Link to the Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=59438
Article Title: Paying for clean energy just got easier
Article Summary: The city of San Francisco has created a new program called GreenFinanceSF. It is a financing program that breaks the cost barrier for the water-savings, energy efficiency, and renewable energy projects. The city pays for the upgrade, and you pay off the loan over 20 years through property taxes.
Article Analysis: According to the Energy Information Administration every day, the average American uses about as much energy as is stored in seven gallons of gasoline. Together, homes and building consume more than a third of the energy used in the United States today. Any place where people live is considered a residential building. Commercial buildings include offices, stores, hospitals, restaurants, and schools. Residential and commercial buildings are grouped together because they use energy in the same ways—for heating and cooling, lighting, heating water, and operating appliances.
Almost half of San Francisco’s greenhouse gas emissions come from energy usage in local buildings. At the same time, excessive water usage in buildings strains California’s water resources. Currently, the largest constraint to San Francisco’s buildings becoming more efficient in their use of energy and water is the large up-front cost of these improvements. In response to this challenge, San Francisco has developed an accessible financing program that residential and commercial property owners can use to finance sustainable building improvements. This effort coincides with efforts across California and the United States to establish similar financing programs.
The high up-front cost of energy and water conservation improvements is a barrier that prevents San Francisco homes and buildings from becoming more efficient.
GreenFinanceSF breaks this barrier for private property owners by providing financing to install energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation measures. Participants repay the up-front financing of the projects over a period up to 20 years through an annual special tax on their property tax bills.
GreenFinanceSF is available for interested home and business owners to finance privately-owned energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation improvements. The repayment obligation is attached to the property, rather than the individual, and is paid back through property taxes over the life of the financing.
GreenFinanceSF is an example of a global problem being solved at a local level. According to Wheeler, 2004, long-term planners need to assess how near-term actions can lead to long-term goals. A long-term perspective also means being able to look at small, incremental changes, in the present and to see how they can interrelate and reinforce one another to build a more sustainable society in the future. GreenFinance SF is a great example of using a small, incremental change which could have a potentially huge payoff (if the program is successful) in the future for the City of San Francisco.
One of the reasons this program is successful and implementable in San Francisco, is because sustainability is a huge ticket item on the City’s agenda. They have made a commitment to decrease their energy consumption and the public generally supports this decision. This program may be hard to implement on a national level, because a lot of the voters and citizens are not necessarily on board with green energy policies. The economy and job creation has taken a forefront to many other policy issues.
If these policies were to be implemented at a national level, equity concerns could arise. Some areas (small towns) may not have the technology to implement this policy. For example, solar panels are a fairly new (mainstream) technology that not a lot of persons outside a large city have the knowledge to install. It would be hard to garner support from those persons living in these smaller communities.
I think it would have improved environmental quality if policy makers had tried to implement this issue at the national level because it would help the United States conserve energy and not be so dependent on non-renewable resources. Perhaps if this program is successful in San Francisco, the federal government could adopt such initiatives. In order to get people on board with these policies at a national level, the government will have to prove (by measurable results) that the cost is worth it and that the U.S. as a whole is becoming “greener”.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Side Effects of Chemicals
Here is an interesting article I just found in the AZ Republic. It shows an important example of new techonogies and chemicals which are produced to help people, but because the effects of the substance are unknown, sometimes the side effects cause more harm than good. It is releveant to reading Cohen and how difficult implementing environmental policies can be.
Feds probe chemical used in
home products
by Lyndsey Layton - Apr. 11, 2010 12:00 AM
Washington Post
WASHINGTON - The Food and Drug Administration said recent research raises "valid concerns" about the possible health effects of triclosan, an antibacterial chemical
found in a growing number of liquid soaps, hand sanitizers, dishwashing liquids,
shaving gels and even socks, workout clothes and toys.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency say they are taking a fresh look at
triclosan, which is so ubiquitous that it is found in the urine of 75 percent of the
population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The reassessment is the latest signal that the Obama administration is willing to re-
evaluate the possible health impacts of chemicals that have been in widespread use.
In a letter to a congressman that was obtained by the Washington Post, the FDA said that recent scientific studies raise questions about whether triclosan disrupts
the body's endocrine system and whether it helps to create bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. An advisory panel to the FDA said in 2005 that there was no evidence the antibacterial soaps work better than regular soap and water.
The FDA was responding to Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who has been pushing federal regulators to restrict the use of triclosan and other chemicals that have been
shown in tests to interfere with the delicate endocrine system, which regulates growth and development.
"The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is
literally in almost every type of product - most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys," Markey said. "It's in our drinking water, it's in our rivers and as a result, it's in our bodies. ... I don't think a lot of additional data has to be collected in order to make the simple decisions about children's toys and soaps that people use. It clearly is something that creates a danger."
Markey wants triclosan banned from products for children and products that
come into contact with food, such as cutting boards. Other countries, including European Union members, have banned or restricted the use of the chemical.
Brian Sansoni of the Soap and Detergent Association, which represents the $30 billion U.S. cleaning-products industry, said concerns about triclosan are unfounded.
"These products and ingredients have been reviewed, regulated and researched for
decades," he said. "We believe the science strongly supports the safety and efficacy of these products. It's more important than ever that consumers continue to have
access to these products. It's a time of increased threats from disease and germs."
Triclosan was developed as a surgical scrub for medical professionals. It is also used in pesticides. In recent years, it has been added to a host of consumer products to kill bacteria and fungus and prevent odors. It can be found in such products as kitchen cutting boards and shoes, often packaged with labels that tout "anti-bacterial" properties.
Most hand sanitizers, such as Purell, use alcohol and do not contain triclosan.
Sarah Janssen, staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Fund, which joined with several other environmental groups last year to petition the FDA to restrict the use of triclosan, said the soap industry was taking advantage of consumer fears. "Especially with the H1N1 outbreak, people get really scared and think they need to take extra precautions without thinking that soap and water works just as well," Janssen said.
Because it is found in so many types of products, triclosan is regulated by three
federal agencies: the FDA, the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But
the FDA, which oversees its use in personal-care products, medical devices and
products that come into contact with food, has been working for 38 years to establish rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed that task.
The FDA is committed to issuing the rules quickly and is working with the EPA to review the most recent data on triclosan, said Doug Throckmorton, acting director of the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. He said the FDA is also revisiting the 1997 approval it gave for triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste because at the time, scientists had not raised concerns that triclosan could disrupt the endocrine system.
"For triclosan, the science is changing," Throckmorton said. "Based on what we know,
we don't have evidence to suggest this chemical is a threat to human health. However, we have to understand better the health effects, and we have to work with
other agencies to collect that information and then decide whether or not we need to
change how it's regulated."
Feds probe chemical used in
home products
by Lyndsey Layton - Apr. 11, 2010 12:00 AM
Washington Post
WASHINGTON - The Food and Drug Administration said recent research raises "valid concerns" about the possible health effects of triclosan, an antibacterial chemical
found in a growing number of liquid soaps, hand sanitizers, dishwashing liquids,
shaving gels and even socks, workout clothes and toys.
The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency say they are taking a fresh look at
triclosan, which is so ubiquitous that it is found in the urine of 75 percent of the
population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The reassessment is the latest signal that the Obama administration is willing to re-
evaluate the possible health impacts of chemicals that have been in widespread use.
In a letter to a congressman that was obtained by the Washington Post, the FDA said that recent scientific studies raise questions about whether triclosan disrupts
the body's endocrine system and whether it helps to create bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. An advisory panel to the FDA said in 2005 that there was no evidence the antibacterial soaps work better than regular soap and water.
The FDA was responding to Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who has been pushing federal regulators to restrict the use of triclosan and other chemicals that have been
shown in tests to interfere with the delicate endocrine system, which regulates growth and development.
