Frameworks for Environmental Policy

Values Framework
Cohen (2006) states that “We are more dependent on natural systems than we once thought” (p. 13). He further states “ideas about our relationship to the ecological environment derive from our concept of property and a definition of nature as a resource to be used for human material well-being” (p. 13). The policy issue that this writer is evaluating is the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309), which arose out of the high amounts of greenhouse gases produced by the United States. The goal would be to change some of the lifestyle changes of Americans, in order to reduce greenhouse gases. One of the focal targets in this Act would be automakers who would have the responsibility to manufacture automobiles that would meet a lower emission standard by the year of 2016. There would also be changes in the emission requirements of electric generation units, and the establishment of a low-carbon generation trading program. There are some conflicting values in this debate, which produced some difficulties in getting this Act to pass in congress. Currently, there are many opposing sides on this debate – some who believe that reducing greenhouse gases would promote strain on an already existing strained automotive industry and cause difficulties in other areas of industry, while others believe that it is necessary in preserving the environment for future generations. Versions of this Act have been introduced to Congress in both the 108th and 109th Congress, however at this time neither have been passed into legislation. This Act would provide revisions within the Clean Air Act, and have strict enforcement by the EPA.


Political Framework
Cohen (2006) states that “Environmental politics is closely connected to economic development and worldwide income distribution. Environmental policy is about individual and collective patterns of resource deployment, consumption and degradation” (p. 17). This is an interesting analysis, for it gives light to the importance of how closely connected the environment is to politics and economic growth. The current status of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act is that it was introduced by its sponsor – Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont on January 16, 2007. After this time, it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. At this time, there has been no more movement on the Act, and it has remained in Committee, thus not passing into legislation. There were a number of political stakeholders involved in the introduction of this Act, which included: Sen. Daniel Akaka (HI), Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), Sen. Robert Casey Jr (PA), Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT), Sen. Russell Finegold (WI), Sen. Edward Kennedy (MA), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Sen. (now President) Barack Obama (IL), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Sen. (now Vice President) Joseph Biden Jr. (DE), Sen. Benjamin Cardin (MD), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Sen.Richard Durbin (IL), Sen. Daniel Inouye (HI), Sen. Amy Kobuchar (MN), Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT), Sen. Barbara Mikuksi (MD), and Sen. Jack Reed (RI). Their support of environmental policy reform continues, and has been addressed during the administration of President Barack Obama who was a supporter of this Act when he served as the Senator of Illinois. The Act would be clustered/coupled with the Clean Air Act, and would provide some areas of reform in order to consider the control of greenhouse gas emissions. The level of government that is primarily responsible for addressing these issues would be the federal government, as it would be necessary to streamline policy to make a significant impact. It would be difficult to create policy that would solely impact the boundary of a single state without it having an impact on a bordering state; thus, environmental concerns should be addressed at a federal level. “Environmental issues must be raised and discussed through the electronic media, public education programs, and active efforts to elicit citizen participation in policy making” (Cohen, 2006, p. 18).


Science and Technology Framework
“To some degree, then the environment is a problem of science and technology…Problems caused by the impact of technological innovation on the environment are not easy to measure. The problems may take a long time to develop and sometimes it is hard to establish a causal relationship between an environmental problem and a specific technology” (Cohen, 2006, p. 27). There has been a great deal of research on the topic of global warming and the impact that pollution has on the environment; The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act would target emissions and greenhouse gasses in order to make efforts to produce a healthier environment. The Clean Air Act was introduced in 1970, with revisions made in 1977 and 1990; the revisions that were made in 1990 proposed emissions trading, and also added provisions for addressing acid rain, ozone depletion, and toxic air pollution. As a result of this amendment, there was also a national permits program established. Thus, there has been research produced which analyzes the specific causes and effects of the problem of global warming. Many of the problems associated with global warming have to do with the increase in production and industry. The United States is stated to be one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The targets of the bill was for the US to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; by 2040, the goal was to have emissions reduced by 2/3 of 80% below 1990 levels and by 2050, emissions must be reduced to a level that is 80% below 1990 levels. Provisions within the Act (section 701) was to reduce US emissions to facilitate stabilization of a global atmospheric concentrations below 450 parts per million (Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act). http://sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm


Policy Design Framework
“Strategic regulatory planning is an effort by government to develop a comprehensive strategy for influencing behavior. There are two components to this plan. The fist is the formal regulation itself; the second is the manner in which the regulatory plan is implemented” (Cohen, 2006, p. 32). There are a number of regulatory features that were introduced with this Act, including increased involvement of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who would be responsible for 1) establishing a competitive grant program for geological disposal deployment projects, 2) carrying out a global climate change standard and processing research programs. Other requirements were for covered generators to provide a minimum percentage of the base quantity of electricity produced for sale from low-carbon generation (Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, 2007 – S. 309). The stakeholders within this framework are made up of formal and informal environmental groups. The policy design is based upon strategic thinking and has been based upon scientific thought on how to reduce the impact of emissions on the environment.

