13) I strongly believe that public managers and environmental planners should engage the public even though they know the lack of the public’s knowledge about the environmental issue. Informing and enlightening is one of the government’s roles. The more the environmental issue is complicated or hard to make the public understood, the more agencies try to make the public engaged in the decision making procedure. Especially “the awareness of uncertainty” (Thrower 2006) regarding the environmental damage needs more the public’s agreement on environmental policies, because “proactive public participation could have resulted in a spirit of co-operation, trust and a mutually acceptable decision” (Shepherd & Bowler 1997, p. 733). If not, there might be some troubles arose such as the public’s distrust, the deterrence of the program, the issue of litigation, and so forth, like the case of the chemical demilitarization program case study (Shepherd and Bowler, 1997).
14) Contingent valuation (CV) is a prominent method to estimate benefits or costs of the good through the survey to ask the willingness to pay for a good or the willingness to accept the loss of a good (Steinemann & Apgar & Brown, 2005). Last January, I read an article titled “Asian Carp Battle” in Times. In this case, there are two sharply divided arguments: one provokes that Asian carp should be restricted because the carps invade and make the native species endanger, while the other side argue that the suppression of the carps in the Mississippi river and Great Lakes would discourage the fishing business. I think that CV would be appropriate to solve this Asian carp case. Through the survey, the public should be asked if they are willing to pay for the lost of the fishing business in order to preserve the native species in the Mississippi river and Great lakes, or vise versa.
15) Contingent valuation (CV) would not be an appropriate method to estimate the environmental issue if the responses of the survey have bias or embedding effects or do not have consistency with the result (Diamond & Hausman, 1994). CV is conducted by the interview, thus there is possibility of survey biases such as interviewer bias, framing bias, hypothetical bias, and so on. Furthermore the prejudice about the issue could affect the decision of willingness to pay regardless of the fact. For instance, the construction of the nuclear power plant suggested by the president Obama recently would be the issue negatively preoccupied by the public. In addition, if the response of the survey is easily converted with the same question, the CV could not be reliable. For instance, an issue related with the worldwide such as global warming could not be estimated with CV because the public would not confidence with their response, they are likely to change their mind with the same issue.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The importance of citizen participation in the EIA
The comparative study of “The unexploded chemical munitions case study” (p. 733-734) and “The chemical demilitarization program case study” (p. 730-733) by Shepherd and Bowler (1996) shows obviously the importance of citizen participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). James L. Creighton (2005) defines public participation as “the process by which public concerns, needs, and values are incorporated into governmental and corporate decision making” (p. 7). Especially the environmental policy is directly related with the public’s life and concerns in many cases. That is, I believe, why citizens more actively engage in the public participation for environmental policy than other policies.
Weston (2003) states three advantages of public participation in the EIA process: 1) “the democratic right” of citizen to engage in the decision-making process, 2) the openness of information to the public, 3) establishment of understanding circumstances about the policy (p. 316). According to Creighton (2005), there are four steps of public participation: Inform the public, Listen to the public, Engage in problem solving and Develop agreements. In the case of environmental policy, the first step “Inform the public” is so important to encourage the public to be involved in the decision-making process. In the case of the chemical demilitarization program case study (Shepherd & Bowler, 1996), the pivotal reason of the failure was that citizens felt that they were excluded and not informed accurate information properly from the first stage or before the decision made.
Weston (2003) states three advantages of public participation in the EIA process: 1) “the democratic right” of citizen to engage in the decision-making process, 2) the openness of information to the public, 3) establishment of understanding circumstances about the policy (p. 316). According to Creighton (2005), there are four steps of public participation: Inform the public, Listen to the public, Engage in problem solving and Develop agreements. In the case of environmental policy, the first step “Inform the public” is so important to encourage the public to be involved in the decision-making process. In the case of the chemical demilitarization program case study (Shepherd & Bowler, 1996), the pivotal reason of the failure was that citizens felt that they were excluded and not informed accurate information properly from the first stage or before the decision made.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
My own Op-Ed
The presidencies express their willingness to the environmental policies through various methods. Vig (2010) indicates seven criteria as the presidencies’ methods to the environmental policies: (1) the president’s environmental agenda, (2) presidential appointments, (3) the president’s proposed budget on environmental programs, (4) presidential legislative initiatives or vetoes, (5) executive orders, (6) White House oversight of environmental regulation, and (7) presidential opinion to international environmental agreements (p. 77). This paper focuses on the major environmental policy trends from the 1970s and outlines the similarities and differences between the historical tendency and the Obama Administration tendency on the environmental policy in aspect of seven criteria mentioned by Vig (2010).