"The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is
literally in almost every type of product - most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys," Markey said. "It's in our drinking water, it's in our rivers and as a result, it's in our bodies. ... I don't think a lot of additional data has to be collected in order to make the simple decisions about children's toys and soaps that people use. It clearly is something that creates a danger."
Markey wants triclosan banned from products for children and products that
come into contact with food, such as cutting boards. Other countries, including European Union members, have banned or restricted the use of the chemical.
Brian Sansoni of the Soap and Detergent Association, which represents the $30 billion U.S. cleaning-products industry, said concerns about triclosan are unfounded.
"These products and ingredients have been reviewed, regulated and researched for
decades," he said. "We believe the science strongly supports the safety and efficacy of these products. It's more important than ever that consumers continue to have
access to these products. It's a time of increased threats from disease and germs."
Triclosan was developed as a surgical scrub for medical professionals. It is also used in pesticides. In recent years, it has been added to a host of consumer products to kill bacteria and fungus and prevent odors. It can be found in such products as kitchen cutting boards and shoes, often packaged with labels that tout "anti-bacterial" properties.
Most hand sanitizers, such as Purell, use alcohol and do not contain triclosan.
Sarah Janssen, staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Fund, which joined with several other environmental groups last year to petition the FDA to restrict the use of triclosan, said the soap industry was taking advantage of consumer fears. "Especially with the H1N1 outbreak, people get really scared and think they need to take extra precautions without thinking that soap and water works just as well," Janssen said.
Because it is found in so many types of products, triclosan is regulated by three
federal agencies: the FDA, the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But
the FDA, which oversees its use in personal-care products, medical devices and
products that come into contact with food, has been working for 38 years to establish rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed that task.
The FDA is committed to issuing the rules quickly and is working with the EPA to review the most recent data on triclosan, said Doug Throckmorton, acting director of the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. He said the FDA is also revisiting the 1997 approval it gave for triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste because at the time, scientists had not raised concerns that triclosan could disrupt the endocrine system.
"For triclosan, the science is changing," Throckmorton said. "Based on what we know,
we don't have evidence to suggest this chemical is a threat to human health. However, we have to understand better the health effects, and we have to work with
other agencies to collect that information and then decide whether or not we need to
change how it's regulated."
HR 2300 Environmental Framework
Bill HR 2300 is based on behaviors fundamental to our current lifestyle. Energy consumption and costs are important to Americans because of the lifestyle we have grown accustomed to. The new “green” movement has caused energy policies to slide to the forefront of the environmental agenda. Since, energy is an essential component of our economic and personal well-being Americans must find new ways to decrease their dependence on fossil fuels.
If a new energy policy is to succeed Americans may need to change some of their values. We must find alternative ways of producing energy. New technologies will need to be developed in order to produce energy in mass quantities. One of the issues with the development of new energy technology will be the tradeoff between ecological well-being and human well-being. An example of this trade-off will become evident as land is developed into wind energy and the natural habitat of the environment is destroyed, which will have impacts on the food chain and the ecology of the area. In order to properly address the energy crisis Americans need to modify their values and put more resources into finding new ways to enjoy the benefits of economic development without destroying the earth.
HR 2300 represents a complex political issue. Rising energy costs, our concern for national security, and the current economic state have caused politicians to focus on finding new ways to provide energy to Americans. Due to the concern of the general population regarding this issue, politicians cannot afford to take a back-seat to solving the energy crisis. If politicians running for office have little to say about the current energy policy debate, they will not win. The energy consumption issue is closely related to many different issues and a vote to avoid the subject would be career suicide at all levels of government (local, state, and federal). The level of controversy surrounding this issue is high and the consensus is that changes need to occur. The conflict is over which changes to make as both political parties have taken strong sides in regards to energy policy formulation.
HR 2300 will be an interesting way to watch entrepreneurship and technology advancement occur. The policy design of this bill will encourage research and development of more efficient technologies in regards to energy production. It will facilitate data collection and analysis which will help streamline a more comprehensive energy policy package in the future. In addition, it will establish national best management practices as recommended guidelines for energy technology. The results of this new program will help promote technological advances to address pressing issues and provide dramatic improvements in energy efficiency on a national scale.
Bill HR 2300 will provide incentives to influence behavior to reduce damaging the environment by providing permanent tax credits to those who participate in the development of a less dependent America in regards to their use of non-renewable resources. Other incentives include monies allocated for research activities, pollution abatement equipment, the manufacture of natural gas-powered vehicles, nuclear power manufacturing and construction projects, and carbon dioxide capture from industrial sources. The policy design reflects strategic thinking, but is also in line with current stakeholder considerations. The regulated community understands what they are being asked to do and are generally supportive of making these changes. The support is due to America's focused determination in becoming a greener nation.
The management components relevant to HR 2300 show that the organizational capacity already exists to utilize the use of technology or other strategic plan elements needed to prevent the environmental problem. American constituents are on-board and have shown that energy production and crisis management is important in terms of prioritizing issues. The quality of leadership in the organization implementing this program is strong, because of the drive the general population is producing. Most public utility programs are developing newer and greener ways to produce energy and car manufacturers have been responsive in developing new models that consume less gas. Energy policy debates are one of the oldest environmental issues, so the support for change is large.
If a new energy policy is to succeed Americans may need to change some of their values. We must find alternative ways of producing energy. New technologies will need to be developed in order to produce energy in mass quantities. One of the issues with the development of new energy technology will be the tradeoff between ecological well-being and human well-being. An example of this trade-off will become evident as land is developed into wind energy and the natural habitat of the environment is destroyed, which will have impacts on the food chain and the ecology of the area. In order to properly address the energy crisis Americans need to modify their values and put more resources into finding new ways to enjoy the benefits of economic development without destroying the earth.
HR 2300 represents a complex political issue. Rising energy costs, our concern for national security, and the current economic state have caused politicians to focus on finding new ways to provide energy to Americans. Due to the concern of the general population regarding this issue, politicians cannot afford to take a back-seat to solving the energy crisis. If politicians running for office have little to say about the current energy policy debate, they will not win. The energy consumption issue is closely related to many different issues and a vote to avoid the subject would be career suicide at all levels of government (local, state, and federal). The level of controversy surrounding this issue is high and the consensus is that changes need to occur. The conflict is over which changes to make as both political parties have taken strong sides in regards to energy policy formulation.
HR 2300 will be an interesting way to watch entrepreneurship and technology advancement occur. The policy design of this bill will encourage research and development of more efficient technologies in regards to energy production. It will facilitate data collection and analysis which will help streamline a more comprehensive energy policy package in the future. In addition, it will establish national best management practices as recommended guidelines for energy technology. The results of this new program will help promote technological advances to address pressing issues and provide dramatic improvements in energy efficiency on a national scale.
Bill HR 2300 will provide incentives to influence behavior to reduce damaging the environment by providing permanent tax credits to those who participate in the development of a less dependent America in regards to their use of non-renewable resources. Other incentives include monies allocated for research activities, pollution abatement equipment, the manufacture of natural gas-powered vehicles, nuclear power manufacturing and construction projects, and carbon dioxide capture from industrial sources. The policy design reflects strategic thinking, but is also in line with current stakeholder considerations. The regulated community understands what they are being asked to do and are generally supportive of making these changes. The support is due to America's focused determination in becoming a greener nation.
