Assignment #7

http://annarborchronicle.com/2010/04/20/building-a-sustainable-ann-arbor/

This article in the Ann Arbor, Michigan Chronicle titled “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor”, discussed the city’s focus on sustainability. The article concentrated on a recent working session attended by representatives of the energy commission, planning commission, and the environmental commissions of Ann Arbor to discuss sustainability plans which emphasize planning, energy, and the environment for the city.

The chair of each commission discussed their role within their commission as well as their vision of sustainability. Bonnie Bona chair of the planning commission stated they are responsible for the master plan and ordinance revisions related to planning but admitted her commission hasn’t given much thought to other elements of sustainability like economic vitality and social equity. Wayne Appleyard chair of the energy commission stated his commission is attempting to meet the city’s green energy challenge to use 30% renewable energy in municipal operations by the year 2010. The energy commission is also exploring the feasibility of PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) which is a program for homeowners to finance energy improvements. Steve Bean chair of the environmental commission discussed their three phased approach to their work which includes 1) looking at what the city does now that isn’t sustainable, 2) developing an environmental action plan to show how to work toward their goals, and 3) broadening the goals to include elements of the economy and social justice. Bean’s group is also working with the Transition Ann Arbor group that is focusing on transitioning the community in light of an end to cheap oil climate change and economic instability.

During the session Steve Bean emphasized the PACE program (www.pacenow.org) would be one way for homeowners to fund energy improvements and how he and Mayor John Hieftje recently visited the state capitol of Lansing, Michigan to meet with legislators asking them to approve such legislation needed to make PACE possible. Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator gave specific details of the PACE program and mentioned several other states have enacted legislation to support it. Although the PACE program would be voluntary, homeowners would receive an energy audit to determine what steps were necessary to participate in the program. Once homeowners were accepted into the PACE program they would receive loans through an agreement with the city and be able to repay the loan through an assessment on their property tax bills. Naud stated that the program is structured the right way and homeowners who are upside down on their mortgages would not qualify and the city set aside $400,000 from a federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant it received to use as a loan loss reserve fund.

The article also discussed Mayor Hieftje’s concern that sustainability can’t just stay within Ann Arbor’s city borders. Hieftje stated that not only does sustainability need to be addressed within the city limits but it requires attention on a regional and state level similar to what has been done with the greenbelt program and the Border-to-Border trail and transportation programs in Michigan. David Stead, a representative of the environmental commission echoed Hieftje’s vision on sustainability stating it is not just an issue within the Ann Arbor city limits and stated Ann Arbor should be looking at sustainability as an economic development tool. Stead believes Ann Arbor is at the epicenter as the state shifts from an industrial economy to whatever comes next and said Ann Arbor can be the model and the driver whatever next is.

Terry Alexander from the University of Michigan also attended the session and provided the university perspective on sustainability. Alexander’s plan is three fold and includes 1) establishing long term goals for the university such as establishing terms to make recommendations in seven areas: buildings, energy, land and water, transportation, purchased goods, food, and culture (changing people’s attitudes), 2) coordinating the existing 200 sustainability projects that are already underway on the campus and finding resources to complete these projects, and 3) communicating the importance of sustainability to the community, state, and nation. Alexander is also focusing on developing a living-leaning environment for the 40,000 students with the notion that making them aware of the importance of sustainability will prepare them to change the world when they leave the campus.

In the article Mayor Hieftje’s stated that sustainability can’t just stay within the city’s borders and I agree. In order to implement the aspects of this sustainability plan would require state legislation to pass specific legislation to support the plan and I believe the state of Michigan has larger concerns like their failing economy. Implementing a sustainable development plan like this also requires the cooperation and coordination of several entities which would be a large task to concur. In my opinion Ann Arbor should concentrate on parts of the sustainability plan that can be addressed on a local level to see if they can produce results. If they are successful on the local level they would have a better opportunity to convince decision makers at the regional and state level their plan is worth the attention they believe it deserves.

