Planning for Sustainability

I found two articles that are great for this week's assignment. The first one presents how planning, as done in the states of America, affects all of us. The second one presents the dilemma local public employees face.


Copyright & Photo Credits © ICLEI 1995-2008. All rights reserved.

http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1487&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3759&tx_ttnews[backPid]=983&cHash=b3d08ea505

Lessons from floods in Fargo; April 09, 2009

Rebecca Carter, PhD, ICLEI USA Adaptation Manager analyzed the events that lead for the need for the residents of Fargo, ND, to be called to worked together to save their city from the floodwaters of the Red River. Their efforts seem to have paid off and the river appears to have crested below the level of the sandbag levees they constructed. It must be noted that things could have resulted badly, and events could have resulted as bad as what occurred in 1997.

Lessons learned from 1997.

Grand Forks of 2009 had infrastructure to protect it, and Fargo of 1997 did not.
“After incurring $1.5 billion in losses to hundreds of homes and businesses in 1997, Grand Forks was able to raise $409 million, half of it in federal funds, for a floodwall and water-diversion system to permanently protect it from the recurrent flooding that had plagued the city since it was founded. [1]“ According to Mrs. Carter, in 2007, FEMA certified that Grand Forks’ new levee system was complete and ready to protect the city from floods of up to 60 feet—nine feet higher than the crest during the 1997 flood, and well below this year’s [2].

What does this say of national planning?

The idea that nothing gets done until some catastrophic event happens if of great personal concern. The article read states that we should consider a 2008 study from the University of Maryland found that although global climate models predict that “North Dakota will become drier in the future and subject to more intense droughts, it is also expected to experience more intense storms. Given the Red River’s history of flooding, land use changes such as expanding agriculture into wetlands that once might have absorbed flood waters, and more severe weather predictions, there is little doubt that Fargo will face a similar—or worse—flood threat in the years to come [3].” Other communities also face increasing vulnerabilities to climate change as sea levels begin to rise, wildfires become more frequent and intense, and new public health risks such as extreme heat events increase.

What this illustrates is the need for a “more proactive approach to funding infrastructure to reduce community vulnerabilities due to climate change. Local governments can’t wait until the impacts descend on them—they must anticipate them, plan accordingly, and obtain buy-in from their community members for bold actions. There is, of course, a rush of stimulus spending on infrastructure projects nationwide, but how much allocation is happening with local climate resiliency in mind? [4]” As stated by Wheeler when a study was made on the general plans or other local planning documents, “sustainability planning is in its early stages, and that consensus or political backing has not yet emerged for the most meaningful changes.” (Wheeler; pg. 179)

We are still in the reactive (not proactive) mode.

Note: ICLEI USA’s Climate Resilient Communities™ Program will assist local governments in enhancing their resiliency to the impacts and costs associated with projected climate change. When this program launches later in 2009, it will provide local governments with the guidance, tools, and resources to assess vulnerabilities, establish targets and goals, and plan and take action.

References:

[1] http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1487&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3759&tx_ttnews[backPid]=983&cHash=b3d08ea505

[2] [4] Rebecca Carter, PhD, ICLEI USA Adaptation Manager

[3] University of Maryland 2008 study on North Dakota’s Red River


http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1487&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3710&tx_ttnews[backPid]=983&cHash=080efd3eef

Cities commit to reducing their carbon footprint by consuming sustainably

The seventh EcoProcura Conference which occurred in Reykjavik (Iceland) from the 25-27 March 2009 was a conference held for public authority delegates from 41 nations who pledged to use their economic purchasing power to help fight climate change. The desire is to boost the market for climate friendly products and services. EcoProcura participating nations also concluded in their closing arguments for all national governments to put on the national/international agenda: global climate. Global climate is to be the central discussion of the Copenhagen conference, scheduled to happen later this year.

The end results of this conference are listed below:

• Using sustainable purchasing as a sound basis for a sound future: renewed commitment to more responsible purchasing practices will make it easier for its public authorities and businesses to tap into the opportunities offered from increased savings, not only of greenhouse gas emissions, but also from savings in local energy bills from reduced consumption

• Over 220 representatives from local governments, national governments and other public sector bodies discussed for three days how sustainable public purchasing practices can make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation

• Official signing of a new Icelandic Sustainable Procurement National Action Plan by the Ministers of the Environment and Finance
Delegates were called to “think globally and act locally”, which, according to Iceland’s Environment Minister, Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, “is the mantra that will lead us to a more sustainable society”.

One of the challenges that may not allow for all the issues discussed in EcoProcura occur is that the “[C]hanging the way procurement is practiced by public bodies poses a challenge particularly because the bottom line for any city is to save money “– this is only one of the key issues debated extensively in Reykjavik. This last sentence represents an item discussed by Wheeler “[A]lthough the challenges of sustainable development seem overwhelming at times,,,,, it is indeed possible to plan for a better future” (Wheeler; pg. 235). The desire to implement a better way of purchasing public resources shows the need to “[A]t least some of these structural conditions (social norms and the power of economic institutions) will need to change for social and political values to change. Or perhaps, if we are lucky, both inner and outer changes will happen at the same time, in response to stimuli that we can as yet only dimly see.” (Wheeler; pg. 235)

Tools for Sustainability Planning

Article #1.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070424180848.htm

The first article discusses the slash and burn practices that farmers in Western Borneo utilize. The slash and burn farming is the traditional method used by the Iban, indigenous population in northwestern Borneo in Southeast Asia. The slash and burn method, or the swidden method, involves cutting down forested areas, burning the vegetation to produce fertile ash and then farming that land for a period of time. Sometimes the Iban used old growth forest, while at other times this was done with secondary forest (forest that had been more recently farmed and then left fallow, which is most common today).

Rice farming remains essential to the Iban, both economically and spiritually.

This method of farming, according to Dutch studies, was considered in the past to be the proper way of farming, for it was safer and less time consuming for the Iban because the dense forest cover prevented the growth of many weeds, which had to be removed for good harvests. On the other hand, the weeding process was lengthy for swidden plots of secondary forest, and during the weeding period, men had to guard the women and children in the fields from possible attack by raiders. If old growth forest was slashed and burned, weeding time was greatly reduced.

