New Laws Would Expand City’s Recycling Program
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/nyregion/12recycle.html?ref=earth
By Nate Schweber
The article is about a sweeping expansion of New York City’s recycling laws introduced by Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker. New York City’s recycling laws has three criteria to increase recycling: 1) increasing plastics recycling, 2) putting more bins in public areas, and 3) creating periodic drop-off locations for hazardous household waste. Ms. Quinn says that the Department of Sanitation would be required to implement this law. This recycling program would be expected that more than 8,000 tons of plastic out of landfills annually, 10,000 residents’ trash would be recycled. To empower New York City’s recycling laws, people who violate this law must pay a fine.
New York City produces 20,000 tons of garbage daily. Since Fresh Kills Landfill closed on Staten Island in 2001, New York City became a major garbage exporter. The trash is transporting to other states’ disposal facilities such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, Ohio, and so forth. However, there are limitations to transport waste to other states. First of all, the price of transport has been rapidly increased exceeding the budget. Second, the pollution from the transport with trucks, ships, and trains is considered seriously. Moreover, as the awareness of environmental issues is growing, the citizens in import states tend to resist the import from other state for their own sake.
To export their problems to other states is not a good solution for environmental sustainability as a long-term strategy. Sustainability is regarded as “maintenance of natural capital” (Goodland, 1995, p. 10) and “an obligation to conduct ourselves so that we leave to the future the option or the capacity to be as well off as we are” (Solow, 1991, p. 181). Thus, New York City’s recycling laws would be a good way to solve partly the overflowing waste problem.
The recycling law is related to sustainability planning at New York City. To regulate recycling is not broadly related with other cities or states. As Ms. Quinn said, New Your City tries to solve problems occurring from the transport of waste, as I mentioned above. In aspect of Three Es–environment, economy, and equity for sustainability planning, the recycling law could reduce the overflowing waste in light of environment. Moreover, the city would expect to make profits from recycling and fines against the law. According to Ms. Quinn, the system of fines for the violation is more fair for small property owners because the fine would charge on landlords or the owner of buildings.
Let’s view the recycling program from the other angle for environmental sustainability. Goodland (1995) divides sustainability into three degrees: weak, strong and absurdly strong. The recycling program would be involved in weak environmental sustainability which is “maintaining total capital intact without regard to the partitioning of that capital among the four kinds”–natural, human, human-made, and social (p. 15). The technology for recycling would be substitute for natural capital or the economic benefits from recycling would be substitute for other capital.
Even if the recycling program is handled by regional planning, environmental issue is initiatively not limited by a region. Environmental issue itself needs overall efforts through a nation. Wheeler (2004) says that “national and state governments are strong and established institutions that dominate public attention” (p. 133). If the United States government initiate recycling as a law, the effect from the law would be tremendous.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Assignment # 6: Applying Cohen's five frameworks to Interstate Transport of Solid Waste (H. R. 274)
1. Values Framework
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states or local governments cannot make a law or regulations to ban or place special burdens on out-of-state waste under the dormant Commerce Clause. However, as the public’s awareness of environment increased, the citizen have interested in the negative impacts that solid waste disposal could have such as land degradation, ground water contamination, air pollution, and so forth. Thus, proponents of Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act propose to give states authority to rule import and export solid waste in order to manage solid waste effectively.
The problem of interstate transport of solid waste arose because the interstate garbage is increased rapidly while the facilities to handle the garbage such as incinerators, landfills, and so on. Moreover the fear of health risk caused by dumping solid waste leads the phenomenon of NIMBY - ‘not in my backyard,’ in order to avoid the potential environmental threat. William Gormley says tath "States can readily export their problems to other states." New York City closed the incinerators and chose to export the garbage to other states. However, the exporting garbage creates other environmental problems such as air pollution, highway congestion, and noise through transport of solid waste services. The price of transport garbage increasing endlessly is a pivotal role to exacerbate the government’s economics.
2. Political framework
The Supreme Court held that “all objects of interstate trade merit Commerce Clause protections; none is excluded” (City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 1978, p. 622). According to several cases, the Supreme Court interprets the interstate transport of solid waste in aspects of interstate commerce aspects. Thus the differentials fees issued by Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. et al. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon et al. (1994) were regarded as discrimination against interstate commerce. In contrast, Chief Justice Rehnquist argues that Interstate transport of solid waste should be considered in aspect of justifiable safety and health issue of states rather than commerce aspects.