President Nixon in 1970s
“The environmental decade” started with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), created by President Nixon. He created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consolidate environmental programs from other agencies. He signed the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other land mark legislation (Vig, 2010). These facts provide that the president Nixon was environmentalist.
The Reagan Administration in 1980s
The pro-environmentalism in the policy was converted to the anti-environmentalism, when the president Reagan was elected. From the campaign for the election, Reagan tended to against environmentalism. Vig (2010) states that “Reagan was the first president to come to office with an avowedly anti-environmental agenda” (p. 79). The president Regan used the presidential power to weaken the environmental policy as below: He gradually reduced the EPA’s budget and the number of EPA employees. He appointed Anne Burford to the head of EPA, and James G. Watt to the Department of the Interior because both of them hostile to the environmental protection. In addition, he securitized the regulation related with environmental policy in order to deregulate, while the Reagan Administration enforced their power to revitalize the economics.
The George H.W. Bush Administration (1988-1992)
Reagan was faced with strong opposition from the public and congressional due to his anti-environmentalism. Thus Bush declared himself as an “environmental president” from his campaign. He appointed William Reilly to the EPA Administrator, and Michael Deland to the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) who are environmentalists. He “pursued a bipartisan strategy in passing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in order to control acid rain and reduce air pollution (Vig, 2010). However, Reagan was rather “opportunistic leaders” rather than pro-environmentalist. The refusal of international agreements, “the Earth Summit,” showed his conservatism in the environmental policy.
The Clinton Administration (1992-2000)
Bill Clinton was the Democratic president and on the office with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress who supported strongly on environmental policy. However, when he enforced the policy to protect western land use, he had to remove his proposal because of the strong position from the interest groups. Even though he had the majority party, he did not achieve the environmental policy as expected because many opposed his policy like the former case. The other example would be the case of Kyoto Protocol. Clinton signed in the international agreements “Kyoto Protocol,” in 1998, but Congress declared that they would not implement it. However, the restoration of the Everglades and the expansion of the Everglades National Parks was the prominent achievement for the environment protection.
The Bush Administration (2000-2008)
George W. Bush was evaluated as the worst president in terms of the environmental policy. He used presidential power to weaken environmental legislation with various strategies. He appointed people who have business-oriented mind to the important positions such as Gale Norton, J. Steven Griles, Julie MacDonald, and Mark Rey, and so forth. He launched a lot of initiatives to deregulate the environmental legislation. For instance, the president ordered “the regulatory review process” in order to supervise the regulation in terms of benefit-cost analysis by a political appointee. Moreover, he gradually reduced the EPA’s budget and the Interior Department budget. The Bush Administration rather focused on economic growth and the development of natural resources against the regulation to protect the endangered species and land protection. Above all, the refusal of the international agreements called the Kyoto Protocol caused severe criticism from other countries.
The Obama Administration (2008~ )
The president is a quite aggressive fighter to reduce U.S. emission to 1990 levels by 2020, and a further 80 percent by 2050. He put climate change as a top priority since the president campaign, while the former president Bush made the environmental protection softer. Fortunately, he is supported by the majority party Democrat and bi-patrician. Firstly, Obama tries to reverse the environmental regulations enacted by Bush such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act (Vig 2010). One of his achievements to reverse Bush would be the Copenhagen Accorded singed by Obama in December of 2009.
The head of EPA, Carol Browner who worked for the Clinton administration as an expert of environment, shows that the president Obama has the similar tendency with Clinton in terms of environmental policy. Obama appointed many experts in the area of environment. In addition, he succeeded to get $787 billion stimulus package $787 billion for clean energy projects on 2009 and $3.8 trillion for market-based climate change policy on 2010.
The most different from the predecessors is that the Obama administration focuses on the balance with economy and environment. He declared “an economy based on renewable energy” so called “a market-based cap-and trade policy” to reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Obama does not put economy and environment separately. He stresses that the enforcement of environment policy could revitalize economics through creating new green jobs and stimulating the industries using clean energy in a short-term. Obama claims that the United States could lead the global economics through the development of clean energy over the long-term.
President Nixon in 1970s
“The environmental decade” started with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), created by President Nixon. He created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consolidate environmental programs from other agencies. He signed the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other land mark legislation (Vig, 2010). These facts provide that the president Nixon was environmentalist.