Some sustainability critics state that the slash and burn method of farming is un-sustainable. "For decades, swidden cultivation and tropical deforestation have been linked in national and international governmental discourse. Colonial and national governments have sought to outlaw it, while scientists have variously vilified, apologized for, and tried to contextualize swidden," Wadley said (Dutch researcher). On the other hand, others state that the Iban's traditional swidden farming techniques do not produce such environmental degradation as many believe, since the Iban have farmed the same areas for a long period of time with adequate fallow and little loss of plot fertility. Wadley argues, "My research argues that tropical agriculture is a historically contingent phenomenon, and farmers have always adjusted and responded to conditions in front of them, both positively and negatively."

This article highlights what is discussed by Stephen Wheeler (Chapter 7) when he states “[I]nternational development agencies such as the World Bank have typically promoted western models of development as well, including freeways and other large infrastructure. The result currently is that unsustainable development models are spreading across the Third World in a twenty-first-century form of cultural imperialism.” (Wheeler; pg. 103)

Are we quantifying and qualifying an ancient farming and CULTURAL/SPIRITUAL methodology with imperialistic ideas? It has been suggested that this method of farming can be improved to address some sustainability concerns. It is neither evil nor saint-like. The method, as suggested when adapting the Dutch national Environmental Plan “Towards Sustainability" (Wheeler; pg. 105) can modify this practice by combining regulatory, voluntary and market approaches that allow the Iban to remain being rice farmers, be a viable economic community, and improve their rice production.

Reference:

1. University of Missouri-Columbia (2007, April 26). Slash-and-burn Farming Method In Western

2. Wheeler, Stephen. (2006). Planning for Sustainability: Creating livable, equitable, and ecological communities

Article #2

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219105322.htm

Tropical forests hold more living biomass than any other terrestrial ecosystem. A new report in the journal Nature by Lewis shows that not only do trees in intact African tropical forests hold a lot of carbon, they hold more carbon now than they did 40 years ago--a hopeful sign that tropical forests could help to mitigate global warming [1].

According to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, growing trees absorb carbon while dead, decomposing trees release carbon. Researchers expect growth and death to approximately balance each other out in mature, undisturbed forests, and thus for total tree carbon stocks, the carbon held by the trees, to remain approximately constant.

The reality is that on average each hectare (100 x 100 meters, or 2.2 acres) of apparently mature, undisturbed African forest was increasing in tree carbon stocks by an amount equal to the weight of a small car each year. Previous studies have shown that Amazonian forests also take up carbon, although at somewhat lower rates. This means that by aggregating the growth and death of the African and Amazon forest, there is more absorption of carbon than release.

"If you assume that these forests should be in equilibrium, then the best way to explain why trees are growing bigger is anthropogenic global change – the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could essentially be acting as fertilizer." says Muller-Landau, "But it's also possible that tropical forests are still growing back following past clearing or fire or other disturbance. Given increasing evidence that tropical forests have a long history of human occupation, recovery from past disturbance is almost certainly part of the reason these forests are taking up carbon today."…. "While we still can't explain exactly what is behind this carbon sink, one thing we know for sure is that it can't be a sink forever. Trees and forests just can't keep getting bigger. Tropical forests are buying us a bit more time right now, but we can't count on them to continue to offset our carbon emissions in the future." [2]

This article references some sustainability indicators used by researchers to both quantify the current sustainability level of forests, as well as predict future levels. These indicators, as noted by Wheeler (Chapter 6) involve complex systems and these same indicators may not be clear cut as the citizens, policy makers or politicians would want. All must be educated to realize the “old standards must now be reviewed and changed” (Wheeler; pg. 94) for societal and technological conditions change. Science also improves. The challenge is that “[d]espite the huge benefits that standards have in terms of spreading sustainable design practices……..standards are often be too rigid, and have difficulty keeping up with changing technology and innovation.” (Wheeler; pg. 94)

Reference:

1. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (2009, March 2). Cleaning The Atmosphere Of Carbon: African Forests Out Of Balance. ScienceDaily.

2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219105322.htm

3. Wheeler, Stephen. (2006). Planning for Sustainability: Creating livable, equitable, and ecological communities

Sustainability and Public policy goal

How should sustainability be defined in policy-making? What are the difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal? How do you include the public or experts (and which) into a policy framework that includes sustainability? How would this framework look like? How would you take a long term view to include sustainability, if politicians and voters look for short term results?


As stated by Goodland in “The Concept of Environmental Sustainability”, when developing a public policy the term sustainability should be broadly defined to include 3 components, these are social, economical and environmental sustainability. Defining each component of sustainability may help organize “the action required approaching global sustainability in real life.” It must be noted also, that environmental sustainability is “a prerequisite for social sustainability” (Redclift); the only realistic way of attaining a policy goal of sustainable development is that poverty has to be reduced before tackling the problem of environmental quality.

It is believed that defining sustainability with these 3 components, a triangle of actions is fostered so that one or all are tackled according to the community’s existing conditions. For example, social sustainability may be achieved by exhibiting behaviors such as tolerance and diversity acceptance. Economic sustainability must be a goal of all members of the community, independently of their race or gender. This component of sustainability may be achieved by accepting that different groups of diverse members of the community may be allocated, depending on their needs, different resources, however the net consumption of the community is zero in relation to principal; which results in achieving environmental sustainability.

The problem in defining sustainability in such a way, is that by integrating social, environmental and economic sustainability, and wanting to achieve sustainable development without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Solow, 1991), the policy may be valuing “future” in a depreciative manner. Policy goals may want to correct an existing problem, but having a futuristic view of it, may be impossible to grasp or define.

By utilizing the Mountain Association for Community Development (MACED) definition of sustainability we involve public choice. Public choice is included, according to MACED, for sustainability involves the capacity to make developmental choices which respect the relationship between economy, ecology and equity. Citizens, therefore, have a choice in defining how to utilize their community’s resources and the timing and output desired. It must be recognized that the public, by stating their choice, are taking a long-term cultural, economic and environmental health view, which translates into a long term approach that requires a participatory process requiring consensus on the “best” use of resources. This is stated as long-term for most of the development actions must “live” for more than 10 years to be successful.

I would include experts that may be able to define indicators that measure the use and output of the community’s resources, and that are able to provide insight in the 3 components of sustainability. The framework that defines such a policy decision would look as a platform that includes actions of in all three sustainability areas (social, economical and environmental) with performance measurements tied to all three. The framework would also define short term achievable target measures, and long term indicators. By framing the policy in such a way, you provide short term visible measures that may indicate success to politicians and voters (in the short term perspective they need), as well as provide actions that allow for sustained sustainability (long term view).