The management components relevant to HR 2300 show that the organizational capacity already exists to utilize the use of technology or other strategic plan elements needed to prevent the environmental problem. American constituents are on-board and have shown that energy production and crisis management is important in terms of prioritizing issues. The quality of leadership in the organization implementing this program is strong, because of the drive the general population is producing. Most public utility programs are developing newer and greener ways to produce energy and car manufacturers have been responsive in developing new models that consume less gas. Energy policy debates are one of the oldest environmental issues, so the support for change is large.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Additional Reading
If any of you are interested in additional readings regarding environmental degradation and its effects on future generations there are two books by Jared Diamond, which are really interesting! (He won the Pulitzer Prize for one of them.) The author does a really good job of explaining past environmental consequences effects on the modern world and relates them to problems we are facing today. (My favorite is Easter Island and his research in New Guinea.) They are not easy books to get through, but are well worth the time!
I’ve given a synopsis (taken from Amazon.Com) below:
Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel: Describes how and why western societies developed immunities that allowed them to dominate much of the world. Jared Diamond presents the biologist's answer: geography, demography, and ecological happenstance. Diamond evenhandedly reviews human history on every continent since the Ice Age at a rate that emphasizes only the broadest movements of peoples and ideas. Most of this work deals with non-Europeans, but Diamond's thesis sheds light on why Western civilization became hegemonic: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." Those who domesticated plants and animals early got a head start on developing writing, government, technology, weapons of war, and immunity to deadly germs.
Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed is the glass his follow-up book. While Guns, Germs, and Steel explained the geographic and environmental reasons why some human populations have flourished, Collapse uses the same factors to examine why ancient societies, including the Anasazi of the American Southwest and the Viking colonies of Greenland, as well as modern ones such as Rwanda, have fallen apart. Not every collapse has an environmental origin, but an eco-meltdown is often the main catalyst, he argues, particularly when combined with society's response to (or disregard for) the coming disaster. This book also spells out what happens when we squander our resources, ignore the signals the environment gives us, and we reproduce too fast, or cut down too many trees. What makes one environment more fragile than another?
I’ve given a synopsis (taken from Amazon.Com) below:
Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel: Describes how and why western societies developed immunities that allowed them to dominate much of the world. Jared Diamond presents the biologist's answer: geography, demography, and ecological happenstance. Diamond evenhandedly reviews human history on every continent since the Ice Age at a rate that emphasizes only the broadest movements of peoples and ideas. Most of this work deals with non-Europeans, but Diamond's thesis sheds light on why Western civilization became hegemonic: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." Those who domesticated plants and animals early got a head start on developing writing, government, technology, weapons of war, and immunity to deadly germs.
Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed is the glass his follow-up book. While Guns, Germs, and Steel explained the geographic and environmental reasons why some human populations have flourished, Collapse uses the same factors to examine why ancient societies, including the Anasazi of the American Southwest and the Viking colonies of Greenland, as well as modern ones such as Rwanda, have fallen apart. Not every collapse has an environmental origin, but an eco-meltdown is often the main catalyst, he argues, particularly when combined with society's response to (or disregard for) the coming disaster. This book also spells out what happens when we squander our resources, ignore the signals the environment gives us, and we reproduce too fast, or cut down too many trees. What makes one environment more fragile than another?
Questions for Assignment #5
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 well-being? Why or why not?
Currently developing countries do not have the right to exploit forests and other natural resources as Europe and the U.S. previously did in order to increase their economic well-being. Unfortunately, knowledge is power and the more knowledge we have in regards to harming the environment and its role in economic development, the more we (as a global nation) need to do all we can do to help save the earth for future generations. Although it may seem unfair to developing nations, the developing nations also need to think about their future offspring and generations and ways of sustaining them. If we don’t all work together to facilitate saving the environment, there won’t be anything left for future generations. Industrialized nations need to lead the way and provide education and other resources to developing countries in order to help them develop in an environmentally friendly way.
An example of why developing countries should not have a right to exploit forests is evident in the country of Haiti. Haiti deforested most of their land to the point they have no protection from natural disasters or pollution control. The earthquake in Haiti resulted in many mudslides (some of which could have been prevented) if the forests had not been decimated. The lack of natural resources in this area should be an example that environmental policies should be implemented in a developing country before total environmental destruction.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate? Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate? 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? Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?
The expectations industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate include a commitment to environmentally friendly development and an environment which can be used for future generations to come. Equity between industrialized and developing countries in terms of the environmental should be a goal in this debate. In the past a developing country had the ability to pollute to the environment as they were developing, but this is no longer true. Since more knowledge has been acquired and it is obvious that damage to the environment occurs at an alarming rate during the development of a country, unfortunately this means developing countries will have to implement economic development in a more environmentally friendly way. The equity concept which should be focused on is environmental equity in terms of making the earth sustainable for future generations of all countries.
If a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming in order to achieve this goal, the country should be educated on its damage to the environment. After this education is attained developing nations should be required to participate in reducing emissions and saving natural resources during economic development in order to sustain future generations of its own country. Contrarily, the expectations developing nations should have on industrialized nations is help (in the form of monetary incentives) in reaching environmental friendly development. This help can equalize the inequity from previous generations of development and harm to the environment from industrialized nations at an earlier point in time.
Currently developing countries do not have the right to exploit forests and other natural resources as Europe and the U.S. previously did in order to increase their economic well-being. Unfortunately, knowledge is power and the more knowledge we have in regards to harming the environment and its role in economic development, the more we (as a global nation) need to do all we can do to help save the earth for future generations. Although it may seem unfair to developing nations, the developing nations also need to think about their future offspring and generations and ways of sustaining them. If we don’t all work together to facilitate saving the environment, there won’t be anything left for future generations. Industrialized nations need to lead the way and provide education and other resources to developing countries in order to help them develop in an environmentally friendly way.
An example of why developing countries should not have a right to exploit forests is evident in the country of Haiti. Haiti deforested most of their land to the point they have no protection from natural disasters or pollution control. The earthquake in Haiti resulted in many mudslides (some of which could have been prevented) if the forests had not been decimated. The lack of natural resources in this area should be an example that environmental policies should be implemented in a developing country before total environmental destruction.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate? Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate? 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? Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?
The expectations industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate include a commitment to environmentally friendly development and an environment which can be used for future generations to come. Equity between industrialized and developing countries in terms of the environmental should be a goal in this debate. In the past a developing country had the ability to pollute to the environment as they were developing, but this is no longer true. Since more knowledge has been acquired and it is obvious that damage to the environment occurs at an alarming rate during the development of a country, unfortunately this means developing countries will have to implement economic development in a more environmentally friendly way. The equity concept which should be focused on is environmental equity in terms of making the earth sustainable for future generations of all countries.
If a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming in order to achieve this goal, the country should be educated on its damage to the environment. After this education is attained developing nations should be required to participate in reducing emissions and saving natural resources during economic development in order to sustain future generations of its own country. Contrarily, the expectations developing nations should have on industrialized nations is help (in the form of monetary incentives) in reaching environmental friendly development. This help can equalize the inequity from previous generations of development and harm to the environment from industrialized nations at an earlier point in time.
Final Paper Summary
History and Background of the Bill:
Energy consumption across the United States is on the rise. People consume food, fresh water, wood, minerals, and energy as we go about our daily lives. Producing food, pumping groundwater, harvesting wood, mining minerals, and burning fuel all deplete our resource base. As the production of energy becomes more expensive, the need for government intervention is required. Climate change, natural resource extraction, population growth, and urbanism are among the many issues affecting energy consumption.
The bill I chose for my paper topic is HR 2300. The title of the bill is: To provide the United States with a comprehensive energy package to place Americans on a path to a secure economic future through increased energy innovation, conservation, and production. This bill is very broad and encompasses most of the energy consumption used in the US including solar, wind, nuclear energy, coal-to-liquid plant property energy, and clean coal power plants (to name a few). It also allows for permanent tax credits for increasing research activities, pollution abatement equipment, the manufacture of natural gas-powered vehicles, nuclear power manufacturing and construction projects, and carbon dioxide capture from industrial sources.