NYC Sustainability

I found this article that is related to our readings this week.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/04/19/sustainability-planning-lessons-from-new-york-and-mayor-bloomberg/

The article discussed Mayor Bloomberg's approach to sustainability for New York City. Bloomberg introduced PlaNYC that provides a vision for future growth of New York City over the next 25 years. PlaNYC includes a plan to accommodate one million additional people while attempting to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent. New York City has also committed to producing annual PlaNYC progress reports with sustainability indicators, as well as annual greenhouse gas emissions inventories.

Assignment #6

1. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 was established as a direct result of the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. The act aimed to a) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, b) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, c) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States, d) and carryout all functions of entities transferred to the Department, including by acting as a focal point regarding natural and manmade crises and emergency planning. On June 15, 2009 Representative Bennie G. Thompson introduced H.R. 2868 to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works.

This issue does stem from behavior that is fundamental to our lifestyle with a concentration on three distinct areas. First, this bill designates any chemical substance as a substance of concern and establishes a threshold quantity for each such substance and considers the potential extent of death, injury, and serious adverse effects that could result from a chemical facility terrorist incident. Second, this bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act by expanding requirements for assessments by covered water systems of their vulnerability to intentional acts of sabotage. Lastly, this bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act by requiring owners or operators that have a treatment capacity of at least 2.5 million gallons of water per day to conduct and update a vulnerability assessment of its treatment works, develop, periodically update, and implement a site security plan and develop and revise an emergency response plan for the treatment works.

2. The bill is sponsored by Democratic Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2) and has eight co-sponsors. The bill was introduced on June 15, 2009 passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on November 6, 2009 by a vote 230-193. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. On March 3, 2010 hearings were held in the Senate by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Stakeholders in this legislation include the American Water Works Associate (AWWA) who supports the bill with stipulations. The AWWA is urging members of Congress to support security legislation that applies to water utilities as long as it does not include authority to order the use of Inherently Safer Technology (IST) and provides adequate protection of sensitive information. The AWWA believes personnel who are not water system employees, their contractors, or government agents, should not have access to or be involved in the development of vulnerability assessments or site security plans.

Another stakeholder is National Grange, who is the nation's oldest national agricultural organization. National Grange opposes this bill and believes this legislation will still have detrimental ramifications to the nation’s security and economic stability. The National Grange strongly objects to the IST provisions of the legislation that would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to mandate that businesses employ specific product substitutions and processes. The National Grange is also concerned that forced chemical substitutions could simply transfer risk to other points along the supply chain, failing to reduce risk at all. Some of the proposed changes are estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars per facility and National Grange fears that these facilities will be unable to bear the expense.

3. One area of uncertainty is an attempt for the bill to impose an unproven, "one size fits all" engineering philosophy known as IST on chemical facilities, drinking water systems and wastewater treatment facilities. IST is a chemical engineering philosophy that suggests through changes in manufacturing or storage processes, modifying chemical ingredients, or through purchasing or other business practices, facilities with chemicals can reduce the number, amount, or form of dangerous chemicals used.

Under this bill, the federal government would impose mandates to adopt unproven technologies and chemical substitutions, but some believe they lack the technical and personnel expertise to evaluate whether these alternatives are effective, productive, and safe across these sectors. Members may be especially concerned about the costs of such technologies to farms, small businesses, drinking water systems, and wastewater treatment facilities.

4. The resources slated to ensure compliance with the policy design for H.R. 2868 include authorizing an appropriation of $900 million over the 2011-2013 period for DHS to regulate the security of facilities across the United States where certain types of chemicals are present. In addition, the DHS would need funding of $283 million for fiscal year 2014 to continue to carry out those activities. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, implementing H.R. 2868 would cost about $1.1 billion over the 2011-2014 period. In addition, enacting the bill may affect revenues because there would be penalties against owners and operators of chemical facilities that fail to comply.

