be difficult to implement this policy across the state of California with different water companies. But if a system was put in place all cities and water companies could follow, and adapt their program to fit the needs of their community.
This policy will improve environmental quality since it will help decrease water usage and increase funds available for more sustainable planning. For California this is very important since they really could function as their own country. By getting together the local governments and water companies California would be doing a lot of work towards sustainability. But the work would pay off in the long run, and their drought problems could be avoided in the future.
Alicia

Parks and Recreation

I hope everyone is watching the new show on NBC, "Parks and Recreation" with Amy Poehler. It is hysterical. Especially if you work in local government. The last episode had a public forum about building a new park. One citizen was against the park since the department had not done a Environmental Impact Statement. I had a little chuckle about that one.
Tune in to a great show!
Alicia

Assignment 12: Tools for Sustainability Planning

1. Praise the Lord and Green the Roof New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/nyregion/thecity/01nuns.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=praise%20the%20lord%20and%20green%20the%20%20roof&st=cseThe Episcopal sisters of the Community of the Holy Spirit have taken on the mission to serve god and the earth. They have lived a life most of us cannot imagine but they are doing more for the environment then many of us ever will. They have decided to live a green life and run their convent in the same manner. From shopping at local organic farmer's markets, keeping a compost pile, and giving up their minivan for a shared vehicle program the sisters are becoming servants to the earth as well as god. The sisters are moving to a new convent that is currently being built and they are working with BKSK Architects to make their new convent as sustainable as possible. As "Julie Nelson spread out the blueprint for the new convent's chapel, members of the group proceeded to debate the relative merits of stone, bamboo or cork for the chapel floor, as well as different kinds of energy-efficient heating and cooling systems."(Hannon, 2009) Once a far fetched idea the sisters have grown into their roles as an environmentally sustainable organization. They once rolled their eyes at the idea of living green but 10 years later they find themselves accomplishing "their mission of scaling down both their space and their ecological footprint."(Hannon, 2009) Even though they may have a small convent their mission is great and their persistence is admirable.One aspect of their mission that was very interesting was how they approached the task of getting new land for a new convent. Even though they are not a government institution the sisters worked with Columbia University to obtain their new land. This is much like an intergovernmental process in which they went to another agency that could provide them with what they needed in exchange for a growth for Columbia. "Columbia has also taken over the complex task of obtaining the construction permits required for the new convent."(Hannon, 2009) Columbia was able to purchase the old convent which funded the new one. By doing so Columbia was helping the sisters and helping themselves. The cost-benefit analysis of doing so would be very beneficial. The purchase of the building would more than fund a new convent that is ecologically sustainable and the procurement of the old building would assist in development of the university. This notion of two groups working together towards sustainability is what is necessary to get the community on board with their approval. When the community sees what groups are doing to work together to sustain the neighborhood and improve the environmental the citizens will continue to be supportive in the future.The sisters are also looking to reduce their "ecological footprint" in this process. Even though "ecological footprint analysis seems a limited sustainability planning tool, it does have more useful applications in public education."(Wheeler. 95) By measuring an ecological footprint there are too many factors that cannot be measured. But the sisters know that they are leaving a footprint measurement or not so they intend to reduce it. They are also hoping to set an example for the community and not “hit them over the head with its practice, but rather to live an example that trickles down.” (Hannon, 2009) The sisters are hoping to set an example and the leave the Earth better than how they found it. Their new home will help them be successful in their new green mission.


2. World Bank Found Lacking on Environment
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E4DF173BF930A15754C0A96E9C8B63&&scp=1&sq=World%20Bank%20found%20lacking%20on%20environment&st=cse