Management Framework
Cohen (2006) states “One difficulty with the management of environmental policy is that environmental programs tend to take a piece of a larger problem and subdivide it in order to work on a solution” (p. 43). Cohen’s statement sheds light on some of the complications within management of various environmental issues. The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act attempts to target a very specific topic of interest, in the hopes of having a larger impact on the environment as a whole. By adding this as an amendment to the Clean Air Act, the goal would be to change the standards by which the EPA currently measures the amount of pollution within the environment. There is limited experience in addressing this issue, and as a result many individuals are apprehensive of changing current environmental policy. This is an area that the United States is continuing to research and develop statistical information on. Thus, there is much growth that must to continue to take place in order to ensure that environmental protection is maintained.

Week 9: General Questions

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?
a) Why or why not?

This argument is complicated and complex in nature, as the diminishment of environmental resources is a global concern. The US and Europe exploited natural resources in order to increase their economic wellbeing and global status. As a result of their usage of the environment’s resources, these two nations have become very powerful and have produced a high level of economic security. Although this has aided the US and Europe in becoming financially stable and industrialized, this would not be the optimal method in obtaining economic security for other developing countries. It would be preferable for developing nations to be able to secure other feasible methods of advancement versus utilizing already strained environmental resources. However, by looking through the perspective of developing countries one may also argue that they have the right to be able to advance themselves and thereby use the resources that are currently at their disposal. Utilizing the theory of the Kutznet Curve it can be argued that developing countries may not be concerned immediately with the environmental outcome of resource usage, but may be more vested in financial security. According to this theory, it is only after coming to a peak in the usage of environmental resources and obtaining stability financially that countries will begin to invest in protecting the environment.

2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
a)Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?
b) 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?
c) Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?

Climate change and the present concerns with pollution is a global concern, and not one that is solely restricted to industrialized nations. However, it can be argued that industrialized nations produce more pollutants and harmful toxins than nations that are in the process of developing. Though equity between industrialized and developing nations may be the most favorable, it is not reasonable. Each nation has varying resources and capabilities in guarding against further environmental strains, with industrialized nations having significantly more resources. There has been a great deal of research and literature produced within the past few decades that has made the world aware of the issues concerning global warming. Therefore, countries who value economic development more than slowing down global warming should be made to participate in programs to reduce emissions. Hardin spoke frequently of the world sharing various resources and the need to begin to work collaboratively to address the problem. Thus, nations who desire to develop their country must also be willing to aid in preserving the environment which is shared across the globe. Developing nations also have a right to maintain expectations for industrialized nations, as industrialized nations have already been partakers of the environment’s resources and assets. Nations that are industrialized should attempt to provide nations with guidance on how to implement programs within their countries that are capable or meeting their environmental needs. Industrialized nations should endeavor to aid those nations that are still in the process of development with practical measures of how to continue to progress and advance in light of these environmental concerns. Although this is a difficult question to answer, there are a couple of possible solutions that can be implemented to address this dilemma. In order to address the issues associated with climate change, a global effort will be necessary.

Final Paper Topic: Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (2007) was a bill set forth in the Senate in January 2007, to the 110th Congress. The Act sought to amend the Clean Air Act in order to put in place provisions concerning global warming and reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. The EPA would be responsible for 1) enforcing the reduction of the net level of carbon emissions, 2) requiring that automobiles manufacturers begin to comply with emission standards by 2016, 3) contract with the National Academy of Sciences to study the potential contribution of the non-highway portion of the transportation sector towards meeting the emission reduction goal, 4) require the electric generators meet an emission standard that is not higher than the rate of a new combined cycle natural gas generating unit, and 5) establish a low-carbon generation trading program. (GovTrack.us. S. 309--110th Congress (2007): Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act).