5. The government entity responsible for implementing the legislation is the DHS and more specifically the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary is responsible for establishing standards, protocols, and procedures for security vulnerability assessments and site security plans to be required for covered chemical facilities. Some of the standards and protocols for owners and operators of chemical facilities include conducting an assessment of the vulnerability of the covered chemical facility, preparing and implementing a site security plan for that covered chemical facility, and identifying at least one supervisory and at least one non-supervisory employee of the covered chemical facility.

Oil and gas lease sales vs. Climate change

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/09/09greenwire-blm-suspends-some-oil-and-gas-lease-sales-to-r-83918.html

This article was in the New York Times online edition earlier this week. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has delayed all oil and gas lease sales in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota while the agency studies their potential impact on climate change. The decision to delay sales follows a settlement the BLM signed last month that suspended 61 oil and gas leases on nearly 38,000 acres in Montana the agency sold in 2008 until it considers the greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas production.

The BLM agreed to postpone the sales while they complete reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. BLM said the extra reviews will allow it to provide assurances to industry so it can move forward with greater certainty in leasing parcels and developing oil and gas resources.

Sacremento "Green" initiative

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/04/2652289/sacramento-developers-use-green.html

I thought this article was very interesting and tied into this week's readings. The article discusses Sacremento office developers initiatives to go "green" and use
sustainability as a marketing tool to attract tenants and address the large vacancy rates.

Building owners in this area are spending money to invest in heating and air conditioning technology as well as water saving devices. They're also recycling building materials, switching to fluorescent lights and low-emission carpets and paints, pushing janitorial firms to use greener cleaning materials and even buying renewable energy credits.

These building owners are using these efforts to obtain Energy Star or LEED status in order to give them an advantage in the tough commercial real estate market.

Assignment #5 and Final Paper Topic

1. The text states the rain forests of Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia are treasure chests of incomparable biological diversity and provide approximately 80% of the world’s species of plants and animals. These rain forests are counted on for several things such as stabilizing soils, reducing the impact and incidence of floods, regulating local climates, watersheds, and river systems. These areas are also counted on for the conversion of oxygen by removing carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, trees, and other plants. In addition, more than one-quarter of the prescription drugs used in the United States originate for tropical plants.

Developing countries are receiving push back from developed countries who state additional consumption of resources such as tropical deforestation will increase the burden on these areas that are already strapped and over utilized. However, the developing countries want that same consideration for development and held to the same standard Europe had as they destroyed its forests during the industrial revolution and the United States did during the nineteenth century. In my opinion developing countries should be allowed to exploit forests to increase their economic well being but within reason. Although times are different today, I believe it would be a double standard not to allow development countries the same opportunity as other countries. Obviously, tropical deforestation requires some form of government regulation to ensure these areas are not overly exploited leaving future generations without these much needed resources.

2. Industrialized nations should expect developing nations to pay close attention to the climate change debate since the effects of climate change would affect the developing first. The text states harmful effects of a warming climate will impact “low-lying” and other small island countries and that climate changes will present a threat to millions of poor, small scale farmers in Africa and other tropical countries.

A. Yes, there should be an effort to strive for equity between industrialized and developing countries in the climate change debate. It is well know that developing countries have fewer resources than industrialized countries which makes it difficult to adapt to changing climates. Due to the wealth some countries stand a better chance at managing climate change than others. The international community recognizes the importance of equity and is attempting to assist by putting measures in place to help assist the less wealthy smaller developing countries. The Annex II of the UNFCCC currently lists twenty-three countries that are committed to providing resources to developing countries to help address issues related to climate changes.

B. If a developing country values economic development more than slowing down the global warming I believe they should be required to participate in reducing emissions. It is understandable why developing countries would have a higher concentration on economic development to be prosperous but in order for the international community to be successful all countries need to do their part. In my opinion these developing countries can still concentrate on economic development and reduce emissions by using less carbon intensive energy sources including wind, solar, and hydro power as well as concentrate on additional energy efficient initiatives such as vehicles, buildings, and appliances. Although these initiatives may be costly to implement, a reduction in emissions will be beneficial in the future for all parties.

