My final paper topic is H. R. 274, “To impose certain limitations on the receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste, and for other purposes.” This bill was introduced by Robert Wittman, Republican representative of Virginia, in the House of Representatives. This act proposes to address environmental and political concerns by giving more power to the states to limit garbage imports and regulate operators. The reason States cannot regulate for themselves their municipal solid waste imports is that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce.
Solid waste management has been a major public concern. There are many states overflowing with solid waste such as New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and so forth. The more states are industrialized or urbanized, the more solid waste is produced. Thus the states are looking forward to transport the solid waste to other states in order to landfill or incinerate that. Nobody wants to receive solid waste. In case solid waste contains something risk of health, the residents’ resist in the dumping area would be stronger. Thus decision makers should concern about NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon. However, I could found a few states are welcome solid waste, because they recycle it and make money.
Nevertheless, the conflicts between states frequently initiate litigation. This act H. R. 274 is expected to reduce these problems. In my paper, I am going to the cases of conflicts between states, and study how well currently government manages solid waste interstate transportation. Last, I will look at how effectively the Act H. R. 274 could handle these problems.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Global Environmental Issues - Task part 2
I cannot still define whether developing countries have the right to exploit forest as Europe and the U.S. did in the past. However, I dare say that developed countries do not have a right to tell them not to exploit forest because humanity would be suffered by destruction of nature regardless of what they did before. Nobody can say that a country could develop economy without industrialization, if the country is poor. Nobody can say that no one want to be well off. As least, developing countries are trying to escape from poverty. This is good news for developed countries as well. Otherwise developed countries have to feed the poor countries endlessly in aspect of humanitarian impulse as Hardin (2007) in Lifeboat Ethics criticizes the World Food Bank. Tobin mentions the criticism of aid for poor countries with this reason: “Poorer nations must accept responsibility for their own fate because outside efforts to help them only worsen the problem and lead to an unhealthy dependence” (p. 288).
Although it does not mean that the developing countries are free from the responsibility of climate change which could lead humanity as a whole to be the end. If industrialized countries concern about environmental problems caused by industrializing countries, they should help the developing countries give priority to environmental matter rather than coercive action. The ways of help would be various. Tobin suggests alternatives to protest tropical forest such as certification programs, taxes. However, the most problem is, I think, that the developing countries are excluded from the decision making procedure. To make the industrializing countries understood and persuaded is the challenge for the rich countries in order to save the whole.
I want to introduce a case of my country South Korea. South Korea was one of the poorest countries after ending Korea War in 1945. Now my country is one of the stabilized countries in economics and politics. In a news paper a few years ago, I read that South Korea is the first country which converted from an aid-receiving country to an aid country after World War Ⅱ. I believe that my country cannot develop without other country’s aid. In the environmental problem, it seems like the same situation with my country.
The developing countries desperately need helps like my country before. The developed countries have lots of resources to sustain environment and preserve environment such as technology, monetary, human resources, and so on, while the developing countries do not have. The industrializing countries are expecting the developed country’s knowhow or consultants to manage environmental issue as well as economic issue. For instance, if a product produced by green energy would be given incentives to export to the developed countries, the developing countries are expected to spur to use clean energy instead of fossil fuel.
If the Environmental Kuznets Curve is right, it is reasonable that the industrializing countries priority to economic development rather than environmental issue. Dasgupta, et al. (2002) states that “In the first stage of industrialization, pollution in the environmental Kuznets curve world grows rapidly because people are more interested in jobs and income than clean air and water, communities are too poor to pay for abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak” (p. 147). However, what we have to concern is how the environmental Kuznets curve could be lowered and flatten in the developing nation rather than expecting that the developing nations change their priority from environment to economics.