The Reagan Administration in 1980s
The pro-environmentalism in the policy was converted to the anti-environmentalism, when the president Reagan was elected. From the campaign for the election, Reagan tended to against environmentalism. Vig (2010) states that “Reagan was the first president to come to office with an avowedly anti-environmental agenda” (p. 79). The president Regan used the presidential power to weaken the environmental policy as below: He gradually reduced the EPA’s budget and the number of EPA employees. He appointed Anne Burford to the head of EPA, and James G. Watt to the Department of the Interior because both of them hostile to the environmental protection. In addition, he securitized the regulation related with environmental policy in order to deregulate, while the Reagan Administration enforced their power to revitalize the economics.
The George H.W. Bush Administration (1988-1992)
Reagan was faced with strong opposition from the public and congressional due to his anti-environmentalism. Thus Bush declared himself as an “environmental president” from his campaign. He appointed William Reilly to the EPA Administrator, and Michael Deland to the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) who are environmentalists. He “pursued a bipartisan strategy in passing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in order to control acid rain and reduce air pollution (Vig, 2010). However, Reagan was rather “opportunistic leaders” rather than pro-environmentalist. The refusal of international agreements, “the Earth Summit,” showed his conservatism in the environmental policy.
The Clinton Administration (1992-2000)
Bill Clinton was the Democratic president and on the office with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress who supported strongly on environmental policy. However, when he enforced the policy to protect western land use, he had to remove his proposal because of the strong position from the interest groups. Even though he had the majority party, he did not achieve the environmental policy as expected because many opposed his policy like the former case. The other example would be the case of Kyoto Protocol. Clinton signed in the international agreements “Kyoto Protocol,” in 1998, but Congress declared that they would not implement it. However, the restoration of the Everglades and the expansion of the Everglades National Parks was the prominent achievement for the environment protection.
The Bush Administration (2000-2008)
George W. Bush was evaluated as the worst president in terms of the environmental policy. He used presidential power to weaken environmental legislation with various strategies. He appointed people who have business-oriented mind to the important positions such as Gale Norton, J. Steven Griles, Julie MacDonald, and Mark Rey, and so forth. He launched a lot of initiatives to deregulate the environmental legislation. For instance, the president ordered “the regulatory review process” in order to supervise the regulation in terms of benefit-cost analysis by a political appointee. Moreover, he gradually reduced the EPA’s budget and the Interior Department budget. The Bush Administration rather focused on economic growth and the development of natural resources against the regulation to protect the endangered species and land protection. Above all, the refusal of the international agreements called the Kyoto Protocol caused severe criticism from other countries.
The Obama Administration (2008~ )
The president is a quite aggressive fighter to reduce U.S. emission to 1990 levels by 2020, and a further 80 percent by 2050. He put climate change as a top priority since the president campaign, while the former president Bush made the environmental protection softer. Fortunately, he is supported by the majority party Democrat and bi-patrician. Firstly, Obama tries to reverse the environmental regulations enacted by Bush such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act (Vig 2010). One of his achievements to reverse Bush would be the Copenhagen Accorded singed by Obama in December of 2009.
The head of EPA, Carol Browner who worked for the Clinton administration as an expert of environment, shows that the president Obama has the similar tendency with Clinton in terms of environmental policy. Obama appointed many experts in the area of environment. In addition, he succeeded to get $787 billion stimulus package $787 billion for clean energy projects on 2009 and $3.8 trillion for market-based climate change policy on 2010.
The most different from the predecessors is that the Obama administration focuses on the balance with economy and environment. He declared “an economy based on renewable energy” so called “a market-based cap-and trade policy” to reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Obama does not put economy and environment separately. He stresses that the enforcement of environment policy could revitalize economics through creating new green jobs and stimulating the industries using clean energy in a short-term. Obama claims that the United States could lead the global economics through the development of clean energy over the long-term.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
My Obama Newspaper Article
Obama's $3.8T Budget Includes Cap-And-Trade Placeholder
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/01/01greenwire-obamas-38t-budget-includes-cap-and-trade-placeh-7116.html?pagewanted=1&%2339&sq=obama&st=cse&%2359;s environmental policy&scp=2
“Budgeting is highly political, but it is not the same thing as politics in general. It represents a special corner of politics, with many of its own characteristics” (Rubin, 1993). Executive budget reflects the president’s willingness with the way of allocate the resources. Fortunately, Congress allows the president Obama to spend $ 3.8 trillion to enforce the environmental policy as the president planed for 2011 fiscal year budget. Vig (2009) indicates that “budget priorities” (p. 87) is one of the methods to show the president’s administrative style. The increasing budget on the environmental policy shows how strongly Obama administration focuses on this agenda, while George W. Bush who focused on economic rather than environment, cut the EPA’s budget and environmental programs. (Vig, 2009).