C. Developing nations should have high expectations from industrialized countries to provide financial support to help achieve goals and address climate change issues. I believe it is the moral responsibility of the industrialized countries to be proactive in providing support not only on a financial level but in any means possible to help the developing countries be prosperous and successful. It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the environment and since the industrialized countries are in a position to support, they need to find a way to assist these countries as they develop especially since the concept of producing less for the good of all would tend to hamper development efforts for these smaller, poorer countries.

Final Paper Topic

H.R.2868 : To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works, and for other purposes.

This bill includes several provisions to increase federal control over the security of chemical facilities, water supplies, and wastewater treatment processes. In addition, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate certain chemical substances as “substances of concern” based on potential effects resulting from a terrorist incident. It also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify the terrorism risk of specified chemical facilities and water systems, to establish vulnerability assessment standards, and to require facilities to submit assessments and site security plans. The bill designates these vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and related documentation as protected information.

The legislation requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency EPA) to develop regulations and permits the Administrator to issue orders to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of protected information. The bill also establishes criminal penalties of up to one year imprisonment and/or criminal fines for the unlawful disclosure of protected information.

Madison's Manure

http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/03/25/county_boards_tackle.php

This article in the Madison Badger Herald discusses new environmental initiatives and sustainability projects. One initiative is an attempt at the county’s first manure digester. The digester would use manure piped in from three farms and will break down waste to produce methane gas and provide power to approximately 1,700 homes.

The manure digester may also be used to fuel transit systems.

NextGen

http://avstop.com/news_march_2010/faa_nextgen_implementation_plan_released.htm

The Radio Technical Committee for Aeronautics (RTCA) is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops recommendations regarding communications, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management system issues. Its recommendations are used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to address and implement policies, programs, and regulatory decisions. In September 2009 several hundred members of the aviation community who form the RTCA NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force issued a report that included a number of recommendations that helped the FAA spur its plans to deliver benefits today as they build a foundation for the mid-term. The report represents the aviation community’s commitment to NextGen, as well as its endorsement of the FAA’s incremental approach to NextGen implementation. NextGen is the name given to a new National Airspace System due for implementation across the United States in stages between 2012 and 2025.

This issue qualifies as an environmental justice because airports are being asked to provide additional capacity in a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible manner. Stakeholders realize there are benefits to integrated airport planning and terminal airspace redesign projects that deliver new airport infrastructure. The groups affected by this are passengers and residents of neighborhoods in close proximity to airports. Passengers will enjoy fewer delays and safer, more predictable trips. People living in neighborhoods near airports will experience less aircraft noise and emissions. And communities will make better use of their airports, strengthening the local economy.

In addition, although the FAA is focused on safety as their top priority they are also concentrating on working with the international community to ensure that their technology systems work seamlessly with one another and working to standardize global operational procedures that better protect our environment.

One point that is relevant from this week’s reading that was captured in this article is the FAA plans to use an EMS approach to integrate environmental and energy objectives into the planning, decision making and operation of NextGen. The FAA is also targeting partnerships to advance noise and emissions reductions, while improving energy efficiency. Another point that is relevant from this week’s readings that was captured in this article is the FAA is using a systematic approach adopting specifically designed measures will yield better results than a sporadic and haphazard approach. The NextGen plan lays out the agency’s vision over a six year time period and identifies specific goals that FAA has set for technology and program deployment. It also requires annual updates that document their work plan for meeting their goals.

Environmental Management Systems (EMSs)

The Matthew’s article discussed that Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) are tools to assist organizations to meet their environmental goals and usually have a cycle of planning, implementation, review, and improvement as well as documented procedures and reports, training, and communication to help to meet regulatory compliance. The article also discussed some basic components of an EMS. I found an article relevant to our readings this week about Sysmex America, Inc. (www.sysmex.com/usa) who is a U.S. subsidiary for Sysmex Corporation, Kobe, Japan, a global leader in medical diagnostic testing equipment and information systems technology.