Energy consumption across the United States is on the rise. People consume food, fresh water, wood, minerals, and energy as we go about our daily lives. Producing food, pumping groundwater, harvesting wood, mining minerals, and burning fuel all deplete our resource base. As the production of energy becomes more expensive, the need for government intervention is required. Climate change, natural resource extraction, population growth, and urbanism are among the many issues affecting energy consumption.
The bill I chose for my paper topic is HR 2300. The title of the bill is: To provide the United States with a comprehensive energy package to place Americans on a path to a secure economic future through increased energy innovation, conservation, and production. This bill is very broad and encompasses most of the energy consumption used in the US including solar, wind, nuclear energy, coal-to-liquid plant property energy, and clean coal power plants (to name a few). It also allows for permanent tax credits for increasing research activities, pollution abatement equipment, the manufacture of natural gas-powered vehicles, nuclear power manufacturing and construction projects, and carbon dioxide capture from industrial sources.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Assignment 4 - Part 1
Summary of Article:
The Subject: The Wyoming Supreme Court upheld a state air quality permit for a power plant
The Debate: The Sierra Club and the Powder River Basin Resource Council challenged an air quality permit the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) issued for the power plant in 2007. The groups claimed the power plant would unacceptably degrade air quality on a Cheyenne Indian Reservation 60 miles north of the power plant site.
The justices ruled that state regulators granted the permit correctly.
The Issues: One issue was whether the state could justify a permit even though worst-case computer modeling showed that the plan’s emissions, combined with maximum allowable emissions from power plants much closer to the reservation could cause unacceptably high levels of pollution and they argued that a permit couldn’t be issued under those circumstances.
The Power Plant argued that the plant’s contribution to that pollution would be extremely small and granting the permit would be consistent with long-standing department practice and U.S. EPA interpretation of laws.
The Supreme Court questioned some of the state’s methodology but ruled that awarding the permit was acceptable because the agency had “some discretion”. The justices also ruled that the state correctly applied the rules for using best available technology and didn’t have to require best technologies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
The group to question the construction of the power plant stated, “Coal plants are significant, long-term investments and should be heavily scrutinized at the front end. Otherwise, Wyoming communities will be left with the pollution for decades to come.”
The power plant will generate and transmit electricity to 2.8 million people in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Analysis of Article:
The data used to identify this case as an environmental justice issue include the location of the power plant so close to an Indian Reservation and future generations which could be left with the pollution created from this power plant. The placement of the power plant was a determination which could leave a minority group at a disadvantage. The power plant also didn’t take into account the impact the amount of pollution dispersed may have on the future, which may represent a negligence of due diligence and research.
The groups of people affected by this case include the Cheyenne Indian Reservation, the power plant designers and employees, the persons buying the electricity from this power plant, The Sierra Club, the Powder River Basin Resource Council, the constituents of Wyoming and Montana. I found it interesting that the power plant chose to place the plant so close to the state border, and I wonder if this was intentional or not. It would also be interesting to note the wind patterns of the area, because the intention was to pollute more of Montana than of Wyoming.
This article illustrates the on-going conflict between the recent debate about the two ways companies reach environmental goals, through laws and regulations and voluntary undertakings by organizations themselves. This article reflected on the Argandona article regarding ethics, social, and environmental management systems. This article is closely related to the ethics portion of the article because although the company is meeting the minimum governmental regulations, it is not exemplifying ethics. According to the article, there are many other pollutant protectors which can be installed at a cost to the power plant company. Incorporating these objects into the planning phase of a project will be much cheaper in the long-run than being required to retrofit the plant with pollution protectors at a later date, due to a new government regulation.
The proximity of the power point to the Indian Reservation also seems to parallel the Campbell, Peck, and Tschudi article. This article claimed that there was empirical analysis that found evidence of environmental discrimination in the placement of risky facilities. It would be interesting to see what went into the planning portion of this project and whether this placement was intentional or not. It also would have been nice to read more about the parcel of land chosen for the project and the reasons for choosing that particular spot.
Another conclusion to draw (from previous readings) from the article is the impact the judicial system has on environmental policy. The Wyoming Supreme Court has now set a precedent for this type of situation. I think it also shows the importance of economic development and growth and the amount of power this plant would generate (to numerous persons across state lines) probably had something to do with the outcome.
The Subject: The Wyoming Supreme Court upheld a state air quality permit for a power plant
The Debate: The Sierra Club and the Powder River Basin Resource Council challenged an air quality permit the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) issued for the power plant in 2007. The groups claimed the power plant would unacceptably degrade air quality on a Cheyenne Indian Reservation 60 miles north of the power plant site.
The justices ruled that state regulators granted the permit correctly.
The Issues: One issue was whether the state could justify a permit even though worst-case computer modeling showed that the plan’s emissions, combined with maximum allowable emissions from power plants much closer to the reservation could cause unacceptably high levels of pollution and they argued that a permit couldn’t be issued under those circumstances.
The Power Plant argued that the plant’s contribution to that pollution would be extremely small and granting the permit would be consistent with long-standing department practice and U.S. EPA interpretation of laws.
The Supreme Court questioned some of the state’s methodology but ruled that awarding the permit was acceptable because the agency had “some discretion”. The justices also ruled that the state correctly applied the rules for using best available technology and didn’t have to require best technologies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
The group to question the construction of the power plant stated, “Coal plants are significant, long-term investments and should be heavily scrutinized at the front end. Otherwise, Wyoming communities will be left with the pollution for decades to come.”
The power plant will generate and transmit electricity to 2.8 million people in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Analysis of Article:
The data used to identify this case as an environmental justice issue include the location of the power plant so close to an Indian Reservation and future generations which could be left with the pollution created from this power plant. The placement of the power plant was a determination which could leave a minority group at a disadvantage. The power plant also didn’t take into account the impact the amount of pollution dispersed may have on the future, which may represent a negligence of due diligence and research.
The groups of people affected by this case include the Cheyenne Indian Reservation, the power plant designers and employees, the persons buying the electricity from this power plant, The Sierra Club, the Powder River Basin Resource Council, the constituents of Wyoming and Montana. I found it interesting that the power plant chose to place the plant so close to the state border, and I wonder if this was intentional or not. It would also be interesting to note the wind patterns of the area, because the intention was to pollute more of Montana than of Wyoming.
This article illustrates the on-going conflict between the recent debate about the two ways companies reach environmental goals, through laws and regulations and voluntary undertakings by organizations themselves. This article reflected on the Argandona article regarding ethics, social, and environmental management systems. This article is closely related to the ethics portion of the article because although the company is meeting the minimum governmental regulations, it is not exemplifying ethics. According to the article, there are many other pollutant protectors which can be installed at a cost to the power plant company. Incorporating these objects into the planning phase of a project will be much cheaper in the long-run than being required to retrofit the plant with pollution protectors at a later date, due to a new government regulation.
The proximity of the power point to the Indian Reservation also seems to parallel the Campbell, Peck, and Tschudi article. This article claimed that there was empirical analysis that found evidence of environmental discrimination in the placement of risky facilities. It would be interesting to see what went into the planning portion of this project and whether this placement was intentional or not. It also would have been nice to read more about the parcel of land chosen for the project and the reasons for choosing that particular spot.
Another conclusion to draw (from previous readings) from the article is the impact the judicial system has on environmental policy. The Wyoming Supreme Court has now set a precedent for this type of situation. I think it also shows the importance of economic development and growth and the amount of power this plant would generate (to numerous persons across state lines) probably had something to do with the outcome.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
13)Should public managers and environmental planners engage the public when they know that the public 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?