Frameworks of Environmental Policy

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE AMERICAN RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT; known also as: H.R.890.

The analysis of the environmental problem addressed in H.R. 890 is going to be defined as a multidimensional issue that affects American lifestyle in several and distinct dimensions. In order to solve a problem, you must first define it, which allows for understanding and measuring it (Cohen). In order to conceptualize the environmental issue of renewable energy use and generation, the policy analysis framework developed in “Understanding Environmental Policy” by Steven Cohen is utilized. It is hoped that the conceptualization of this issue allows for the definition of goals or targets that ought to be pursued by the American people, allows for the understanding of the problem, and allows us to measure (or create actions that result in measurement data) solutions for this problem. It is expected this analysis will help while writing the Final Paper for this class, which is to discuss feasible public & environmental policy related to use and generation of renewable energy.

Values Framework

The United States of America experienced an attack to their pattern of life in the 1970s (1) . A number of factors combined in 1973 which affected the behavior portrayed by Americans, as they had become accustomed to plentiful supply of inexpensive fossil fuels: coal, petroleum and natural gas. America had built its economy dependent on these fossil fuels, but also on their relative low cost (2) . The U.S. also exhibited patters of urban growth that were responding to how inexpensive it was to drive many miles a day. The average price of a barrel of oil in 1973 was $2.70 (3) and the average cost of gasoline at the pump was 35 cents a gallon.

The 1970s oil embargo is the most obvious of those contributing factors that attacked the U.S. way of life. This embargo was the result of the decision made by the Arab members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) to cut back on its export of petroleum to many countries of the world. This is known as the 1973 oil crisis.

The world economy was already stressed as a result of the August 15, 1971, where the U.S. pulled out of the “Brentton Woods Accord” which regulated the value of the dollar as pegged to the price of gold. This resulted in the dollar to “float” or increase in value. Shortly Britain and other industrialized nations pulled out of Brentton. The result was a depreciation of the U.S. dollar and other currencies of the world. Since oil was priced in dollars, this meant that oil producers were receiving less real income for the same price. The end of Brentton Woods and the Arab oil embargo set on a path of a series of recessions and high inflation that persisted until the early 1980s, and elevated oil prices until 1986.

The United States government went to desperate measures to improve the situation that America faced. Congress issued a 55 mph speed limit in highways. Daylight savings time was issued year round in an effort to reduce electrical use. Tax credits were offered to those who developed and used alternative sources of energy including solar and wind power (4) . President Nixon ordered the Department of Defense to create a stockpile of oil in case the country needed the military during the crisis era. Emergency rationing books were printed and the Energy Department was formed. This Department was deemed critical to the existence and security of the U.S. that it became a cabinet office. This department developed the National Energy Policy and made plans to make the United States, energy independent (5) .

Electric utilities have been subject to comprehensive federal and state economic regulation since the enactment of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA) and the Federal Power Act. This regulatory framework did not change much from 1935 to 1978. The oil embargoes of the 1970s created a need to secure the U.S.’s electricity supply, which resulted in the enactment of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). PURPA has been amended over the time, as in 1992 by the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) and is to be amended if the proposed H.R. 890 111th Congress 1st Session bill, as presented to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 4, 2009, becomes law.

If H.R. 890 becomes law, it may successfully amend title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 and establish for each of the calendar years (2012 through 2039) a required annual percentage that the retail electric supplier will submit to the Secretary. This bill also establishes the minimum Federal renewable electricity credits. These quantities are equal to the retail electric supplier base amount for the calendar year multiplied by the annual percentage set by the bill. H.R. 890 potential is that it encompasses the US energy investment behavior, and may coordinate efforts of the US Interior Department, the US Energy Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal agencies all voicing President Obama ‘s call for more renewable energy investments and cap on carbon pollution (February 24, 2009 address to Congress). Lastly, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), better known as the 2009 Stimuli package, is to improve the US competitive position in relation to energy production through the development of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) that is to stimuli the US economy (as of March 18, 2009) with $16.8 billion, to be distributed through Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block grants -$3.2 billion, Weatherization assistance program- $5 billion, State Energy program- $3.1 billion, Advance manufacturing grants- $2 billion and miscellaneous provisions -$2.5 billion.

Political Framework

An unintended consequence of PURPA was the introduction of competition into a monopoly industry. The federal government opened the electricity generating sector to other entrants and raised questions about the natural monopoly. Questions regarding the justification of monopoly- generation and ownership were answered with regulation (6) . EPACT was enacted to further increase competition in the electric generating sector. One of the issues before Congress (105th and 106th) was whether EPACT injected enough competition into the industry, if so PURPA was no longer necessary. Four bills were introduced in the 106th Congress that would have amended or repealed portions of PURPA: S. 282 (Senator Mack on January 21, 1999), S.516 (Senator Thomas on March 3, 1999), H.R. 667 (Representative Burr on February 10, 1999) and H.R. 971 (Representative Walsh on March 3, 1999). These were some of the resulting bills responding to the call for electric industry restructuring. In the 110th Congress S. 2642, the Renewable Energy Tax Incentives Act was introduced, but was not approved. Sen. Amy Kobluchar tried in June 6, 2007 with SR 1567 and in Feb 14, 2008 with SR 2642 to introduce this bill, but the bill never became law.

Now, the 111th Congress (2009-2010 session) was presented with a bill on Renewable Energy: Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation titled: THE INTRODUCTION OF THE AMERICAN RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT; known also as: H.R.890. The H.R. 890 amends the Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 which provides historical and societal background on the value U.S. has given to energy. But, H.R. 890 (7) as stated above is not the first attempt to update this policy. H.R. 890, as intended by S.1567, is a bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 and provide a renewable portfolio standard.

Why now?

Although bills introduced before did not pass, it is expected that H.R. 890 will. The gasoline price increase of 2008 may be an economic reason for the expected passage of H.R. 890. Gasoline prices at the pump jumped as high as $4.00 (8) a gallon. This is of significance because through the political history of the U.S. ,the political party in power when the gasoline prices reach a high are not reelected to hold the up-coming Presidential office term.

Science & Technology Framework

Some of the scientific uncertainties linked to H.R. 890 is whether the bill goes far enough, and whether the bill needs to include targets addressing individual American day-to-day activities.

