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.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
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
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
Saturday, February 20, 2010
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?
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?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, February 12, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