Public managers and environmental planners should engage the public in the decision making process even if the public’s knowledge is limited about the “science” of an environmental issue. Public engagement should be done through public hearings, media pamphlets, door-to-door interaction, and mailings. It’s important to remember although the public may not be knowledgeable about a certain subject, they are not stupid and have the capability to understand and comprehend the information presented to them, if it is presented in a clear and concise manner, without a lot of technical jargon. There have been numerous cases sited, in the readings, as well as other scholastic journals (not just in environmental policy, but in other policy arenas as well) where public engagement has helped to facilitate a much less expensive project that runs smoothly. Public policy implementation must be presented in a transparent manner in order for the public to perceive the government agencies as having their best interests at heart and to be viewed as competent.
14)Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think might be particularly conducive to using contingent valuation. Briefly describe why CV would be appropriate in this case.
An environmental problem that would be conducive to using CV is the impact of mining natural resources and the damage done to the environment. A survey could be developed to measure a person’s willingness-to-pay in order to rebuild the portion of the environment which was destroyed.
Another environmental problem that would be conducive to using CV is water quality. CV would be an appropriate case because the survey generated would give public administrators a general idea of what the public was willing to pay in regards to such policy measures.
15.Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think would definitely not be conducive to using CV. Briefly describe why CV would not be appropriate in this case.
An environmental problem which would not be conducive to using CV would be lowering greenhouse emissions. This is a policy which should be mandated by the Federal government and I don’t think a willingness-to-pay approach is one that will help the environment in reaching sustainable goals. This is a policy area which much be mandated and using a CV may create a “free-rider” problem.
Another environmental problem which is not conducive to using a CV survey is an individual’s impact to the environment. A market value cannot be placed on an individual’s impact to the environment (such as an oil spill or contaminating the water supply by dumping something toxic down the drain). A CV survey could be biased by the sampled population and wouldn’t take into account income restraints by the individual; and a quantitative assessment of the damages may not be accurate.
Public managers and environmental planners should engage the public in the decision making process even if the public’s knowledge is limited about the “science” of an environmental issue. Public engagement should be done through public hearings, media pamphlets, door-to-door interaction, and mailings. It’s important to remember although the public may not be knowledgeable about a certain subject, they are not stupid and have the capability to understand and comprehend the information presented to them, if it is presented in a clear and concise manner, without a lot of technical jargon. There have been numerous cases sited, in the readings, as well as other scholastic journals (not just in environmental policy, but in other policy arenas as well) where public engagement has helped to facilitate a much less expensive project that runs smoothly. Public policy implementation must be presented in a transparent manner in order for the public to perceive the government agencies as having their best interests at heart and to be viewed as competent.
14)Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think might be particularly conducive to using contingent valuation. Briefly describe why CV would be appropriate in this case.
An environmental problem that would be conducive to using CV is the impact of mining natural resources and the damage done to the environment. A survey could be developed to measure a person’s willingness-to-pay in order to rebuild the portion of the environment which was destroyed.
Another environmental problem that would be conducive to using CV is water quality. CV would be an appropriate case because the survey generated would give public administrators a general idea of what the public was willing to pay in regards to such policy measures.
15.Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think would definitely not be conducive to using CV. Briefly describe why CV would not be appropriate in this case.
An environmental problem which would not be conducive to using CV would be lowering greenhouse emissions. This is a policy which should be mandated by the Federal government and I don’t think a willingness-to-pay approach is one that will help the environment in reaching sustainable goals. This is a policy area which much be mandated and using a CV may create a “free-rider” problem.
Another environmental problem which is not conducive to using a CV survey is an individual’s impact to the environment. A market value cannot be placed on an individual’s impact to the environment (such as an oil spill or contaminating the water supply by dumping something toxic down the drain). A CV survey could be biased by the sampled population and wouldn’t take into account income restraints by the individual; and a quantitative assessment of the damages may not be accurate.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
I found this interesting article on the International Code Council (ICC's) website. For those of you who aren't familiar with building codes, this is exciting news because with the development of green building standards and codes it will be easier for projects to incorporate these methods into the construction of the building. Right now it is difficult to plan for some of these items because of the new materials which are used; these new materials haven't been proven as "safe" yet, so there is no way of determining the safety hazard validity unless a full-blown engineering analysis is used (which can be quite expensive). The new codes will allow a starting point for those (especially small business owners and homeowners interested in integrating green building techniques into the building.
Link for Article: http://www.iccsafe.org/Communities/Green/Pages/RonJones.aspx
GreenBuilder GateKeeper
A Work In Progress
"This is not the end, this is just the beginning."
— Ron Jones, GreenBuilder
After long months of work punctuated by meetings in five American cities across two calendar years, some 200 conference calls spanning four time zones, and thousands of hours of effort delivered by both volunteer working groups populated with members of the Sustainable Building Technology Committee (SBTC)—as well as representatives from a wide variety of industry and special interest groups—and the tireless members of the staff of the International Code Council, the initial rough draft of the proposed International Green Construction Code (IgCC) has been accepted by the ICC for the next steps of preparation in advance of release to the first period of public review and comment. The finished version of the proposed code is scheduled to be released and available for adoption in the first quarter of 2012. Of course, at that moment the clock will start ticking on the next round of revisions, usually a three-year cycle—a process that has no end.
I cannot speak for other members of the SBTC, but my initial reaction was a blend of relief and optimism. After already being heavily involved in the year-long development and drafting of the National Green Building Standard (aka: ICC-700) throughout most of 2007 and the subsequent, prolonged public comment periods in 2008 (the NGBS received approval of the American National Standards Institute and became an ANSI Standard in January 2009), I wasn't sure how much time I could justifiably devote to the new effort, and frankly, I privately had to question whether I would have enough energy and passion left to give the kind of effort that this new endeavor would require.
My previous work on ICC-700 would prove to be both the source of my opportunity to serve on the SBTC, thus to help draft the IgCC, and my main motivation for doing so. Since the proposed green construction code is for commercial buildings and ICC-700 will serve as the portion covering residential buildings, it would have been almost impossible for me to pass up the chance to remain involved, if for no other reason than to safeguard the work I had already been part of and the personal investment that implies.
But I must add that the fact that I knew and had previously worked with a number of the other nominees, people who I admire and respect for their personal integrity and their common commitment to making the world a better place, played a major role in my decision to accept a seat and participate in the second process. And I also knew that it presented a huge personal learning opportunity as well.
The earlier committee had been larger in size, comprised of roughly a dozen more members, and it included residential building professionals, building scientists, a limited number of architects and engineers, various building/code officials, and representatives of several green building organizations/programs, utilities, product manufacturers, trade groups, non-governmental organizations and numerous state and federal agencies.
The second committee again included several representatives from the building materials sector, active building/code officials, engineers, energy specialists and sustainability advocates, but it also seated a much higher percentage of architects, both those in active practice and those representing associations and industry organizations.
As the drafting of the second document continued it became increasingly apparent to me that the two approaches to developing templates for sustainable built environments, though similar in most respects, differed in others. Most specifically, and not surprisingly, the green construction code for commercial structures places much more emphasis on design solutions to resolve performance issues before they ever reach the field, while the ANSI Standard is weighted in the direction of execution of the actual steps of the development model and the construction process itself. Theory and application, I suppose you could say.
In the end, they must both be understood for what they are: steps along the same path—one that has no prescribed destination but rather leads back around to itself only to repeat another revolution and start anew.
At the final set of SBTC meetings, which just concluded in Austin, I returned from a working group breakout session to my seat at the table of the committee as a whole to discover a paperback copy of collected works by the renowned American poet, Wendell Berry. It had long been out of print but with some effort and investment a pre-owned copy had been procured and gifted to me by a fellow member of the committee, someone who I have known for many years, a friend with whom I share both a passion for the balance between the built and natural environments and a deep appreciation for those who have mastered this language we call our own.