The article discussed how Sysmex recently received their ISO-14001 Environmental Management System Certification and some additional environmental protection initiatives.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sysmex-america-intensifies-environmental-protection-initiatives-with-iso-certification-85038767.html

Contingent Valuation

13. Yes public managers and environmental planners should definitely 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 gives interested parties an opportunity to weigh in and provide an opinion on environmental issues that might affect their community. There are several ways to include the public in the decision making process such as through the media, public hearings, door to door interaction, and mailings. Even though the majority of the public may not be knowledgeable about environmental issues surrounding their community, if the context of the issue is put into a form where the public can understand all parties will be much better off. As is the case with all policy decisions the more the public knows the better chance the policy will be accepted by the public. The consequences of not including the public in the decision making process or at least provided an opportunity to provide comments or express their concerns, may lead to project delays, budgeting problems, and policies will be difficult to pass under public scrutiny.

14. One environmental problem that may be particularly conducive to using contingent valuation is whether to protect rivers in an area that is a critical habitat for species of fish that are listed as threatened or endangered. In order to continue protecting these areas would require several habitat improvements such as fish passageways or bypass releases from dams to imitate natural water flows that are crucial for fish survival. Another environmental problem that may be conducive to using contingent valuation is a policy decision on whether to reduce several thousand acres of park and recreation area to construct a sports stadium for a local sports team in dire need of a new venue who may leave for another city without a new venue. A contingent valuation survey could be used to estimate the economic value for estimating both the use and non-use values.

15. One environmental problem that might not be conducive to using contingent valuation is any project related to nuclear energy which is normally viewed as a negative to the public. Although the public may not be educated on the effects nuclear projects or initiates whether positive or negative, the term “nuclear” will usually produce negative reactions that may skew contingent survey results. Another environmental problem that may not be conducive to using contingent valuation is whether or not to construct a toxic waste dump near a city. This is a classic case of what is referred to as “not in my backyard” development. The residents of the city would not be in favor of this development for several reasons and chances are conducting a contingent valuation would not produce accurate results.

Collaborative Management

Chapter 8 in Vig discussed several examples of collaborative management. The section mentioned the Chesapeake Bay Program which began in 1983 as an informal agreement between the District of Columbia and neighboring states Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The agreement was one of the first to include multiple entities and was entered into address bay wide problems that can affect each area such as reducing phosphorous and nitrogen from agricultural and urban runoff. Since 1983 the Chesapeake Bay Program has grown to include some more formal agreements, add some supportive federal and state legislation, made changes in agency regulations, and added large amounts of local, state, and federal funding (Vig pg. 187)

Here is an interesting article about the history of the Chesapeake Bay Program and some lessons learned since 1983.

http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=2113

NOAA Panel

I thought the section the NOAA Panel in Portney's "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economist Should Care" was quite interesting. This section discussed how environmentalists insisted NOAA rules parallel those of the Department of Interior. The panel established guidelines which the panel felt future applications of the contingent valuation method should adhere to in order to produce reliable estimates of lost existence values for the purposes of damage assessment or regulation (pg. 9)

NOAA produced seven guidelines that made some proponents of the contingent valuation method unhappy. One issue was the fact in-person interviews would be quite costly but NOAA supported this and the other guidelines as a way to justify large demand awards. The article also mentioned NOAA hoped to elevate the quality of future studies to increase the likelihood that the studies would produce reliable estimates for future policy decisions. (pg. 10)

Did anyone think any of the seven guidelines were unreasonable?

