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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for your op-ed on environmental policy in American context. You nicely summarized the policy trend in the United States since the 1970s, from the Nixon administration to the current Obama administration. After reading your op-ed, I have two comments.
ReplyDeleteThe first is related to your analysis or evaluation of the Bush administration’s environmental policy. I basically agree with your thoughts that the Bush administration prioritized a business (or development-) stance as the first policy reference so many environmental programs and related affairs (such as nominations and interrelationships with other policies) were neglected or underestimated. Under this consideration, you said, “George W. Bush was evaluated as the worst president in terms of the environmental policy,” if my understanding of your analysis is right. However, did he always take negative and skeptical actions regarding environmental policy? As Vig (Ch. 4) mentioned, Mr. Bush also sometimes took an action toward pro-environmentalism. He followed suit in 2006 by designating a 140,000-square-mile stretch of islands and ocean near Hawaii as the largest protected marine reserve in the world, in what some see as his most lasting environmental achievement. You mentioned seven reference points for evaluating each president’s environmental policy, and some of them, especially considering executive orders, can be debating points on whether or not George W. Bush was evaluated as the worst president in terms of environmental policy.
The second point is your stance on future environmental policy under the Obama administration. You implicitly mentioned the future policy orientation of the Obama administration, but your analysis on where the Obama administration will be and orient regarding environmental policy is rather faint. Do you think the Obama administration will remain the “aggressive fighter” as you mentioned, compared with former presidents toward pro-development? Why or why not?
Hi Dongjae,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment.
I read about the Antiquities Act in 2006 signed by Bush. It is true that Bush contributed to reserve the largest marine area (140,000) in the world. However, to be honest, I am doubt if the Antiquities Act was from his own willingness or from external pressure such as Congress or environmentalist, etc. President Bush was entirely supported by the public and Congress after September 11, 2001. However, the Democrats became the majority of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, and the economy and the financial system “suffered the worst crisis since the Great Depression” (Vig 2010, p. 85). Consequently, the Bush Administration lost his power to mandate the government. In this circumstance, I assume that the Antiquities Act was from Bush’s opponents not from his own will. That’s why I didn’t mention this part as Bush’s environmental achievement.
Second, you asked me if the Obama administration will remain the “aggressive fighter.” I thought about this part, but I was not sure about it. However, the Obama administration is supported by Congress, even though it is not the full support. Step by step, the president Obama persuades the public to understand his environmental policy through media and public speeches. The way he integrates the environment into the economy is quite persuasive to the public. Of course, it is my personal opinion. I am favorably impressed by the Obama’s moving toward his goal-clean energy. He is not hurry to achieve his goal, but the environmental policy is building methodologically in legislation, the public’s support, Congress, and so forth. I think that the Obama administration would success this time.
Thanks.