On the plane ride to my next destination, as I allowed myself to luxuriate in the banquet of verse, I was brought up short by a reference the author made to the bargain we strike when we trade our involvement for efficiency, our ability to communicate our minds through our hands and into our work for the sake of higher productivity, referring to the "numb endurance of metal," the "breathless distance of iron" and the work that "empowered by burning the world's body, showed us finally the world's limits and our own."
The work of building a better future will never be completed but the real work in progress is in reminding ourselves, and those who come after us, that we must never aspire to automate and pre-program our world to the point where we unwittingly design the regulatory framework of our own obsolescence. We must instead resolve to never allow ourselves to forget not only how things are most elegantly done, but the reasons behind why we do them at all.
Link for Article: http://www.iccsafe.org/Communities/Green/Pages/RonJones.aspx
GreenBuilder GateKeeper
A Work In Progress
"This is not the end, this is just the beginning."
— Ron Jones, GreenBuilder
After long months of work punctuated by meetings in five American cities across two calendar years, some 200 conference calls spanning four time zones, and thousands of hours of effort delivered by both volunteer working groups populated with members of the Sustainable Building Technology Committee (SBTC)—as well as representatives from a wide variety of industry and special interest groups—and the tireless members of the staff of the International Code Council, the initial rough draft of the proposed International Green Construction Code (IgCC) has been accepted by the ICC for the next steps of preparation in advance of release to the first period of public review and comment. The finished version of the proposed code is scheduled to be released and available for adoption in the first quarter of 2012. Of course, at that moment the clock will start ticking on the next round of revisions, usually a three-year cycle—a process that has no end.
I cannot speak for other members of the SBTC, but my initial reaction was a blend of relief and optimism. After already being heavily involved in the year-long development and drafting of the National Green Building Standard (aka: ICC-700) throughout most of 2007 and the subsequent, prolonged public comment periods in 2008 (the NGBS received approval of the American National Standards Institute and became an ANSI Standard in January 2009), I wasn't sure how much time I could justifiably devote to the new effort, and frankly, I privately had to question whether I would have enough energy and passion left to give the kind of effort that this new endeavor would require.
My previous work on ICC-700 would prove to be both the source of my opportunity to serve on the SBTC, thus to help draft the IgCC, and my main motivation for doing so. Since the proposed green construction code is for commercial buildings and ICC-700 will serve as the portion covering residential buildings, it would have been almost impossible for me to pass up the chance to remain involved, if for no other reason than to safeguard the work I had already been part of and the personal investment that implies.
But I must add that the fact that I knew and had previously worked with a number of the other nominees, people who I admire and respect for their personal integrity and their common commitment to making the world a better place, played a major role in my decision to accept a seat and participate in the second process. And I also knew that it presented a huge personal learning opportunity as well.
The earlier committee had been larger in size, comprised of roughly a dozen more members, and it included residential building professionals, building scientists, a limited number of architects and engineers, various building/code officials, and representatives of several green building organizations/programs, utilities, product manufacturers, trade groups, non-governmental organizations and numerous state and federal agencies.
The second committee again included several representatives from the building materials sector, active building/code officials, engineers, energy specialists and sustainability advocates, but it also seated a much higher percentage of architects, both those in active practice and those representing associations and industry organizations.
As the drafting of the second document continued it became increasingly apparent to me that the two approaches to developing templates for sustainable built environments, though similar in most respects, differed in others. Most specifically, and not surprisingly, the green construction code for commercial structures places much more emphasis on design solutions to resolve performance issues before they ever reach the field, while the ANSI Standard is weighted in the direction of execution of the actual steps of the development model and the construction process itself. Theory and application, I suppose you could say.
In the end, they must both be understood for what they are: steps along the same path—one that has no prescribed destination but rather leads back around to itself only to repeat another revolution and start anew.
At the final set of SBTC meetings, which just concluded in Austin, I returned from a working group breakout session to my seat at the table of the committee as a whole to discover a paperback copy of collected works by the renowned American poet, Wendell Berry. It had long been out of print but with some effort and investment a pre-owned copy had been procured and gifted to me by a fellow member of the committee, someone who I have known for many years, a friend with whom I share both a passion for the balance between the built and natural environments and a deep appreciation for those who have mastered this language we call our own.
On the plane ride to my next destination, as I allowed myself to luxuriate in the banquet of verse, I was brought up short by a reference the author made to the bargain we strike when we trade our involvement for efficiency, our ability to communicate our minds through our hands and into our work for the sake of higher productivity, referring to the "numb endurance of metal," the "breathless distance of iron" and the work that "empowered by burning the world's body, showed us finally the world's limits and our own."
The work of building a better future will never be completed but the real work in progress is in reminding ourselves, and those who come after us, that we must never aspire to automate and pre-program our world to the point where we unwittingly design the regulatory framework of our own obsolescence. We must instead resolve to never allow ourselves to forget not only how things are most elegantly done, but the reasons behind why we do them at all.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Op-Ed Assignment
The trends in environmental policy from the years 1970 – 2008 have fluctuated greatly in their influence on the American population. The fluctuations were due to the party in the executive office, the configuration of the senate (amount of Democrats versus Republicans), the judicial branch, the economy, and America’s perception of impacts on the environment during different legislative time periods; all of these factors played a substantial role in the development and implementation of environmental policies from the 1970’s until now. What impact did these historical fluctuations mean for President Obama’s term in office from 2009 -2012?
Since the 1970’s public concern and support have risen substantially in regards to the environment. Government responses to the environment and problems that arise are important primarily because environmental threats represent public or collective goods problems. Prior to the 1970’s the United States government played a limited role in environmental policy making. This period (mainly the 1960’s) represented a time when Congress set aside portions of public land areas for preservation as national parks, forest, grazing lands, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges. It wasn’t until the 1970’s that the U.S. government started to play a dominant role in the development of policy making in the area of environmental policy. The reasons the government started to become so active were due to a changing perception of the American people and an energy / economic crisis.
The 1970’s represented a time when air and water pollution, and a different view of natural resource consumption were a part of the national agenda. The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at the end of 1969 which required detailed environmental impact statements. President Nixon used NEPA as his first official act of 1970 and proclaimed the 1970’s as the “environmental decade”. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was mostly concerned with conservation issues. The area designated as national wilderness more than doubled and Mr. Carter helped pass the Superfund bill to clean up toxic waste sites. The 1970’s was also a time period in which Congress implemented the Clean Air Act of 1970and the Clean Water Act of 1972 as amended in 1977. The judicial branch began to establish themselves as a permanent player in environmental policy-making by collaborating with administrative agencies.
The 1980’s were a reversal of the “environmental decade”. President Ronald Reagan was in power and he reevaluated the scope of government regulation and began to shift responsibilities to the states, and rely more on the private sector. Reagan had an anti-environmental agenda and viewed environmental conservation as fundamentally at odds with economic growth and prosperity. Although Reagan cut many of the environmental agencies funding the United States Congress was still a driving force in implementing changes in environmental policies. Congress’s achievements during the 1980’s were its strengthening of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1984, Reauthorization Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act (1986), and the Clean Water Act of 1987. Many court cases during the 1980’s began to set a precedence for the interpretation of environmental policy laws, many of which are used today. The end of the era and the election of George H.W. Bush began a reversal of the anti-environmental policies used during the Reagan presidency. President Bush pursued a bi-partisan act in the Clean Air Act Amendments and he drafted a bill to control acid rain, reduce air pollution, and lower emissions.
The 1990’s were an era of environmental concern. Clinton reversed many of the Reagan and Bush era executive actions that were widely criticized by environmentalists, and he favored increased spending on environmental programs, alternative energy and conservation research, and international population policy.