The Energy and Environmental subcommittee examined the relationship between social and economic behaviors, and energy choices in a presentation titled:”Relationship between Social Behavior and Energy Choices (9) ”. The subcommittee presentation included discussions from Dr. Robert Bordley, Technical Fellow, Vehicle Development Research Laboratory, General Motors Corporation; Dr. Robert Cialdini, Regents' Professor of Psychology and Marketing, Arizona State University; Dr. Jerry Ellig, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Mr. John Skip Laitner, Visiting Fellow and Senior Economist, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; and Dr. Duane Wegener, Professor of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University.

The presentation started by acknowledging that everyday millions of Americans make decisions involving the use of energy, from what type of car to purchase, whether to take public transportation, what temperature to set thermostats to, or if it’s worth purchasing energy efficient appliances. The Members of the Science & Technology Committee’s Research and Science Education Subcommittee concluded that social and economic behavioral influences affects decisions made regarding energy conservation. Therefore, the energy challenge will only be overcome if there is a successful combination of technological innovation and behavior change that influences the American consumers’ behavior.

One of the reasons why renewable energy use at American homes needs to become part of the public policy discussion is that “U.S. households consume more than one-third of annual U.S. energy consumption. Of that, approximately 60 percent goes into powering homes and the rest into fueling household vehicles. American homes consume 2.4 times as much energy as homes built in Western Europe (10) ”.

I would like to emphasize that it is needed for Congress and Public Policy makers to combine ARRA and H.R. 890 targets, and create a good policy that understands and manipulates the primary drivers of decision-making. If not, Congressional policies may still fail. Social and economical factors have to be understood and included, when crafting energy policies. Understanding these factors has proven to be the most critical scientific uncertainty.

Policy Design Framework

As suggested above, Congress and Public Policy makers must combine ARRA and H.R. 890 targets, and create a good policy that understands and manipulates the primary drivers of decision-making. If not, Congressional policies may still fail. The bill has also to include the use of renewable energy at American homes for U.S. households consume more than one-third of annual U.S. energy consumption. Of that, approximately 60 percent goes into powering homes and the rest into fueling household vehicles. It is proposed that when creating this policy, it includes tax incentives (section I) as well as behavioral incentives (Section II).

I. Tax Incentives: (1) for renewable energy and (2) energy efficiency

Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy

Tax incentive programs (11) to encourage renewable energy are designed to facilitate the purchase, installation, or manufacture of renewable energy systems, equipment, and facilities. The goal of these programs is to reduce the investment costs of acquiring and installing renewable energy systems and equipment. They reward investors with tax credits, deductions, and allowances for their support of renewable energy sources.

Tax Incentives for Energy Efficiency

Tax incentives are used to help purchasers overcome the relatively high front-end costs of energy efficiency equipment. These programs serve to reduce the investment costs of acquiring and installing energy efficiency products and reward investors with tax credits, deductions, and allowances for their support of these products.

II. Behavioral Incentives

With this incentive I am proposing creating a consolidated energy policy for the U.S. that combines H.R. 890, ARRA, PURPA and EPACT. This incentive would incorporate what public policy and sociologists have identified as items needed to improve individual American energy conservation behavioral choices: Educational and Informational campaigns. The policy alternatives’ goal would be to improve the quality of choices (As well as the number of options) available to Americans when making energy use decision in every-day-life. No abrupt of expensive change in lifestyle is proposed.

According to Salt River Project (SRP) (12) a typical home in the desert southwest have the following 5 top energy users ( In the desert southwest home energy users may rely in air conditioning units, however in other U.S. states heating may be the top energy user) so this list may be applicable to all American homes. These top home energy users are:

• Heating & Cooling (51%)
• Pool Pump (13%)
• Water Heating (12%)
• Refrigerator (5%)
• Electric Dryer (4%)
• Other (15%)

Therefore, a policy is proposed that incorporates educational and informational campaigns that not only include targets for utility companies for reaching a quantifiable production of renewable energy, but also includes energy saving solutions targeting individual homes. Such inclusion is necessary for U.S. households consume more than one-third of annual U.S. energy consumption.

Management Framework

I believe there is a shift in American politics and American lifestyle to include and strengthen the organizational capacity to encourage the use of renewable energy, and produce more nationally. President Obama (13) , on February 9, 2009 pushed for more investment in solar and wind energy, concluding that the country that can make renewable energy sources price-competitive with traditional fossil fuels will become the economic superpower of the future. Obama acknowledged that while the cost of producing electricity by wind and solar has declined, it is still cheaper to generate power from plants fueled by coal and natural gas. The President also stated that renewable energy companies needed to develop tax breaks and loan guarantees in order to provide incentives for firms to manufacture and customers to purchase solar and wind energy. Obama concluded that he desires the government to invest every year in new technologies to drive down renewable energy costs over the long term. He stimulus package (14) includes billion of dollars in tax breaks and other financial incentives to boost the use of renewable energy. Obama’s call for action may positively push Congress to pass into law a bill making its way through the 111th congressional session, which requires United States’ utilities to generate a certain amount of their electricity supply from renewable sources. This bill (H.R. 890) sets that amount of U.S. electricity supply coming from renewable energy resources and it would gradually increase from 4 percent in 2012, 8 percent by 2015, 12 percent by 2018, 16 percent by 2020 and 20 percent by 2039 (15) .

President Obama (16) in his address to the nation (February 24, 2009) set the stage for how investment in clean energy will be the catalyst in reviving the nation’s economy. "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy," Obama said. "Yet we import more oil today than ever before."
The President said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provides a key investment opportunity that will save or create 3.5 million jobs, including jobs "constructing wind turbines and solar panels…and expanding mass transit." He also said the ARRA will double the United States' supply of renewable energy within the next three years. Claiming that "the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century…It is time for America to lead again." "But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy (17) ."

On February 17, 2009 President Obama signed ARRA. This amounts to the largest one-time domestic spending program in the United States history that is to work together with a massive program of tax reliefs. The main goal of ARRA is to stimulate the nation’s economy, and specifically to create or save 3.5 million jobs during the first two years of Obama as President.

ARRA (18) includes $54 billion to encourage the production of energy from renewable sources and to upgrade the transmission grid, as well as to weatherize public buildings and homes and raise energy efficiency. And it would provide $10 billion for science facilities and research, and $6 billion for broadband service in rural areas. Renewable energy funding is great because it creates a market that can’t really be outsourced.