3. Science &technology framework
The biggest garbage exporters are New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and Massachusetts, while the biggest garbage importers are Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Science tell us that transport outputs from trucks, trains and barges are Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases, and so on, and this pollutants impact on human health. According to researches, cancer, respiratory illness, and birth defects are increased more in the area of disposal than other area. In addition, disposal outputs from landfills and incinerators causes climate change, water-related illness, and reproductive and development problems. There is not any scientific uncertainty or scientific disagreements against those negative impacts of interstate transport of solid waste.
4. Policy design framework
The Solid Waste Transportation Act 2005 proposed by Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, proposes “to address environmental and political concerns by giving more power to the states to limit garbage imports and regulate operators” (cited by Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act 2005 midterm briefing, 2005). Congress has the power to override the dormant Commerce Clause and the Supreme Court asserts that states cannot regulate out-of-state waste at all through the cases: Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978), Fort Gratiot Landfill v. Michigan (1992), Chemical Waste Mgmt. v. Hunt (1992), and Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Oregon (1994), and so on. However, the intergovernmental tensions between law and policy in the area of interstate transport of solid waste will continue.
5. Management framework
According to Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act, States has authority to establish the amount of out-of-state waste, require a permit for a new or expanded facility of disposal waste. Moreover, states could require inspectors to be onsite during operation of a facility that receives out-of-state waste. Each state has different circumstances to adopt environmental policy. Nobody coerce sacrifice for others. Thus, to make a good management framework of solid waste would be another challenge to the importers. Cohen (2006) suggests that “Solutions must take into account the various dimensions of each issue regarding values, politics, technology, policy, and management and also consider their interaction” (p. 60).
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states or local governments cannot make a law or regulations to ban or place special burdens on out-of-state waste under the dormant Commerce Clause. However, as the public’s awareness of environment increased, the citizen have interested in the negative impacts that solid waste disposal could have such as land degradation, ground water contamination, air pollution, and so forth. Thus, proponents of Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act propose to give states authority to rule import and export solid waste in order to manage solid waste effectively.
The problem of interstate transport of solid waste arose because the interstate garbage is increased rapidly while the facilities to handle the garbage such as incinerators, landfills, and so on. Moreover the fear of health risk caused by dumping solid waste leads the phenomenon of NIMBY - ‘not in my backyard,’ in order to avoid the potential environmental threat. William Gormley says tath "States can readily export their problems to other states." New York City closed the incinerators and chose to export the garbage to other states. However, the exporting garbage creates other environmental problems such as air pollution, highway congestion, and noise through transport of solid waste services. The price of transport garbage increasing endlessly is a pivotal role to exacerbate the government’s economics.
2. Political framework
The Supreme Court held that “all objects of interstate trade merit Commerce Clause protections; none is excluded” (City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 1978, p. 622). According to several cases, the Supreme Court interprets the interstate transport of solid waste in aspects of interstate commerce aspects. Thus the differentials fees issued by Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. et al. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon et al. (1994) were regarded as discrimination against interstate commerce. In contrast, Chief Justice Rehnquist argues that Interstate transport of solid waste should be considered in aspect of justifiable safety and health issue of states rather than commerce aspects.
3. Science &technology framework
The biggest garbage exporters are New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and Massachusetts, while the biggest garbage importers are Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Science tell us that transport outputs from trucks, trains and barges are Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases, and so on, and this pollutants impact on human health. According to researches, cancer, respiratory illness, and birth defects are increased more in the area of disposal than other area. In addition, disposal outputs from landfills and incinerators causes climate change, water-related illness, and reproductive and development problems. There is not any scientific uncertainty or scientific disagreements against those negative impacts of interstate transport of solid waste.
4. Policy design framework
The Solid Waste Transportation Act 2005 proposed by Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, proposes “to address environmental and political concerns by giving more power to the states to limit garbage imports and regulate operators” (cited by Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act 2005 midterm briefing, 2005). Congress has the power to override the dormant Commerce Clause and the Supreme Court asserts that states cannot regulate out-of-state waste at all through the cases: Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978), Fort Gratiot Landfill v. Michigan (1992), Chemical Waste Mgmt. v. Hunt (1992), and Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Oregon (1994), and so on. However, the intergovernmental tensions between law and policy in the area of interstate transport of solid waste will continue.
5. Management framework
According to Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act, States has authority to establish the amount of out-of-state waste, require a permit for a new or expanded facility of disposal waste. Moreover, states could require inspectors to be onsite during operation of a facility that receives out-of-state waste. Each state has different circumstances to adopt environmental policy. Nobody coerce sacrifice for others. Thus, to make a good management framework of solid waste would be another challenge to the importers. Cohen (2006) suggests that “Solutions must take into account the various dimensions of each issue regarding values, politics, technology, policy, and management and also consider their interaction” (p. 60).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