A report was released recently that examine the World Bank and their focus on the environment. The conclusion was very simple and not very positive. “It found that recent pledges for environmental sustainability by the bank and sister institutions, including the International Finance Corporation, were often not put into practice.”(Revkin, 2008) Even while the World Bank was “warning about forest loss and creating a fund to curb deforestation, the World Banks private sector arm, had promoted the expansion of livestock herds, soybean fields and palm oil plantations, which all tend to propel deforestation in the tropics.”(Revkin, 2008) The sustainability plan that was put into place in 2001 by the World Bank was being pushed aside.
The new “evaluation found a persistent lack of environmental focus in each step along the leading chain, from the priorities that shape development projects to the environmental standards and monitoring required in the field.”(Revkin, 2008) This is a situation in which the World Bank needs to invest some effort into sustainability indicators. “Sustainability indicators that track progress towards sustainable development.”(Wheeler, 91) This effort would give the World Bank a better understanding of their environmental progress as well as their impact on the environment. By using indicators the World Bank can change direction when a certain situation has gotten them off track. “Indicators potentially have great power to demonstrate problems, motivate action, educate the public, and show the positive effect of sustainability policies.”(Wheeler, 92) If the World Bank would like to continue to have a positive impact on the world and help end poverty it would need to also meet the needs of the environment at the same time. Indicators would help guide them in the right direction.
Another approach that might benefit the World Bank and help change their environmental impact is to establish an environmental impact report. By using indicators to help develop a report the World Bank would not only be monitoring their own actions but those actions would be made public. This can be a very strong motivation for a large organization looking for approval and support for their continued existence. By developing an impact report the World Bank can be held accountable for their promises that they are currently not living up to. As a benefit “assessments can both provide information on environmental inputs and help evaluate alternatives to a proposed action.”(Wheeler, 97) If they are causing deforestation because they are trying to grow food to feed the world’s poor an impact report may be able to discover new methods that would reduce the impact on the forests. An environmental impact report would help the World Bank prepare better, provide for people better, and take care of the environment better.
Alicia

Sustainability

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

I believe sustainability should be defined for policy making by what a nation is capable of. Policy makers must understand what they capable of creating policy for. In the United States we must create policy that creates sustainability for our future in transportation. This is something that is within our grasp and can be completed. We are able by depending on our human capital to relieve pressure on natural capital by creating alternatives to oil. This is how sustainability should be defined for policy making. What is the particular country capable of. In smaller developing countries weak sustainability may be the most appropriate approach since they do not have human made capital to replace their natural capital. They must deplete their natural capital in order to progress. Even though "most forms of capital are more complimentary or neutral and are less substiutable"(Goodland, 17) some policies will have to circumvent that in order to maintain a basic level of development.



What are the difficulities associated with making sustainability a policy goal?

Thre are many difficulities associated with making sustainability a policy goal and I believe implementation is one of them. Once sustainability has become a policy goal and ultimately policiy it is difficult to implement. For example obtaining environmental sustainability by decreasing our demand on oil. This will lead to an increase on the price of oil in order to reduce use and the creation of alternative modes of transportation. This will be difficult to implement since many are resistant to giving up their vehicles and raising the cost of gasoline would upset many citizens. For as much as those in the public sector have sustainability as their goal sometimes support and implementation for that goal is a dificult pill to swallow.



In designing a framework for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality I would begin by defining what the goals are and how they could be acheived to create sustainability. How could we use our capital to work together to create sustainability. Our human capital would work to involve the citizens on what they feel is important in Environmental Quality. We would establish ecological standards that work hand in hand with our economic goals in order to maintain our sustainability. For example, the citizens would like to see the trees not cut down in order to keep their community beautiful. However, we need this natural capital in order to provide for our human and social capital by providing wood for houses. A agreement with the citizens can be met to use nautral and human made capital to build houses and limit the tree removal in the local forests. This will help meet all of our capital and the social capital will be included as well.
Experts will of course be brought in to present different ways in which sustainability can be met without substituting one form of capital for another. The experts will seek the input of the citizens in order to understand their social captial and how they see sustainability being successful in their community. Not all needs will be met, but by involving the citizens compromises are approached in order to succeed.

A long term view is very important in environmental sustainability. Part of the reason we are dealing with so many environmental issues today is that no one wanted to look long term. What are the long term effects of carbon emissions? What are the long term effects of non-recycled waste? What are the long term effects of logging? There were warnings but many felt that since the effects were not visible at that moment there was no need to worry. There has to be a shift toward planning long term to achieve sustainability. Voters and politicans have to understand that change often does not occur overnight. There has to be time to left forests regrow, or fish to repopulate in the oceans. In order to achieve sustainability voters and politicans must be made aware that even though the effects are not clear and present today they steps that are being taken today are most certaintly effecting the future.