Martin's Op-Ed

The inauguration of the 44th President of the United States Barack Obama in January 2009 brought hope to environmental policy which has experienced different leadership and minimal improvement since the 1970s. It wasn’t until about 1970 when the federal government started playing a larger role in environmental policy making. In 1969 Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which required cooperation between state and local governments and other organizations to promote the general welfare to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in harmony. On April 22, 1970 the first Earth Day placed environmental problems on the nation’s social and political agendas and policymakers began to see these problems as politically attractive (Vig, 11). In 1972 Sen. Edmund Muskie, D-Maine emerged as the dominate policy entrepreneur for environmental protection issues (Vig, 12). Muskie formulated environmental proposals and helped set the tone for environmental policy making for much of the 1970s.

The Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations attempted to formulate new energy policies during their terms but were relatively unsuccessful due to political constraints but all was not lost. In 1977 Congress revised the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 through amendments to the original agreements. Unfortunately these amendments were met with some backlash due to the economic impact of implementation.

The Reagan administration brought a different outlook on environmental policy and Reagan was considered the first president to take office with an anti-environmental agenda. Reagan viewed environmental conservation as fundamentally at odds with economic growth and prosperity (Vig, 79) and reevaluated environmental policies due to his desire to reduce government regulation and shift responsibilities to the states and private sector. The Economic Recovery Act of 1981 enacted during Reagan’s term reduced taxes by approximately 25% and cut spending on environmental programs as well. Although viewed as a victory for Reagan, Congress was divided on his actions and did not support his environmental goals. Reagan attempts to further reduce environmental conservation were quite obvious. He selected individuals such as Anne Burford to head the EPA and James Wyatt as secretary of the interior who were known supporters of the mining, logging, and oil and gas industries. Reagan also attempted to abolish the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and although he was unsuccessful he cut its staff and ignored its members’ advice.

When George H. Bush took office he declared himself a “conservationist” and promised to be an “environmental president.” (Vig, 81) He vowed to reverse some of the things done under the Reagan administration by restoring the CEQ and by passing a new Clean Air Act. However, his term was deemed unsuccessful on the environmental front because he threatened to boycott the Earth Summit in 1992 and refused to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Clinton administration departed from the relationship of environmental protection and economic growth and came with high expectations from environmentalists stemming from campaign promises. These promises ranged from raising the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) to passing a new Clean Water Act. Unfortunately most of Clinton’s initiatives were unsuccessful but he was able to strengthen the EPA as well as take measures to protect the Florida Everglades, Yellowstone National Park, and the ancient redwood groves in California (Vig, 84)
When George W. Bush was elected in 2000 it was quite clear his administration would not share the same values the Clinton administration did. Due to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks his focus was shifted and he launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush was also a proponent of economic development and gave little emphasis to environmental protection. His budget proposal in 2002 called for an 8 percent reduction in funding for natural resource and environmental programs (Vig, 87). This budget proposal and his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol confirmed his lack of commitment to environmental policy.

President Obama’s campaign promises made it clear unlike his predecessors he would focus on environmental policy. Obama promised he would make combating global warming a top priority, reinvigorate the EPA, protect our children from toxins, and reverse the Bush administration attempts to chip away at our nation’s clean air and water standards (Vig, 91). Obama appointment of key personnel made a statement that he was attempting to be the strongest environmental administration ever. His $787 billion stimulus package and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were further confirmation of Obama’s commitment to environmental policy. In addition, Obama requested $10.5 billion for the EPA (48 percent more than requested by President Bush in his final budget), including $3.9 billion for the EPA’s core operating budget and $3.9 billion for its clean water and drinking water funds (Vig, 92). Finally additional initiatives by Obama include a $2.3 billion dollar tax credit to start a clean energy sector plans to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions substantially by 2020.

As President Obama begins his second term in office a review of his environmental policy agenda provides hope for the future. Although the majority of his first term was spent dealing with a declining economy and removing military personnel from Afghanistan and Iraq his concentration on environmental issues made a profound impact. Obama was able to sustain the budget for the EPA and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent in four years. Only time will tell if he can continue making progress on his environmental agenda and keep all his campaign promises.