References

1. http://www.bookrags.com/printfriendly/?gale&u=oil-embargo-enve-02[3/11/2009 4:05:01 PM]
2. http://www.bookrags.com/printfriendly/?gale&u=oil-embargo-enve-02[3/11/2009 4:05:01 PM]
3. http://www.bookrags.com/printfriendly/?gale&u=oil-embargo-enve-02[3/11/2009 4:05:01 PM]
4. “The 1973 Oil Crisis” Sarah Horton. Internet [3/11/2009 5:54:32 AM]
5. “The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-74” Arab Oil Embargo. Internet [3/11/2009 5:54:32 AM].
6. http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-50.cfm[3/9/2009 6:54:45 AM]
7. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-890
8. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/10/four_dollars_a_gallon/ [3/12/2009 2:30:05 PM]
9. http://www.baird.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=354&Itemid=107
10. http://www.baird.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=354&Itemid=107
11. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/tax_incentives.cfm
12. http://www.srpnet.com/energy/topusers.aspx
13. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51876P20090209?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
14. Also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
15. Ibid
16. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/investment-clean-energy-top-priority-economic-recovery-obama.php
17. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/Obama-Clean-Energy-Economy.aspx
18. http://www.takepart.com/blog/2009/01/15/house-dedicates-54-billion-of-stimulus-package-to-renewable-energy/

Week #9 - General Questions:

1. Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other resources) as Europe and the U.S. did to increase their economic well-being?

Born and raised in Colombia, I became very much aware of the environmental, social and economic problems related to the exploitation of the Amazon jungle, and the use and distribution of petroleum. I do believe developing countries have the right to use their resources, for their government’s main objective should be to improve the quality of life of their residents. In this monetary driven-global world, that means that in order to achieve improvements to healthcare, education, and human food standards, among some of the quality of life measures, you must have the capacity to initiate trade with other nations or buy resources from others.

Why should some countries have the right to enjoy all the phases, as portrayed in the Environmental Kuznets Curves of pollution and economic development?

The premise of the curves is that developing countries are nations were pollution grows rapidly for the nation is more interested in jobs and income than in clean air and/water. The nation, at this stage, may be too poor to pay for abetment, or the environmental regulation is weak. If rich countries want to help, by all means, they should. I agree that more is known about the toxicity of some human actions, and developing governments should act and achieve their citizen’s interests. However, I do not think anyone has the right to dictate developing countries not to evolve as the industrialized counterparts have done. I agree with Hardin that rules and morals should be single in nature; meaning that the same rule applied yesterday, applies today and tomorrow. It is hoped that as income increases in the developing countries that a balance between pollution and growth is achieved. It is desired that nation’s industrial sectors will become cleaner and its society gains a higher value for their environment. Quality of life is more than income; it encompasses their environment and its quality and health.

2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate-change debate?

I believe climate change affects us all, for the environmental problems cannot be compartmentalized, for they affect and cross areas across political and geographical boundaries. Industrialized nations must research and improve the human activities that are harming earth........independently of it being caused by poor or rich nations’ actions. With this said, the developing countries need to consider the consequences of their actions, and engage in minimizing negative impacts they may be causing. They must be open to solutions. If the proposed solutions are costly, or may affect economical growth and development, they must seek alternative corrective solutions. We are all in this together, and environmental catastrophic events affect rich and poor, without discriminating.

I do not think that equal participation (at least monetarily) should be the goal of this debate; neither should be it the goal of any corrective proposals. The goal of climate-change debates should be that of fostering equity between industrialized and developing countries. We all have similar social and political rights and responsibilities as all others. How we implement or develop these in our daily-life, depends on the area and the society we are part off. However, private ownership and sovereignty are values that are to be kept front and center in the debate. By acknowledging these, any proposal achieved in this climate debate, may have the possibility of implementation and success.

Developing countries must acknowledge all the technical and technological advances, and data that others may be willing to share. It is important that development of emission standards is part of the debate, however these standards may be implemented differently between nations. The calendar years of implementation may be farther in the future for developing countries that those of the standards set for richer or more industrialized countries. The target quantity is the same, although the year of implementation can be different and tailored uniquely for the existing-nation’s conditions. The solutions cannot be tailored or equal for all. The nation’s well-being must be composed of environmental health, economic growth, health care and quality of life.

Description of the bill to use for the final paper.

The final paper will analyze the US 111th Congress Bill on Renewable Energy: Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation. The bill is titled: THE INTRODUCTION OF THE AMERICAN RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT ( 1); known also as: H.R.890.The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing titled, “Renewable Energy: Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation” at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 26, 2009 were an introduction of this bill was brought forward to the Congress. Dr. Howard Gruenspecht (2), Acting Administrator for the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy introduced this bill, and spoke of the role of renewable electricity generation in the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO2009) projections. This outlook provides a brief overview of the renewable resource base, and discusses key findings from earlier EIA analyses of proposals for a Federal renewable portfolio standard.

Research will focused on the impacts electricity generated by renewable resources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, will play in the role of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing energy security, and promoting domestic economic development and job growth. Analysis will establish if the bill is to guide the U.S. in meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets under climate legislation and the role that complementary policies will play, such as a federal renewable electricity standard, in expanding renewable electricity and spurring technological development.

Today only two and a half percent of our electricity comes from all non-hydro renewables. The U.S. has tremendous renewable energy resources that are just starting to be tapped. The Department of Energy recently issued a report showing that the U.S. could get 20% of its needed electricity from wind alone by 2030 (3). According to the Mr. Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2009, “every region of the country has renewable resources that could be tapped to achieve U.S.’s national goal of expanding renewable energy generation and reducing global warming pollution. More renewable energy also means more good jobs right here in the U.S. Over the last few years, the wind industry has been an engine of job growth (3)”…... last year, “wind companies created 35,000 new jobs. Some climate solutions require big technological breakthroughs. But renewable energy is something that we can deploy today. We can ramp up wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, electricity production now. As the deployment of clean energy increases, the cost for this technology will continue to decline (3)”.

References:

(1) (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1504&Itemid=95)

(2) http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/testimony_gruenspecht.pdf

(3) http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090226/hawopen_ee.pdf

Environmental Justice: “Navajos chart future fueled by mining, power generation”

The article analyzed is titled: “Navajos chart future fueled by mining, power generation” which was published on January 26, 2009 by Daniel Cusick (http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=2116)

In 2003 Desert Rock was identified as the site for the construction of as many as three large coal-fired power plants generating a combined 5,300 megawatts. This site, along with a new 470-mile transmission line linking the Four Corners to points west would serve to mitigate and correct current critical energy needs in the Southwest. Proponents also state that the project would enhance Navajos’ quality of life and economic security. The timeline for completion is estimated to be 2012, when the Four Corners could host two of those plants.