Environmental Policy and Management

Environmental Policy and Management
The Framework of H.R. 669 Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (NWIPA)

In the values framework for the House Resolution 669: Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (NWIPA) there are many issues at stake. The NWIPA will provide a framework for creating a list of non-native wildlife that will cause both economic and environmental harm to our environment and therefore should be prevented from being imported. This bill has been introduced due to a growing problem of non-native wildlife being introduced and damaging an ecosystem. Most of the trade in non-native wildlife is in the pet and aquarium trades, as well as bringing in wildlife for zoos. This behavior is fundamental to our lifestyle in that we have created a demand for these animals both as pets and as entertainment. The Burmese Python “was legally imported into the country, and then released into Everglades National Park. In this natural setting the python has attacked native wildlife and is competing for habitat.”(www.ucsusa.org) This demand for “exotic” pets has created an economic and environmental disaster.
The process of identifying wildlife to remain out of the country does raise the issue of right and wrong. The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council feels that this process is wrong since it will place a ban on wildlife that may not be harmful as well as limit their ability to make money in their daily lives. However, the benefits will have to be considered over the negative outcomes of this bill. It will be up to those voting on this bill to determine the ultimate impact of this bill on the environment and the economy.

In the political framework for NWIPA is interesting since it involves representatives in the house that serve the communities that have been affected negatively by non-native wildlife. It also sheds light on a little known industry of wildlife importation.
This bill confirms that “Americans have called for political process that develops a consensus about the definition of environmental quality and make decisions about methods for achieving environmental goals.”(Cohen, 17) This bill will call for standards for listing wildlife as dangerous to an ecosystem. Such as the Brown Snake in Guam which has impacted the ecosystem greatly. This snake should have been apart of a list that prevented it from being imported to the U.S. Ms. Bordallo of Guam is one of the representatives behind this act having seen first hand the affect of the Brown Snake. It is clearly in the best interest of her district to prevent any other non-native species’ from entering and altering the ecosystem. However, despite her personal goal of improving life in Guam this ACT will ultimately improve so many other areas and prevent further damage by new species’.
In the U.S. context the federal government is considered primarily responsible for addressing this issue. In part the issue deals with international problems and importation at the borders. This is a highly federal issue that will be enforced at the state and local levels. The federal government will set the standards as well as list the wildlife considered non-native and the state and local governments will assist in regulating the importing into their community.

The science and technology framework for the NWIPA is very important since lawmakers must identify what the non-native wildlife have done to an ecosystem and what potential non-native wildlife could do if introduced into a particular ecosystem. Currently there are scientific certainties abut the impact of the Brown snake and the Burmese Python on their non-native ecosystem. This data can be used to demonstrate the impact of non-native wildlife. Without the exact knowledge of the specific impact of another non-native species the current date can be applied to a prediction of what will occur with more non-native introduction. The uncertainty of this act lies in the non-native wildlife that may not been introduced yet. This act will identify potential species’ that would be harmful to an ecosystem and add them to the list. This could create uncertainty on decision makers that may feel that we don’t know the potential impact of a given species’. Those who created this bill must use the information that is currently available about the species’ that have already caused irrevocable damage and apply it to potential harmful species’ in the attempt to prevent any further economic and environmental damage.

The policy design of the NWIPA is very simple and straightforward. There is a clear objective and an approach to achieve that objective. There are incentives to following this law and those incentives occur in the form of penalties. “Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to the civil and criminal penalties described in section 4 of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981.”(H.R. 669) Once a species has been placed on the non-native list importation will not be allowed and penalties will be incurred.
This policy does reflect strategic thinking on the part of the law makers. This act is an attempt to eliminate the destruction of ecosystems by non-native wildlife and the economic problems associated with the destruction. There will be a risk assessment done in order to identify potentially dangerous wildlife and what harm they may cause. The NWIPA is working toward preventing any further damage to our ecosystem and the economic downfall associated. There is no “lucky guess” involved, the impact of the Burmese Python is glaring and any effort to prevent something similar in the future is warranted.

