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?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)