Obama seeks $300 million for Great Lakes Clean Up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020103078.html?sub=AR">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020103078.html?sub=AR

This article titled “Obama seeks $300 million for Great Lakes cleanup” is from the Washington Post online edition from February 1, 2010. The article discusses a plan the Great Lakes has to ward of species invasions, cleanse polluted harbors and make additional environmental repairs. With federal agencies under scrutiny and pressure to cut costs, the amount designated for the project is $300 million which is down from the $475 million Congress appropriated for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative last year. This initiative is part of a large wish list that eventually calls for spending $20 billion to improve wildlife habitat and some other issues in the Great Lakes. Although the requested funding for this project is down reflecting the economic times, the initiative still remains committed to protecting the environment.

President Obama’s stance on environmental issues similar to the Great Lakes clean up aligns with President Clinton and President Carter’s ambitions during their administrations. Clinton issued orders to protect millions of acres of forest lands while Carter preserved millions of acres of Alaskan wilderness and helped pass the Superfund bill to clean up toxic waste sites (Vig, 78). The George W. Bush administration encountered some tough issues and was more interested in economic development than environmental regulation. Although Bush approved a cleanup blueprint of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration concept in 2004, every year since the executive order Bush slashed proposed funding for clean up. During President Obama’s campaign he pledged to pump in $5 billion into the Great Lakes restoration during his term and although he is receiving some scrutiny directed towards him, environmental activists acknowledge he is seeking more for the lakes than any of his predecessors. Jeff Skelding, campaign director of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition said the $300 million is not the amount he had hoped for but the level of funding President Obama committed indicates he has an urgency to do something about the problem surrounding the Great Lakes.

I agree with President Obama’s funding for this project and environmental repairs which will restore the lakes and provide economic benefits to cities like Cleveland.

What has the greatest influence?

Vig's Chapter 4 (pg. 77) discusses the president's influence on environmental policy and how it is evaluated. Here are a few basic indicators:

1) Agenda as expressed in campaign statements, policy documents, and major speeches such as inaugural and state of the union addresses;

2) Appointments to key positions in government departments and agencies and to the White House staff;

3) Priority given to environmental programs in the president's proposed budgets;

4) Legislative initiatives or vetoes;

5) Executive orders issued by the president;

6) White House oversight of environmental regulation;

7) Presidential support for or opposition to international environmental agreements

Although each of these indicators plays a substantial role in achieving environmental goals during a president's time in office, some may play a more substantial role than others. In my opinion looking at the indicators above, #1 plays the most substantial role. I think everyone would agree that during the campaign trail candidates will do whatever they can to gain votes and who can blame them. However, once in office those same people who voted the president in will hold him accountable for the promises he makes. If those promises are not fullfied due to any circumstances he will lose trust from his supporters.

I'm interested in what others might think is the most important indicator on this list.

Environmental Economic Incentives

The economic incentives related to environmental policies were very interesting in this week's readings. The fact that states have implemented over 400 measures or "green taxes" means states see the opportunity to reduce environmental degradation and increase funding for environmental program management. States are taking measures to offer tax incentives to purchase low emission vehicles and offering low-interest loans to purchase recycling equipment. Ten states that cover 30% of the US population participate in the largest economic incentive which involves refundable taxes on beverage containers. These incentives coupled with the Green Wave Environmental Investment Initiative in California and other initiatives is encouraging. What better way to increase awareness and have states participate in environmental challenges than to provide fiscal incentives?

About Me

Hello my name is Martin Whitfield and I am a native of Phoenix, Arizona. I received a Bachelor of Science in Recreation and Tourism Management from Arizona State University in 1999. I'm finally winding down my course work towards a Masters of Public Adminstration and can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. After the Spring semester I will only have two classes to complete before I graduate. I am currently in my eighth year of employment with the City of Phoenix and work in the Business & Properties Division for the Aviation Department. In my current role I manage several concession leases and from time to time work with our Planning and Environmental Division on some of my projects. I'm taking this class to fulfill an elective but thought it would be interesting to learn about environmental issues and some of the challenges my colleagues encounter on a day to day basis.