I do not think that this is all about equity between industrialized and developing countries, but it is about how we can reduce climate change together. It means that the development nations should keep trying to eliminate pollutants from their own countries. Moreover, the developed countries should concern “environmental risks that are either newly discovered or generated by the use of new materials and technologies” (Dasgupata, Laplante, Wang and Wheeler, 2002, p. 162). If the rich countries do not effort to eliminate pollutants, how can the developing countries agree with the developed country's demands?
Although it does not mean that the developing countries are free from the responsibility of climate change which could lead humanity as a whole to be the end. If industrialized countries concern about environmental problems caused by industrializing countries, they should help the developing countries give priority to environmental matter rather than coercive action. The ways of help would be various. Tobin suggests alternatives to protest tropical forest such as certification programs, taxes. However, the most problem is, I think, that the developing countries are excluded from the decision making procedure. To make the industrializing countries understood and persuaded is the challenge for the rich countries in order to save the whole.
I want to introduce a case of my country South Korea. South Korea was one of the poorest countries after ending Korea War in 1945. Now my country is one of the stabilized countries in economics and politics. In a news paper a few years ago, I read that South Korea is the first country which converted from an aid-receiving country to an aid country after World War Ⅱ. I believe that my country cannot develop without other country’s aid. In the environmental problem, it seems like the same situation with my country.
The developing countries desperately need helps like my country before. The developed countries have lots of resources to sustain environment and preserve environment such as technology, monetary, human resources, and so on, while the developing countries do not have. The industrializing countries are expecting the developed country’s knowhow or consultants to manage environmental issue as well as economic issue. For instance, if a product produced by green energy would be given incentives to export to the developed countries, the developing countries are expected to spur to use clean energy instead of fossil fuel.
If the Environmental Kuznets Curve is right, it is reasonable that the industrializing countries priority to economic development rather than environmental issue. Dasgupta, et al. (2002) states that “In the first stage of industrialization, pollution in the environmental Kuznets curve world grows rapidly because people are more interested in jobs and income than clean air and water, communities are too poor to pay for abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak” (p. 147). However, what we have to concern is how the environmental Kuznets curve could be lowered and flatten in the developing nation rather than expecting that the developing nations change their priority from environment to economics.
I do not think that this is all about equity between industrialized and developing countries, but it is about how we can reduce climate change together. It means that the development nations should keep trying to eliminate pollutants from their own countries. Moreover, the developed countries should concern “environmental risks that are either newly discovered or generated by the use of new materials and technologies” (Dasgupata, Laplante, Wang and Wheeler, 2002, p. 162). If the rich countries do not effort to eliminate pollutants, how can the developing countries agree with the developed country's demands?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Task part 1: Environmental Justice
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/for-sooty-port-areas-clean-affordable-trucks/
March 10, 2010
For Sooty Port Areas, Clean Affordable Trucks
By Sindya N. Bhanoo
Truck drivers in New Jersey and New York can apply for grants and low-interest loans for purchasing a new and clean truck. The program is cooperated between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Dirivers applied can get 25 percent of the purchase price of a new truck and a 5.25 percent interest rate on the remaining amount. The program targets the pre-1993 trucks which are serious emitters. Judith Enck, the environmental agency’s regional administrator for New York and New Jersey explains that this program is environmental justice because a lot of low-income communities are distributed around the ports and the communities are exposed by air pollution from a lot of truck traffic in the ports. Thus this clean truck programs are expected to incredibly reduce emission if drivers buy trucks built after 2007.
In the article, Ms. Enck mentions that the communities around the ports are mostly composed of those who have low-income. They are seriously exposed to air pollution from a lot of truck traffic. She defines that it is income-based environmental inequity.
The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The issue of environmental justice became firstly known by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) in 1987. The Clinton Administration created the Office of Environmental Equity within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Executive Order 12898 (Konisky, 2009). President Clinton (1994) states that “each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin” (Rast 2006, p. 257).