The management framework for this policy is currently in place in identifying non-native species that could damage the environment. Although this is going to be the most comprehensive management of non-native species policy is currently in place to help make this movement successful. The act does appear to need more leadership in implementing the final product. This bill has been presented to the house in the past and failed to come to fruition. Due to the increased impact on the ecosystems in this country the EPA should make this new system a top priority. It is an important act and taking the steps to make sure the NWIPA is successful is a necessary action.

Idol thoughts on exploiting other countries

This is a very difficult topic to choose a side for. On one side allowing countries to ravage their environment to survive seems to make sense. Human life above all other things. If we do not allow them to do what they need to in order to survive could we live with the idea of allowing a population to die off? On the other hand what kind of future would they have once they have destroyed their environment? Would there even be a future worth living for? Would the people of that country eventually have to leave to find another home? Or could we allow them to move forward and do what they need to do to survive and hope we can help them and hope that the environment can withstand like ours did? I firmly believe that we are not in this alone and we cannot stand by while another country exploits their environment. We also cannot stand by and let a population of people suffer. There has to be a middle ground. There has to be a way in to which we send aid and help them find a way to sustain without destroying what they have. It sounds cliche but things are different now and with the developments in science we can surley help countries conserve water, food, wood, and other essentials which was not available to us in the early stages of our country.
When everyone comes to the table in the fight against global climate change there are going to be an inequality in who can provide what. There should be equity in this debate however, it goes as far as everyone should be involved. At what level they can be involved is where the inequality will occur. Those that do not get involved should face penality no matter their development stage. In the case where a country values economic development more than environmental problems should be told of the consequences of their actions. What neglect will do to their country as well as the lack of aid that they will receive from countries that are involved with environmental progress. Prehaps a slow down in purchasing of exports from that country in order to presuade them to particpate.
Developing nations should have the understanding that everyone is doing what they can. As long as we are working toward the same goal together it will improve the environment. As long as they are showing they are committed to doing what they can, they will find support from other countries that they may not have seen previously. No one is alone.
Alicia

Final Paper Topic

For my final paper I will be writing about House Resolution 669: The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. The purpose of this bill is to " prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species' or human health, and for other purposes." In order to prevent the introduction of nonnative widlife there will be a risk assessment process that will be established in order to decide which species of wildlife are at a risk to themselves, the environment, to humans, or to the economy. This is a very interesting bill since it includes the topics of the two courses I am taking this spring (Economics, and environmental policy) This bill will examine a wide range of effects of nonnative species on a particular environment. Not just the environmental impact but the economic as well.
This bill will identify species' that may be considered nonnative. In addition to identifiying the species' the Secretary of the Interior will determine: "whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems that are similar to those in the United States." This bill will examine the overall impact both positive and negative of a given species. It is going to be very interesting to examine how a species' is identified and how it's impact on the environment both economically and environmentally is assessed. The complete bill can be found at http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/bills111.shtml#hr669
Alicia

Week 6: Environmental Justice for the Deceased?

Environmental Justice for the Deceased?

