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.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
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)