Furthermore, the clean truck program could enforce environmental sustainability of the communities surrounded the ports. Paehlke defines environmental sustainability as “the capacity to continuously produce the necessities of a quality human existence within the bounds of a natural world of undiminished quality” (p. 245) in the article, Sustainable Development and Urban Life in North America (2010). He suggests “triple-bottom-line thinking” considering sustainability: economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental quality. As drivers replace their old dirty truck using emitter diesel with new clean truck, the communities could improve life quality as well as air quality. According to the article, the clean truck built from 2004 to 2007 could reduce smog emissions by 50 percent and soot by two-thirds.
There is not enough evidence if the resource of air pollution in the area is only from the trucks. I assume that there are lots of ships and plants which could cause the air pollution besides trucks. And the article does not mention sufficient statistics to reflect the health condition of the residents in order to prove environmental justice. However, the government behavior to show the willingness to eliminate environmental inequities is the most important point here.
March 10, 2010
For Sooty Port Areas, Clean Affordable Trucks
By Sindya N. Bhanoo
Truck drivers in New Jersey and New York can apply for grants and low-interest loans for purchasing a new and clean truck. The program is cooperated between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Dirivers applied can get 25 percent of the purchase price of a new truck and a 5.25 percent interest rate on the remaining amount. The program targets the pre-1993 trucks which are serious emitters. Judith Enck, the environmental agency’s regional administrator for New York and New Jersey explains that this program is environmental justice because a lot of low-income communities are distributed around the ports and the communities are exposed by air pollution from a lot of truck traffic in the ports. Thus this clean truck programs are expected to incredibly reduce emission if drivers buy trucks built after 2007.
In the article, Ms. Enck mentions that the communities around the ports are mostly composed of those who have low-income. They are seriously exposed to air pollution from a lot of truck traffic. She defines that it is income-based environmental inequity.
The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The issue of environmental justice became firstly known by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) in 1987. The Clinton Administration created the Office of Environmental Equity within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Executive Order 12898 (Konisky, 2009). President Clinton (1994) states that “each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin” (Rast 2006, p. 257).
Furthermore, the clean truck program could enforce environmental sustainability of the communities surrounded the ports. Paehlke defines environmental sustainability as “the capacity to continuously produce the necessities of a quality human existence within the bounds of a natural world of undiminished quality” (p. 245) in the article, Sustainable Development and Urban Life in North America (2010). He suggests “triple-bottom-line thinking” considering sustainability: economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental quality. As drivers replace their old dirty truck using emitter diesel with new clean truck, the communities could improve life quality as well as air quality. According to the article, the clean truck built from 2004 to 2007 could reduce smog emissions by 50 percent and soot by two-thirds.
There is not enough evidence if the resource of air pollution in the area is only from the trucks. I assume that there are lots of ships and plants which could cause the air pollution besides trucks. And the article does not mention sufficient statistics to reflect the health condition of the residents in order to prove environmental justice. However, the government behavior to show the willingness to eliminate environmental inequities is the most important point here.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Environmental inequity
Konisky (2009) proves that there are class-based inequities in government enforcement of environmental laws through his research. He also says that “state enforcement behavior is strongly associated with economic class at the county level” (p. 117). He suggests that the federal government could reduce the environmental disparities using grants (or financial assistance), and “environmental justice concern” (p.118).
I am more interested in the reason why the environmental disparities are occurred especially in county’s level. There might be some reasons such as more public indifference or less interest group to involve the environmental decision making in low income communities, compared with high income communities. I think, because the poor are more interested in their livings rather than the politics. Without public’s resistance of environmental policy, abominations such as landfills or incineration plants are likely to be constructed in the communities. This tendency makes the environmental inequity, I think.
I am more interested in the reason why the environmental disparities are occurred especially in county’s level. There might be some reasons such as more public indifference or less interest group to involve the environmental decision making in low income communities, compared with high income communities. I think, because the poor are more interested in their livings rather than the politics. Without public’s resistance of environmental policy, abominations such as landfills or incineration plants are likely to be constructed in the communities. This tendency makes the environmental inequity, I think.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
General Questions
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