The topic of environmental justice is nothing if not controversial. While many environmental activists were fighting to eliminate oil drilling in Alaska or saving the bald eagle another group of activists were emerging around the country. Many of these occurrences of activism were in low income neighborhoods with a large minority population. Many started to examine what was going on around them. Why were the people getting sick? Why did it seem that hazardous waster facilities were disproportionately located in poorer neighborhoods? These were the questions being asked when the environmental justice movement began. Environmental activists have always given a voice to those who have no voice. Wildlife and forests cannot speak for themselves and activists were willing to do the talking. Now another segment of our population was not given a voice for their environment. This is the essence of the environmental justice movement. Speak up and fight for those who do not have the means to challenge the large private companies who are seeking to pollute their community. “Although environmental hazards are a key concern of the environmental justice movement, the movement is broadly inclusive, incorporating health, employment, housing, transportation, and educational issues. (Rast, 253) This is also true for the article I am going to be examining in this paper. In this particular environmental justice issue we are not dealing with a large chemical plant moving into a neighborhood. In the article titled “Board Votes to Move Graves for Landfill; NAACP Wants Inquiry” we are dealing with a local government voting to allow 300 graves of African Americans to be moved in order to expand a local landfill. This is an issue that affects not only the environment but the lives of many of the citizens and their history.
In Clayton County Georgia the county board of commissioners voted to allow the graves at Union Bethel church be moved to a nearby cemetery in order to expand a landfill. This graveyard holds the graves of 300 people many of whom were slaves. The NAACP claims that the board of commissioners took campaign money from the construction and recycling company and would like to see the issue investigated. Despite the fact that the graveyard has fallen into disrepair it is the final resting place for 300 members of this community with some of the graves dating back to 1850s. It is hard to ignore the racist implications of moving African American bodies in order to dump more garbage. It is a statement that not only will your body be disrupted but then garbage will be dumped where you used to lay. "These were people who were not treated as humans in life, and even in their final resting place we see that they are treated worse than second-class citizens," Edward DuBose the President of the NAACP chapter in Georgia. At time of this assignment the vote still stands, but the community is still involved and still fighting.
Unfortunately there was no data collected besides the words of the community that this is an environmental justice case. However, as the fight continues I believe it will become a larger case that will attract the attention of the local attorney general. The citizens of this community many of whom are descendants of some of the people laid to rest in this cemetery will let their voices be heard about how they have been affected by this vote and this private companies move to change their community.
The readings that pertain to environmental justice were very interesting regarding the concept of environmental justice. In regards to the article about Clayton County and its citizens there are many examples of this in the history of this grassroots movement. In this article political involvement plays a big role. The county board of supervisors voted to move the graves and the NAACP responded by researching the monetary donations from the landfill company to the board of supervisors. Historically, “communities with high levels of political capacity are more likely to pressure government into strictly enforcing environmental laws.”(Konisky, 105) Those with more money have more political power, therefore leaving lower income minorities without a political voice. “Minorities and low income individuals tend to have fewer of these political resources and to participate less in the political process.” (Konisky, 105) In this article the citizens of Clayton County have the power of the NAACP to speak on their behalf. This environmental justice movement can help give those without a voice the power to speak. Without the NAACP these graves would have probably already have been disrupted.
Another aspect that is written about in Rinquist’s article “Environmental Justice: Normative Concerns, Empirical Evidence, and Government Action” is what should be done by the government regarding environmental justice. In a case like this what role does a higher level of government have? Does the attorney general have to get involved; even if the donations that the board of supervisors took were legal? “Does every decision-making process that produces discriminatory outcomes deserve the government’s attention, or are such decisions legally actionable only when there is discriminatory intent?”(Ringuist, 257) Was this action of removing the graves discriminatory in its intent? Or was the outcome discriminatory? This is an aspect of environmental justice that needs to be examined to help decide how and when the government should get involved in these cases. In this case they are using the donations to help get a higher level of government involved and hopefully find an amicable conclusion to this case.

Alicia Stuebner

Environmental Justice for the Deceased?

Here is the link to my article about Environmental Justice.
This was a very interesting assignment. Defiantly the best so far.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/04/graves.georgia/index.html?iref=hpmostpop#cnnSTCText

I will be posting my comments soon.
Alicia

General Questions regarding CV

Using CV is an effective way to involve the citizens as well as gather information about certain environmental topics. One environmental problem that would benefit from using CV is oil drilling. Currently we are so dependent on oil this is necessary however, down the road once we are moving away from oil dependence utlizing a CV will help researchers to understand what people are willing to pay for in order to move away from oil dependence. For example what would be the willingness to pay more for electric vehicles in order to stop using oil. Another environmental problem that could benefit from CV is the creation of a man made body of water. For example Tempe Town Lake. What are people willing to pay to build a man made lake that could potentially help wildlife to flourish as well as being in revenue in recreation on that lake.