The proposed plants would be on Navajo Nation land. Per established business and organizational rules, the tribal leaders, who only recently gained more autonomy from the federal government to negotiate business deals to trade Indian-owned natural resources for cash, set the priorities for the tribe. Critics warn that the project places the Navajos in conflict with the trend toward cleaner energy development and lower emissions of greenhouse gases. They also say burning more coal could ultimately cost the tribe financially and compromise its members’ health and well-being. Others see the project as an unrealistic endeavor for fossil fuel energy power generation’s days are numbered. This is not only dependent on what Congress and the Obama administration impose industry-wide as for the standards or caps on emissions of carbon dioxide; but also on the new regulations imposed to the power plants. The regulations could cost the coal-fired power sector billions of dollars to account for existing emissions as well as to take measures to capture and store CO2 from new plants.

The article also mentions some of the health problems linked to coal combustion, especially those in the West. “People in northern New Mexico, for example, have been warned against eating fish from about two dozen water bodies because of high levels of mercury, a toxin linked to coal-fired power emissions. And haze from high levels of soot, dust and other pollutants have reduced visibility at landmarks such as the Grand Canyon and Mesa Verde National Park, according to a 2007 report by the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force (1)”. Other critics, including some Navajos, argue that the tribe’s pursuit of coal wealth runs counter to its commitment to be a good steward of sacred natural resources, including the San Juan River Basin and the sculpted mesas of the Four Corners region and the greater Colorado Plateau. They point to massive amounts of pollution already being emitted by the Four Corners’ existing power plants and wonder how regulators could make room for another.
Opponents also state that in another pursuit of Navajo “getting rich ploy” in regards for energy production, the production of uranium-based power was developed. This industry exposed thousands of members of the tribe to radioactive wastes. Chronic illness linked to uranium poisoning afflicts hundreds of Navajos, many of whom worked in the uranium mines between 1947 and 1971. Uranium mining has been banned on Navajo lands since 2005, but the majority of the Navajo Tribal Council, whose 88 members represent 110 local chapters across three states, has no problems with coal.

The data used by the proponents of this project is mostly monetary, were future incomes are estimated. They state that most of that income will come from sales of Navajo coal for the plant’s two 750-megawatt supercritical boilers. Also, Sithe Global will pay royalties to the tribe for cooling water, make ground lease payments on the plant site, and pay other taxes and fees, including to build and maintain roads, extend water and sewer lines, and promote community development near the plant. And unlike with previous energy projects, the Navajos have been offered a 25 percent ownership stake in the plant (1).

We must compare and try to balance these data with that of the critics. There data is not economic, is related to health and environmental problems, such as air quality, natural resource stewardship and CO2 emissions. With this disparity of data, the case for either side is going to be one as for who has the most reliable data, and is able to make the best case to the public.

Issues contributing to the problem:

• Some of the issues that may contribute to environmental in-justice to be regionalized are that most of the “actions” respond to locations affected by poor economic performance, and fiscal stress (Rast, pg. 249). The directly affected would be the Four Corners, home of Navajo, Hopi, Pueblo and Ute tribes. But indirectly, all the western states would be affected, for natural resources such as water and air are not regionalized or are bounded by politics.

• Not addressed specifically by the article, but another issue worth mentioning, is that enforcement of standards is performed less in poor counties (Konisky, pg. 102), thus maybe helping develop and ultimately proposing projects in areas were enforcement is lacking.

References:

1. http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=2116

2. “Environmental Justice and the New Regionalism (Joel Rast)

3. “Inequalities in Enforcement? Environmental Justice and Government Performance” (David M. Konisky)

Describe 2-3 environmental problems you think might be conducive to using CV, and 2-3 environmental problems definitely not conducive for CV.

Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think might be conducive to using CV, and describe 2-3 environmental problems definitely not conducive for this.

References:

(1) http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/contingent_valuation.htm#case1

(2) Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free-riding and vehicle neutrality in a health-related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306.

(3) Josephine Borghi, 2008. "Aggregation rules for cost-benefit analysis: a health economics perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 863-875.


(4) Julio Videras & Ann Owen, 2006. "Public Goods Provision and Well-Being: Empirical Evidence Consistent with the Warm Glow Theory," Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, Berkeley Electronic Press, vol. 5(1), pages 1531-1531.


The contingent valuation method (CVM) is conducive if used to estimate economic values for some kinds of ecosystem and environmental services and estimates both use and non-use values. The contingent valuation method involves directly asking people, in a survey, how much they would be willing to pay for specific environmental services. Because it requires asking people for the amount of compensation they would be willing to accept to give up specific environmental services or the “contingent” valuation willingness to pay, contingent on a specific hypothetical scenario, they must be direct users of the environmental service. The CV has been defined as a “stated preference” (1) method, because it asks people to directly state their values, rather than inferring values from actual choices. CV is proper to use on environmental events were the “public” has direct or indirect interest or involvement.

Definition of problems conducive to CV (hypothetical):

1. The CAP board is in the need to determine how much water to allocate to Tempe for the Town Lake. The water quantity affects the food supply for nesting and migratory birds. Thus, they use CV to measure the use and non-use values citizens have regarding the willingness to pay for increase water flows to the Lake.

2. The Energy Commission of AZ has to determine, for licensing permits to be issued, how much water can flow over a fall in a recreation area. The decision will not only impact the recreation area (visually, use, visitor numbers, environmental resources, etc) but determine the quantity of water SRP can house under a reservoir upstream.

3. Colorado State has to determine the costs they are willing to pay for restoring and keeping snow slopes. They need to determine the cost in their budget to maintain these slopes open for tourists. They need to determine these expenses based on CV surveys, which estimate the expected revenue they are going to receive or the sum of the willingness to pay of future tourists and outdoor recreationists that are to use these resources. The survey targets the users of these.

Definition of problems NOT conducive to CV (hypothetical):

CV determination of costs may be a lengthy and time consuming endeavor. The CV proper use might be closely related to what questions are asked; therefore it might not be a method to be used in:

1. The Arizona office of the EPA needs to determine the value of “air visibility” or the effect on the brown cloud. They want to impose a cost to future construction. The use of CV might not be the recommended methodology for public might not have a clear idea or value for air visibility, for it does not have a direct link to air quality or pollution standards. CV assumes that people understand the good in question and will reveal their preferences in the contingent market just as they would in a real market. However, most people are unfamiliar with placing dollar values on environmental goods and services. Therefore, they may not have an adequate basis for stating their true value.