The turn of the century and President Bush Jr. used his executive powers to advance an anti-regulatory, pro-business agenda throughout most of his tenure. George W. Bush departed from the positions of the Clinton administration and relied heavily on the conservative constituencies to staff the EPA and the Interior of Agriculture and Energy departments. More power was given to the states to enforce environmental laws. The oil shortage and raising gas costs were an integral part of Bush’s policies; which concentrated mostly on the war with the Middle East. Congress during this time lowered the appropriation funds to environmental agencies so the impact of other government agencies was minimal because the environmental agencies did not have much money to allow the implementation of pro-environmental policies.
How did the past policies influence President Obama’s accomplishments during the last four years? How was Obama able to overturn many of his predecessor’s policies and implement a more pro-environmental policy agenda? The recession during this time period played a significant role; Americans were more receptive to new changes which would create more jobs. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and Obama’s dedication to education for new training in these new technologies allowed for the creation of new jobs; economic incentives in the form of tax breaks for employers using new green technologies paved the way for a new pro-environment mind-set of the American people. Obama’s ability to reach the public and convince them that the newly established federal policies for cleaner air and water were the path to take in order to move America in the right direction of a more sustainable country. Congress reached a consensus on many bi-partisan bills which influenced many of the environmental policies and allowed the states to establish their own criteria in regards to stricter standards for greenhouse gas emissions. The newly restructured EPA, had more influence and stronger guidelines to implement policies at the federal level, which has allowed for a more cohesive policy interpretation from the top-down. Many Americans are much more willing to incorporate “green” initiatives into their daily lives, which has allowed for the overall public perception of being environmentally friendly to travel in a more positive direction. Hopefully, this trend will continue during the next administration and America will continue to lead the way in becoming a “greener” society.
Since the 1970’s public concern and support have risen substantially in regards to the environment. Government responses to the environment and problems that arise are important primarily because environmental threats represent public or collective goods problems. Prior to the 1970’s the United States government played a limited role in environmental policy making. This period (mainly the 1960’s) represented a time when Congress set aside portions of public land areas for preservation as national parks, forest, grazing lands, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges. It wasn’t until the 1970’s that the U.S. government started to play a dominant role in the development of policy making in the area of environmental policy. The reasons the government started to become so active were due to a changing perception of the American people and an energy / economic crisis.
The 1970’s represented a time when air and water pollution, and a different view of natural resource consumption were a part of the national agenda. The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at the end of 1969 which required detailed environmental impact statements. President Nixon used NEPA as his first official act of 1970 and proclaimed the 1970’s as the “environmental decade”. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was mostly concerned with conservation issues. The area designated as national wilderness more than doubled and Mr. Carter helped pass the Superfund bill to clean up toxic waste sites. The 1970’s was also a time period in which Congress implemented the Clean Air Act of 1970and the Clean Water Act of 1972 as amended in 1977. The judicial branch began to establish themselves as a permanent player in environmental policy-making by collaborating with administrative agencies.
The 1980’s were a reversal of the “environmental decade”. President Ronald Reagan was in power and he reevaluated the scope of government regulation and began to shift responsibilities to the states, and rely more on the private sector. Reagan had an anti-environmental agenda and viewed environmental conservation as fundamentally at odds with economic growth and prosperity. Although Reagan cut many of the environmental agencies funding the United States Congress was still a driving force in implementing changes in environmental policies. Congress’s achievements during the 1980’s were its strengthening of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1984, Reauthorization Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act (1986), and the Clean Water Act of 1987. Many court cases during the 1980’s began to set a precedence for the interpretation of environmental policy laws, many of which are used today. The end of the era and the election of George H.W. Bush began a reversal of the anti-environmental policies used during the Reagan presidency. President Bush pursued a bi-partisan act in the Clean Air Act Amendments and he drafted a bill to control acid rain, reduce air pollution, and lower emissions.
The 1990’s were an era of environmental concern. Clinton reversed many of the Reagan and Bush era executive actions that were widely criticized by environmentalists, and he favored increased spending on environmental programs, alternative energy and conservation research, and international population policy.
The turn of the century and President Bush Jr. used his executive powers to advance an anti-regulatory, pro-business agenda throughout most of his tenure. George W. Bush departed from the positions of the Clinton administration and relied heavily on the conservative constituencies to staff the EPA and the Interior of Agriculture and Energy departments. More power was given to the states to enforce environmental laws. The oil shortage and raising gas costs were an integral part of Bush’s policies; which concentrated mostly on the war with the Middle East. Congress during this time lowered the appropriation funds to environmental agencies so the impact of other government agencies was minimal because the environmental agencies did not have much money to allow the implementation of pro-environmental policies.
How did the past policies influence President Obama’s accomplishments during the last four years? How was Obama able to overturn many of his predecessor’s policies and implement a more pro-environmental policy agenda? The recession during this time period played a significant role; Americans were more receptive to new changes which would create more jobs. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and Obama’s dedication to education for new training in these new technologies allowed for the creation of new jobs; economic incentives in the form of tax breaks for employers using new green technologies paved the way for a new pro-environment mind-set of the American people. Obama’s ability to reach the public and convince them that the newly established federal policies for cleaner air and water were the path to take in order to move America in the right direction of a more sustainable country. Congress reached a consensus on many bi-partisan bills which influenced many of the environmental policies and allowed the states to establish their own criteria in regards to stricter standards for greenhouse gas emissions. The newly restructured EPA, had more influence and stronger guidelines to implement policies at the federal level, which has allowed for a more cohesive policy interpretation from the top-down. Many Americans are much more willing to incorporate “green” initiatives into their daily lives, which has allowed for the overall public perception of being environmentally friendly to travel in a more positive direction. Hopefully, this trend will continue during the next administration and America will continue to lead the way in becoming a “greener” society.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
The Issue: Nuclear Power as an Energy Source
Article Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123176568
Article Background: In the President’s State of the Union address Obama singled out nuclear power. His spending plan for the next budget year is expected to include billions of more dollars in federal guarantees for new nuclear reactors. During his campaign for the presidency his administration pledged to close Yucca Mountain, a multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste. If more nuclear energy plants are constructed where will the waste be stored? (This is going to be one of the administrations obstacles if a nuclear energy policy is implemented. The storage of nuclear waste is an unpopular one with the public who remembers Three Mile Island, where one of the nuclear reactors released toxic waste into the environment in 1979.)
Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a nuclear energy bill in his State of the Union speech as a way to create more clean-energy jobs. To back that up, he is expected to seek $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power in his 2011 budget request. Lawmakers from both parties say the speech reflected a new urgency and willingness to reach out to Republicans who have criticized Obama for not talking more about the role nuclear energy can play in slowing global warming. The 104 nuclear reactors in operation in 31 states provide 20% of the nation’s electricity, but they are responsible for 70% of the power from pollution-free sources (green energy). Analyses of the climate bills passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate suggest that the U.S. will have to build many more plants in order to meet the 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 called for in the legislation.
Article Analysis: This article is an example of how an executive’s policy can change depending on the public’s opinion. Vig (Page 8) states, “The issue must first gain societal recognition as a problem, often in response to demographic, technological, or other social problems.” Although nuclear energy itself hasn’t been a large part of Obama’s agenda platform, because of the recession and slow growing economy, he is finding ways to reach out to the public and is starting to entertain different policy ideas as a reactive response to the people. This appears to be nuclear energy as a way to introduce new “green” jobs into America. The article also emphasizes both the political difficulties of passing a climate bill in an election year (in Congress) and a shift from Obama’s once cautious embrace of nuclear energy, in order to respond to the public’s demand for an increase in job creation.