There are also environmental problems that would not benefit from the use of CV. These problems include assessing the damage and clean up from Hurricane Katrina. The publicity behind this event was so vast there is no way to get an unbiased response on how money should be spent to prevent this in the future. I think everyone agrees that more needs to be done to better protect the citizens however, results may be skewed based on the political beliefs of many people. Another environmental problem that would not benefit from the use of CV is nuclear power. So many people in this country do not fully understand the affects of a nuclear disaster it would be difficult to quantify any results. If the study was done in say Chernobyl or in Japan the results would be much different. It would be too dificult for people to truly understand the affects in order to make an informed decision.

General Question

Should public managers and environmental planners engage the public when they know that the public's knowledge is limited about the science of an environmental issue? If so, how would you go about doing that? If not, what are the consequences of not including them?

It is pretty clear from the articles that we read this week that informaton is important when citizens and their community is involved. Whether it is a new street light or the process of removing deadly weapons. I feel that even if the science is limited some information is better than no information. Also public managers and environmental planners should be upfront with citizens and tell them what they do know, and what they are missing. By making sure all of the information is on the table no one will feel misled, or cheated by their government. This in turn will give the citizens the feeling of involvement and ownership of this issue. Citizens should know if there is missing information or science what is being done about it. If information is missing information and citizens feel they were not well informed this could lead to a derailment of the project and animosity among the citizens. Information is power and getting everything out on the table is important, not just for the planners but for the community at large.

My Op-Ed Piece

The Environment: The Past, Present and President Obama

When the 1970’s began President Nixon declared the seventies the “environmental decade” he set in motion a chain of events that would affect the country for years to come. President Nixon “signed the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act and created the Environmental Protection Agency.” (Vig, 102) This was a great movement for environmental policy; it is unfortunate that Nixon will only be remembered for his dark days, and not his leadership in the environmental movement.
After the jump start to environmental policy made by Nixon, President Carter faced struggles in dealing with the energy crisis since support had decreased in favor for a more conservative approach. Carter was able to make his mark in “preserving millions of acres of Alaskan wilderness and passed the Superfund bill to clean up toxic waste sites.” (Vig, 103) It was his last act before the environment took back seat to the economy during the Reagan administration.
The environmental decade ended quickly when Reagan took office. “Reagan viewed environmental conservation as fundamentally at odds with economic growth and prosperity.” (Vig, 104) Due to the state of the economy Reagan won the presidency with a country voting for tax cuts and no more excess spending on the environment. During his time in office Reagan wanted to guarantee his policies be upheld by “a careful screening of all appointees to environmental and other agencies to ensure compliance with Reagan’s ideological goals” (Vig, 105). He even selected a former attorney who fought against environmental regulation to head the EPA. It was clear Reagan intended to slow down environmental advances and if given the chance reverse the development.
A conservative time in America’s history was followed by a more moderate Bush senior. He had pledged to stay the course on Reagan’s policies but instead surprised everyone by “soliciting advice from and appointing a number of environmental leaders to his administration.”(Vig, 106) By passing the Clean Air Act of 1990 Bush was able to reach across party lines and sign “the single most important legislative achievement of his presidency.”(Vig, 107) The Clean Air Act sought out to “control acid rain, reduce air pollution, and lower emission by 2000. (Vig, 107) However, towards the end of his presidency Bush began to fall in line with his predecessor by embarrassing the US. By threatening to boycott the UN conference on Environment and Development unless “climate change convention to be signed would contain no binding targets for carbon dioxide reduction’ (Vig, 107) he alienated the US from much of the world. Many environmentalists were surprised by his final acts in office. What was turning out to be a bipartisan presidency for environmentalist turned into a disappointing display of anti-environmental actions.
Following the conservative years of Reagan and Bush; Clinton was elected with a strong plan for environmental change. Clinton pledged to “raise the corporate average fuel economy standard for automobiles, encourage mass transit programs, support renewable energy research and development, and limit U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.” (Vig, 108) This was considered ambitious for the environment especially after the hits the environmental policy had taken in the previous decades. Despite his heavy campaign once Clinton entered office he was faced with the challenges of Congress. Much of what Clinton campaigned for was met with much opposition and in order to pass anything through congress he either remove bills, or change the bill itself. With the Republican congress in 1994 “the new congressional leaders unleashed a massive effort to rewrite the environmental legislation of the past quarter-century.”(Vig, 110) During this time Clinton “was forced by congressional opposition to rely primarily on his powers as chief executive to pursue his environmental agenda. But, unlike Reagan, he used his powers of appointment, budgeting, and regulatory oversight to reform and strengthen environmental protection.” (Vig, 110) Gore and Clinton made strides to change what was reversed in the past. However, they failed to “develop an effective response to perhaps the greatest challenge of the new century, climate change.” (Vig, 110) The Clinton administration took a few steps forward, which would soon be challenged.
Following a great time of prosperity and a solid economic growth we are introduced to Bush Jr the self proclaimed “war president.” (Vig 111) Bush made statements promising “his administration would establish controls over carbon dioxide and mercury emissions from power plants and reduce other forms of air pollution. But at the same time he called for increased energy production in the United States and supported oil and gas drilling in ANWR.”(Vig, 112) While appointing “virtually no environmentalists’ (Vig, 113) Bush set out to reverse all environmental policy to suit his oil company supporters. Bush reduced budgets including the EPA which was “to be slashed by nearly $500 million and the Interior Department was to be cut by 3.5 percent.”(Vig, 113) He also continued in his father’s footsteps by declining “to perform the role of environmental diplomat.”(Vig, 117) It was clear for his time in office Bush was committed to making war and letting anyone with enough money ravage the environment.
Present day we are dealing with a different story. Four years ago this country elected its first black President and a leader of environmental growth. Obama was reelected a few weeks ago and despite the economy and its weakened state in 2009 Obama was able to help the people during a time of economic crisis and not neglect the needs of the environment. Using the ideals of a public works program much like that of the Great Depression Obama was able to create jobs. However, this public works program was different from that of the early 1940’s. “Green” jobs were created to help stimulate the economy and the environment. Tax breaks were given to citizens who drove “clean” vehicles. Bailouts granted to auto companies who drove research on electric cars. Oil companies faced increased taxes unless they showed an increase in research on alternative fuels. This is a time of recovery for this country and Obama has seen that the needs of a country are met. Not only the need for jobs, but for an environment that can support our existence for many years to come. Obama was able to reach people and bring everyone together by showing us that every issue in government is our issue.