2. Another example that literature (2, 4) details for NOT using CV is that of an environmental issue that may be subject to bias, or heavily influence by a political or emergency event. If you surveyed people right after the Katrina event about wanting to contribute (survey all Americans, independent of their residence location) or their willingness to pay for wetland restoration for specific areas affected by the Katrina hurricane , their response by be influence by the media dissemination of the effects and damages. However the preferences might not translate to actions or their willingness to accept higher taxes to cover for that willingness to pay.

3. If people are surveyed about their willingness to pay for a state-of-the-art waste water treatment, they may be willing to pay for the technology (although more costly) of a methane filter vs. sand filters. However if the survey also includes the location for this plant is to be in their “back yard” the environmental willingness to pay may be muddled by NIMBY public outcry.

Should public managers and environmental planners engage the public when their knowledge is limited?

We were asked to consider whether public managers and environmental planners should engage the public when their knowledge is limited about science of an environmental issue. Should we? We were ask, if the answer is yes, how would we do this. And if the answer is not, what would the consequences be of not including them.

My response is stated below:

The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) in October 2007 developed a “Collaboration in NEPA: A handbook for NEPA practitioners”, guide for environmental planners and all those involved in actively performing NEPA, that states they should emphasize having meaningful public input and involvement in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions (CEQ, 2007). Federal agencies can benefit by working collaboratively with others in the NEPA process, such as the state and local long range transportation and land use planning processes, for they can provide additional opportunities for collaboration. Collaboration requires hard work, commitment, agency leadership, different kinds of skills and resources, and a new way of approaching environmental review processes. Collaboration must be strengthened by educating the public, and through this dissemination of information, arrive to consensus building and support for the project.

Collaboration, and its internal process of educating the public and other stakeholders, must involve the following steps:

Education should develop mechanisms for dissemination of relevant information. Some mechanisms proven successful are presentations, seminars, and publication of expertise, including scientific and technical expertise, and knowledge of a local resource. These may create “a collaborative body that can reach a more informed agreement and advise decision-makers accordingly. Similarly, the diversity of perspectives, transparency and openness of collaborative processes tend to encourage creative thinking, which can also lead to more informed decisions (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 5)”. Holding a public “state of the science” workshop(s) where experts discuss available information — what is known, not known, what can be studied easily or not, what assumptions rest within certain analysis, and what uncertainties exist (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 22) will certainly educate and create collaboration.

Education should also define and distribute, through all agency participants in the pre-scoping, a plan of work to be performed, and it must be achieved through a fairer process. This implies inviting those of particular or important interests, particularly those from traditionally disadvantaged or under-represented communities. All will (if the plan is implemented fully) be invited to participate in a process (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 6).

The education process results in a document that records the sharing of ideas, opinions, and sometimes resources; it can also enhance integration and coordination among jurisdictions and the public. The process must allow for the integration, coordination, and streamlining of multiple agency and public reviews and analyses associated with different legal and permitting requirements and serve to reduce delays and make time lines more predictable. This documentation must be public, and must include experts from cooperating agencies, including tribes and local municipalities, to jointly undertake the analysis, thus bringing in additional expertise as well as increasing opportunities for agreement on the project (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 22).

Education should be for all that are working within the NEPA, and it should be stated to them in the early beginning, that in the analysis there are going to be times were conflicts are going to arise; however by educating all, public and agency stakeholders, these will surface and will be resolve thus preventing conflict that stone-wall the process.

Education must also define the methodology to be used for the creation of alternatives to consider, their evaluation criteria, and how input is to be heard. These must be comments received by the decision makers before the analysis of whether or not to proceed in the implementation of a decision. If stakeholders feel vested in a decision, they will have a stake in its implementation. They can also bring the knowledge they gained during the collaborative process to bear on decisions relating to monitoring, enforcement, and other issues (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 6). Collaborating with other agencies or parties to determine the appropriate methodologies for scientific analysis should also be a step within the education process. For example, all parties could agree on the geographic and temporal boundaries to be used in a cumulative impact analysis (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 22).

All these education or collaboration steps are how I would include public that might not be as knowledgeable as the experts in a subject matter. However if this public is not included, litigation cost will occur (time and capital costs), and there exclusion may result in a project that develops with areas of uncertainty, a project with non-inclusive and deliberative find fact finding, as well as foster less formation of informal and formal partnerships, thus incrementing less public confidence in government. Finally, the implementation might not find support, thus delaying any action, or not the action not be constructed at all.


References:

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ntf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf

week 4 lecture.pdf

Maria Angelica's OP-ED: Environmental policy view: 1970-2010

Could we be living a similar environmental decade as that experience in the U.S.A in the 1970s?

Well certainly Obama’s first four years of power are the start of a similar decade. The records (earthjustice ) of what occurred in the first four years of power of Obamas’s White House have created a new crescendo. The Obama administration on January 2009 halted an effort to remove federal protection for wolves in Idaho and Montana with a memo that ordered a sweeping review of last-minute George W. Bush regulations. President Obama’s White House also worked on reinstating protections for mountain streams which was an overturn to Bush’s rule that made it easier for coal companies to bury Appalachian streams under tons of rock. Obama also began the process of restoring the Clean Water Act to the scope Congress intended when first passed. Obama also stopped the fast-tracked plans for oil shale development in the western U.S. and which wolud have opened more than 100,000 acres of prime Utah wilderness to oil and gas drilling. And lastly, although not the only policy Obama has instituted, was that of refuting the December 2008 Bush administration plan which authorized a large polluting coal-fired power plant on public lands in Nevada.

The 1970’s were declared by President Nixon as “the environmental decade (Vig, pg. 102)”. Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by executive order. Although not signed by Nixon, but passed over his veto, was the Federal Water Pollution Control Acts Amendments of 1972. The environmental momentum created by these Acts was diffused by Regan presidency of the 1980.