If Obama supports nuclear energy in the development of his policies it will be a different take on the issue than other Democratic Presidencies, but would reflect the similarity other administrations have used in responding to public demand. The 1970’s could be labeled as an energy urgency time period. Pictures during this time show long lines at the gas pumps because of the huge gas shortage; which was rationed to the average American. Nixon’s administration policies during this time were in favor of developing nuclear energy. He was quoted as saying, “But the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes is to be a major Administration initiative from now on through the balance of our term here. The 1980’s represented a less favorable look on nuclear energy. In 1979, at Three Mile Island there was an accident at the nuclear power plant, which released nuclear waste into the environment. The public’s perception since this time has been tainted with the unfortunate accidents that occurred here. The Recession during this time period leant the Reagan administration to concentrate its efforts on other areas. President George H. W.’s administration was in favor of developing nuclear energy. It was during this time he moved to further research in nuclear power and to implement a high-level nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. (The same one, President Obama talked about closing.) Clinton’s administration was not in favor of nuclear energy. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute because of Clinton’s veto of the Nuclear Waste Policy ‘Amendments Act, America has missed a tremendous opportunity to maximize the benefits that emission-free nuclear energy provides to society, the environment, and the economy.
Comparable to more recent times, under George Bush Jr.’s administration, Obama’s stance on this particular issue is somewhat in-line with the previous administration. In Bush’s administration soaring gas prices were a driver in his nuclear energy policy. He was quoted as saying, “The U.S. must develop policies to make it less dependent on oil and other fossil fuels.” He called on the Department of Energy to work with Congress to reduce uncertainty in the licensing process of nuclear power plants and proposed “risk insurance” to mitigate the cost of possible delays in the licensing of new reactors.
Obama’s policy perspective on nuclear energy is important in economic development and could help America reach its goals in regards to sustainability efforts. It will take a great effort on the President’s part to sway the publics opinion in regards to what to do with the waste which is generated from nuclear energy. Scientific testimony and support will be critical to overcoming this obstacle. If a nuclear energy policy were implemented as a way for America to become more sustainable, I agree that this would be one way to lessen America’s dependence on oil and at the same time, could lead to a creation of jobs in America.
A point of contention with Obama’s nuclear energy policy (if implemented) is the closure of Yucca Mountain.
It has been proven that technology has improved to the point that accidents are almost unheard of. Currently, nuclear-power companies pay a fee for the Department of Energy (DOE) to pick up and store the waste, but the DOE is already 10 years behind schedule. The waste generated at these sites, continues to reside at this location until the DOE can pick-up the waste. There is more danger to the public at these sites, than in a remote location, such as Yucca Mountain. Obama was quoted in a Las Vegas Newspaper as saying, “I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site as the reactors where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term solution that is based on sound science;” but according to a UC Berkeley professor who specializes in radioactive-waste management, “Based on 50 years of research and development, a very broad consensus will tell you deep geologic isolation can provide an appropriate and safe disposal of waste…which is what Yucca Mountain is.
Article Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123176568
Article Background: In the President’s State of the Union address Obama singled out nuclear power. His spending plan for the next budget year is expected to include billions of more dollars in federal guarantees for new nuclear reactors. During his campaign for the presidency his administration pledged to close Yucca Mountain, a multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste. If more nuclear energy plants are constructed where will the waste be stored? (This is going to be one of the administrations obstacles if a nuclear energy policy is implemented. The storage of nuclear waste is an unpopular one with the public who remembers Three Mile Island, where one of the nuclear reactors released toxic waste into the environment in 1979.)
Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a nuclear energy bill in his State of the Union speech as a way to create more clean-energy jobs. To back that up, he is expected to seek $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power in his 2011 budget request. Lawmakers from both parties say the speech reflected a new urgency and willingness to reach out to Republicans who have criticized Obama for not talking more about the role nuclear energy can play in slowing global warming. The 104 nuclear reactors in operation in 31 states provide 20% of the nation’s electricity, but they are responsible for 70% of the power from pollution-free sources (green energy). Analyses of the climate bills passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate suggest that the U.S. will have to build many more plants in order to meet the 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 called for in the legislation.
Article Analysis: This article is an example of how an executive’s policy can change depending on the public’s opinion. Vig (Page 8) states, “The issue must first gain societal recognition as a problem, often in response to demographic, technological, or other social problems.” Although nuclear energy itself hasn’t been a large part of Obama’s agenda platform, because of the recession and slow growing economy, he is finding ways to reach out to the public and is starting to entertain different policy ideas as a reactive response to the people. This appears to be nuclear energy as a way to introduce new “green” jobs into America. The article also emphasizes both the political difficulties of passing a climate bill in an election year (in Congress) and a shift from Obama’s once cautious embrace of nuclear energy, in order to respond to the public’s demand for an increase in job creation.
If Obama supports nuclear energy in the development of his policies it will be a different take on the issue than other Democratic Presidencies, but would reflect the similarity other administrations have used in responding to public demand. The 1970’s could be labeled as an energy urgency time period. Pictures during this time show long lines at the gas pumps because of the huge gas shortage; which was rationed to the average American. Nixon’s administration policies during this time were in favor of developing nuclear energy. He was quoted as saying, “But the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes is to be a major Administration initiative from now on through the balance of our term here. The 1980’s represented a less favorable look on nuclear energy. In 1979, at Three Mile Island there was an accident at the nuclear power plant, which released nuclear waste into the environment. The public’s perception since this time has been tainted with the unfortunate accidents that occurred here. The Recession during this time period leant the Reagan administration to concentrate its efforts on other areas. President George H. W.’s administration was in favor of developing nuclear energy. It was during this time he moved to further research in nuclear power and to implement a high-level nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. (The same one, President Obama talked about closing.) Clinton’s administration was not in favor of nuclear energy. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute because of Clinton’s veto of the Nuclear Waste Policy ‘Amendments Act, America has missed a tremendous opportunity to maximize the benefits that emission-free nuclear energy provides to society, the environment, and the economy.
Comparable to more recent times, under George Bush Jr.’s administration, Obama’s stance on this particular issue is somewhat in-line with the previous administration. In Bush’s administration soaring gas prices were a driver in his nuclear energy policy. He was quoted as saying, “The U.S. must develop policies to make it less dependent on oil and other fossil fuels.” He called on the Department of Energy to work with Congress to reduce uncertainty in the licensing process of nuclear power plants and proposed “risk insurance” to mitigate the cost of possible delays in the licensing of new reactors.
Obama’s policy perspective on nuclear energy is important in economic development and could help America reach its goals in regards to sustainability efforts. It will take a great effort on the President’s part to sway the publics opinion in regards to what to do with the waste which is generated from nuclear energy. Scientific testimony and support will be critical to overcoming this obstacle. If a nuclear energy policy were implemented as a way for America to become more sustainable, I agree that this would be one way to lessen America’s dependence on oil and at the same time, could lead to a creation of jobs in America.
A point of contention with Obama’s nuclear energy policy (if implemented) is the closure of Yucca Mountain.
It has been proven that technology has improved to the point that accidents are almost unheard of. Currently, nuclear-power companies pay a fee for the Department of Energy (DOE) to pick up and store the waste, but the DOE is already 10 years behind schedule. The waste generated at these sites, continues to reside at this location until the DOE can pick-up the waste. There is more danger to the public at these sites, than in a remote location, such as Yucca Mountain. Obama was quoted in a Las Vegas Newspaper as saying, “I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site as the reactors where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term solution that is based on sound science;” but according to a UC Berkeley professor who specializes in radioactive-waste management, “Based on 50 years of research and development, a very broad consensus will tell you deep geologic isolation can provide an appropriate and safe disposal of waste…which is what Yucca Mountain is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)