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