The bill was introduced in order to address the increased concern regarding global warming and the threat that it poses to the public health and welfare of America’s citizens. The United States is noted as one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and therefore the bill sought to address this increasing dilemma. The goal of the bill was to reduce the emissions of the United States significantly which would contribute to stabilizing the global concentrations below 450 parts per million (http://sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=269618). The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act did not pass into legislation, however there are a number of Congress members who continue to support policy to reduce emissions.

Pollution for the Poor: Should environmental health depend on race and income?

Winton Hills, Winton Place and Spring Grove are all neighborhoods in Ohio that are surrounded by more than 50 polluting industrial facilities, and is commonly referred to as a “toxic donut” by residents. There are some important pieces of presenting data that establishes these concerns as issues of environmental justice. The neighborhoods that these industries are built in are those that have considerably low income and have a population made up of racial minorities, with African Americans making up 74 percent of this area. The average income for this area is $21,651 while the average for the state is $44,480. Thus those who live within this area make less than 50% of what the average income is per family in the state of Ohio.

Last year the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency made an announcement of a settlement with Cognis Corporation and Cognis Oleochemicals pertaining to violations in air pollutions are their Winton Place facility. The fine that for this violation was $290,000 and a $20,000 pollution prevention study. In addition, the company will begin testing air pollution equipment in the presence of government officials to ensure compliance. Citizens of Winton Hills, Winton Place and Spring Grove have a “bittersweet” success because the company has not been ordered to implement any new environmental safety practices for the future. They also are unsure if the monies recouped by the state are going to be applied to mediate the environmental damage to their neighborhoods.

Members of the group – Ohioans for Health, Environment and Justice (OHEJ) have requested that further access be granted to environmental information and that there be implementation of environmental justice in poor and minority neighborhoods. OHEJ has voiced concern that there is a current concentration of pollution in poor neighborhoods with minorities. As a result of this disparity, OHEJ is in the process of requesting that policies be implemented that coincide with environmental justice. They state, that “writing a state policy that’s in sync with federal and local standards is essential to ensure consistent application and enforcement”. The group is planning on having 3 forums in March in order to gather ideas and input from the community for an Ohio environmental justice policy. After this step is taken, they will hold field hearings where they will request the attendance of legislators and agencies to hear the voices of individuals who live within these communities.

David Crowley, the Councilman of Cincinnati has been working diligently with leaders in the community to draft a policy for environmental justice for Cincinnati; he has criticized the EPA for not enforcing the Executive Order 12898 of President Clinton (1994) which calls for environmental justice. The NAACP has voiced some concern over Councilman Crowley’s proposal, as race was not identified as an identifying characteristic of environmental justice protection. Edith Thrower, the president of the Cinciannati branch of the NAACP stated “It is well documented that America’s communities of color bear a disproportionate share of exposure to hazardous substances due to discriminatory land use, sitting and permit decisions”. Thus, the NAACP is working to make sure that race is also included as an area that requires protection under Crowley’s proposal.

The article pertains to the articles that were utilized in this week’s readings because it identified patterns in environmental justice and the measures that are being undertaken to resolve inconsistencies. Vig and Kraft (2005) discuss the theory of intentional discrimination, and note that “intentional discrimination can motivate the behavior of public or private actors, and these behaviors can affect the location of noxious facilities or the environmental management decisions of existing facilities” (p. 250). The position of the community members in Ohio coincides with this theory, in that they posit that race and class are the primary factors that brought about the high volume of polluting industrial facilities. David Crowley, Councilman of Cincinnati has stated that he believed that the EPA has not fulfilled their role in enforcing E.O. 12898 which gives credence to Vig and Kraft’s (2005) statement of “EPA officials are significantly more likely to approve permits for hazardous waste facilities in neighborhoods with large numbers of minority residents” (p. 251).

The importance of environmental justice can be a broad and extensive issue, which does not solely apply to race and income. Rast (2006) states that “although environmental hazards are a key concern of the environmental justice movement, the movement is broadly inclusive, incorporating health, employment, housing, transportation and educational issues” (p. 253). Thus the breadth of research that will be written on this topic is expansive and will continue to be a topic of interest for some time.

Article:

Pollution for the Poor: Should environmental health depend on race and income? (Margo Pierce)

Date of article - 2/28/07

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-2301-news-pollution-for-the-poor-html