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.
So this is my blog...not really sure what I am going to do with it, but I had to create it for two of my classes in my masters program at ASU. Last week I turned in my final paper and I am graduating next week. But I still have this blog. So I guess I will continue to write and see where it takes me. :)
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, February 9, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)