Assignment 2 (paragraph)

This article was very interesting for Obama's administration since it really was something that has set the tone for his time in office. He immediately set to fullfilling campaign promises. He did not only focus on the economy or the war. He wanted to make a broad impact on many issues that are affecting our country. Obama set about reversing the work done by Bush, by allowing states to continue to be responsible for their own affect on the environment. For so long conservatives have focused on the states and their rights. However, when California and other states wanted to put limits on carbon emissions and other aspects of the vehicles that are used in their state Bush intervened. Since these requirements would have such a large affect on the auto makers Bush and his administration stalled the states efforts. Since passenger cars contribute 25% of carbon emissions it makes sense to put requirements on the auto makers to limit that, or make modifications to cars to become more environmentally sound. Obama will direct the EPA to allow these states (17 at the time of this release) to put very strict requirements on the auto makers. Although the EPA will take several months to make a decision on whether to reverse the Bush policies it is making a strong statement that President Obama will be a supporter of not only the states and their rights, which were once encouraged by the GOP but the environment as well.

What are your thoughts on the steps taken by Obama in his first weeks? Do you agree with granting states these rights? When should the federal government intervene when states are excerising their rights?

Obama and California

Here is an interesting article about Obama and his plan for California and their emissions laws.
Very interesting since this topic was also covered in our reading (Chapter 2, Vig)
Enjoy
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-emissions26-2009jan26,0,7996808,full.story

This is it:)

Hello All
Well I guess this it it. Not much to a blog, the set up was pretty easy. I guess that is why everyone is doing it. :)

Looking forward to connecting with everyone this semester.