More specifically, President Obama guides his environmental policy as a “comprehensive market-based climate change policy,” when he allocates $3.8 trillion to the programs. According to the article, Obama focuses on clean energy project, thus Obama’s budget would be distributed to multiple agencies such as U.S. EPA, The Energy Department, the State Department, and so forth to achieve his goal. That is, most of the budget would spend to develop technologies and make a rule or regulations to implement clean energy.
I like the way of Obama to enforce the market-based cap-and -trade policy. I think that one of the reasons why the environmental policy failed in the past was the predecessor focused one side, economy or environment. Or the former president could not find the solution to integrate the economy and the environment protection. They used Zero-Sum game strategy asking someone's sacrifice, while Obama uses the win-win game strategy to satisfy all of the players.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/01/01greenwire-obamas-38t-budget-includes-cap-and-trade-placeh-7116.html?pagewanted=1&%2339&sq=obama&st=cse&%2359;s environmental policy&scp=2
“Budgeting is highly political, but it is not the same thing as politics in general. It represents a special corner of politics, with many of its own characteristics” (Rubin, 1993). Executive budget reflects the president’s willingness with the way of allocate the resources. Fortunately, Congress allows the president Obama to spend $ 3.8 trillion to enforce the environmental policy as the president planed for 2011 fiscal year budget. Vig (2009) indicates that “budget priorities” (p. 87) is one of the methods to show the president’s administrative style. The increasing budget on the environmental policy shows how strongly Obama administration focuses on this agenda, while George W. Bush who focused on economic rather than environment, cut the EPA’s budget and environmental programs. (Vig, 2009).
More specifically, President Obama guides his environmental policy as a “comprehensive market-based climate change policy,” when he allocates $3.8 trillion to the programs. According to the article, Obama focuses on clean energy project, thus Obama’s budget would be distributed to multiple agencies such as U.S. EPA, The Energy Department, the State Department, and so forth to achieve his goal. That is, most of the budget would spend to develop technologies and make a rule or regulations to implement clean energy.
I like the way of Obama to enforce the market-based cap-and -trade policy. I think that one of the reasons why the environmental policy failed in the past was the predecessor focused one side, economy or environment. Or the former president could not find the solution to integrate the economy and the environment protection. They used Zero-Sum game strategy asking someone's sacrifice, while Obama uses the win-win game strategy to satisfy all of the players.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Am I a coward?
During reading the book (Vig, 2009) assigned this week, in my aspect as a public officer, I feel sympathetic toward the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because the EPA has been harshly criticized due to their irresponsibility, so called “a collision of responsibilities” (p. 150). Especially, when the case of the “inappropriate [political] interference” on the Mercury emissions conducted in the Bush administration was revealed, the EPA brought discredit on to itself.
However, I am thinking about how hardly the EPA has been struggling to overcome various constraints such as the pressure from variety interest groups, political powers, and so on. I am glad to read some comments on the hardness of performance of the EPA in the book. I was totally understood on the citation of the National Academy of Public Administration:
“The EPA lacks focus, in part, because Congress has passed more than a dozen environmental statutes that drive the agency in a dozen directions, discouraging rational priority-setting or a coherent approach to environmental management. The EPA is sometimes ineffective because, in part, Congress has set impossible deadlines and unrealistic expectations, given the Agency’s budge” (p. 153).
I could say that it is the reality faced with the other Agencies as well as the EPA. I am worry if I am a coward to look for execuse to avoid my responsibility as a public officer.
However, I am thinking about how hardly the EPA has been struggling to overcome various constraints such as the pressure from variety interest groups, political powers, and so on. I am glad to read some comments on the hardness of performance of the EPA in the book. I was totally understood on the citation of the National Academy of Public Administration:
“The EPA lacks focus, in part, because Congress has passed more than a dozen environmental statutes that drive the agency in a dozen directions, discouraging rational priority-setting or a coherent approach to environmental management. The EPA is sometimes ineffective because, in part, Congress has set impossible deadlines and unrealistic expectations, given the Agency’s budge” (p. 153).
I could say that it is the reality faced with the other Agencies as well as the EPA. I am worry if I am a coward to look for execuse to avoid my responsibility as a public officer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