Regan was the first president in the U.S. that came to office with an anti-environmental agenda (Vig, pg. 104). Per Regan’s view, environmental regulation was a barrier to the supply side of economics and environmental conservatism as at odds with economic growth and prosperity. Regan, presidential candidate after a period of economic decline, reflected the policy change U.S. wanted, and the Republican Senate supported. In 1981 Regan’s Economic Recovery Act was passed with reduced income taxes by nearly 25 percent, and cut spending on environmental and social programs. Faced with opposition in Congress, Reagan appointed leaders that shared his environmental views in key agencies, coordinated tightly all policies being reviewed, drafted and studies in the cabinet council and White House staff, cut working budgets to environmental agencies and their programs, and enhanced regulatory oversight (Vig, pg. 105).

Regan, although weakened the White House stand within the environmental arena, revitalized environmental organizations within. Membership to these organizations increased dramatically (Vig, pg. 106), and these were able to stir public’s concern for the environment, which peaked in the late 1980s.

The elder President Bush returned to a more moderate tradition, and promised that while staying on course with the Regan’s economic policies, he would create a kinder gentler America (Vig, pg. 106). He acknowledged the new environmentalist trend set by pro-environmental organizations, and solicit their advice by appointing some of their leaders to his administration. Bush passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 which set up three goals: control acid rain by reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants by nearly half by 2000, to reduce air pollution inn 80 urban areas that had not met the 1977 air quality standards, and to lower emissions of nearly 200 airborne toxic chemicals by 75 to 90 percent by 2000 (Vig, pg. 107). Despite Bush accomplishments in the national arena, the president boycotted the Earth Summit of 1992 for he wanted no binding targets for carbon dioxide reduction. He also refused to sign the Convention on Biology diversity policies.

President Clinton campaigned on the issues of raising the corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles, encourage mass transit programs and support renewable energy research and development. This agenda was bogged down in Congress (Vig, pg 109). Clinton failed also in implementing his proposal of raising grazing fees on public lands, which after meeting with western senators, he removed as proposal which was opposed strongly by environmentalists. Environmentalists also opposed his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization. Clinton’s administration also failed in responding to climate change. Clinton authorized Vice president Gore to break the deadlock (Vig, pg. 111) at Kyoto, however Congress would not ratify the agreement and prohibited all efforts to implement it.

President George W. Bush took office in 2001 after he lost the popular vote to Al Gore. Bush’s administration focused on domestic and international issues that were non environmental in nature: Afghanistan and Iraq wars, he presided over passage of a series of large tax cuts, created the Department of Home Land Security, and education and health reforms. Bush experienced 9-11, Katrina and an economic depression worse than the one FDR dealt with. Although not focused on the environment, some of the major policy initiatives in that arena were: 1. “Reliablem Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s future” which was drafted in spring 2001 as a national energy plan. The ideas of the plan were passed by the House of Representatives, but stalled in the Senate. Efforts to revive the bill in the 108th Congress (2003-2005) failed (Vig, pg. 115). 2. “Clear Skies” which called for cuts about 70 percent of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions from power plants between 2008-2018 was also stalled. When the bill failed to clear the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee in March 2005, the EPA issued separate rules to control sulfur and nitrogen oxides in 28 eastern states.

If we look in detail at one of Obama administration’s policies, that of halting the effort to remove federal protection for wolves in Idaho and Montana with a memo that ordered a sweeping review of last-minute Bush regulations, it was just the initial starting point to review and terminate most of Bush’s environmental legacy (or lack of it).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s wolf delisting rule was scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Jan. 27, 2009, but President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, told agency directors to withdrawal Bush regulations and have all of these for a legal and policy review. Sharon Rose, spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stated that because of this move the wolves will remain under the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

This move was also the start that the Fish and Wildlife Service needed to come up with a plan that works both for wolves and the people of the northern Rockies. This move was also the starting point for the Obama administration to take a look at regulations that are very controversial under previous Presidents.

References:

earthjustice: http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/100-days-five-ways-towards-a.html?gclid=CKuou6-ZvpgCFRFWagodpH60bA

Vig, N. and M. Kraft, Eds . (2005). Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21`st Century, CQ Press.

Weekly Assignment 2 & 3: My article

I found three article revelant to emission standards. These articles are:

1. Obama Affirms Climate Change Goals (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19climate.html?ref=politics)

2. Obama to order review of state's emissions bid (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/MNMF15GTPU.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1)

3. Text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_obama_text)

My take on this issue is as follows:

In November 2008(1), before Barack Obama became president of the United States of America, he spoke to governors and foreign officials about his intention of pursuing the target on reducing emission that cause green house effect and global warming; “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all….Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response (1).”

He emphasized this in his inaugural speech by stating:

“With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet (3)”.

So what does this mean? During the presidential campaign Obama was quoted as wanting to reduce climate altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. Some industry leaders and members of Congress criticized this climate proposal for this climate proposal would impose too great a cost on an already-stressed economy (1) .

Obama’s White House (2) is living up to the campaign promise, and is letting the States to be sovereign and also responsible for cost-implications. Obama will order the Environmental Protection Agency to allow states lead by California, to impose tough vehicle emission standards. This move will break the Bush’s administration policy regarding State’s sovereignty and environmental policy, which rejected California’s request to enforce limiting greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. Obama’s order will only require EPA to consider the States’ request, but it is expected that the request will be approved.

What may be the implications of this move?

This analysis is not to be seen a criticism or endorsement of the move. However, we must understand the implications (2).

If EPA reviews and signs the waiver decision for California and the 18 other states that would trigger the green light to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles, this will determine that the Detroit vehicle market has to change, thus required to produce the cleanest, most efficient vehicles possible. These auto industries oppose California’s rules and have lobbied Congress for a single national standard.

If California's rule is enforced, this may imply the requirement that vehicles reduce their greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2016. The transportation sector, because it is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, at about 38 percent of total emissions, would be the most affected. The state's rules require automakers to meet a fleetwide average of 36 miles per gallon by 2016. Obama's directive is also expected to force the Transportation Department to complete interim fuel economy standards to implement the 2007 law.

Setting up PAF 546 blog

I hope we have a succesful semester. Look forward to all your comments and discussions. If need to get hold of me, you can do so at mariaacafe2002@yahoo.com.

I am a Civil engineer that currently works for the City of Mesa's Transportation Department. I have a MS in Construction Mngt, and a MEP in Environmental Urban Planning, both from ASU. I am currently enrolled in the Master of Public Administration.

The reason for pursuing this master, is I want to be more effective in presenting suggested action plans to the City Council and residents. In order to do so, and the actions to be implementable, I need to understand public (City) policy.