env politics midterm 2

remember to include policy cycle and bounded vs unbounded rationality

Environmental values pre-civil war

Colonialism

Wild nature is a physical threat and a potential resource; we dominate nature, conquest and control it

Disposition for private use

General Land Ordinance Survey

Facilitates land settlement and private ownership by surveying and auctioning public land

Hamilton- values income, weak federal government needs to raise money

Jefferson- values democracy, build republic of small independent farmers

Homestead Act of 1862

said private individuals should own land so they could farm- follows belief that nature has no value besides productivity

private ownership of resources, want small farmers to work land and have ownership (Jefferson;s model)

free land for small farmers, passed at start of Civil War; south disapproved since slavery relied on plantations

*private ownership of land rather than federal

*incremental process, not rational or following policy cycle clearly

*people involved had a dramatic shift, policy window opened

Post civil war values

Began to value wild nature beyond its purpose of providing resources

Man and Nature- don’t disturb ecosystems, we are connected, etc.

Romanticism- nature’s connection to the sublime

Transcendentalism- spirityal experience in nature, how we connect to religion and divinity

Why these values emerged:

• Post war economic boom: less desperate for resources, more positive perspective on nature

• industrial revolution: expands production, leading to people living in cities

• against Manifest Destiny: motivation to expand and conquer land is contradicted by spiritual/enlightening potential of nature and the aesthetics

Begin to build natural parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite

Belief shift: conquer and extract resources from nature —> preserve and immerse self in nature

Policy shift: private land ownership, farming—> federal land ownership, protection

Sublime

philosophical concept describing encounter with natural greatness, scale, or power of nature; the vastness and power of the wild

First national parks and railroads

Yosemite and Yellowstone- federal ownership push, preservationist

Railroads and general mining act- private land use, extract resources

*shows the tension between private and federal land ownership, and resource use vs preservation

*leads to progressivism during the Gilded Age

Progressive movement/Gilded Age (1880-1920)

Problem: income inequality, major corporations and industrial operations taking over

Belief shift: private ownership and conquering—> urban reform, pushback against industrialization (political push against wealthy)

Solution: better housing, clean water, sewage, waste disposal, smoke ordinances in Chicago and other cities

Key figure: Jane Addams- responsible for the solutions and improving quality of life and public health for people living in cities

Conservationist Movement: Pinchot

Belief shift: private ownership, corporate support—> federal ownership, private sector is damaging to resource use

Key figure: Gifford Pinchot

Problem: emphasis on sustainable and scientifically efficient use of land and natural resources for economic development; need to control rate a which resources are used up but still support economy

Solution: Conservationism, establishment of US Forest Service

Preservationist Movement: Muir

Belief shift: private land ownership—> federal control of land, anti corporate, limited or no use of resources

Key figure: John Muir

Problem: wanted to protect sublime nature, wilderness areas should be protected from economic development and used only for educational or recreational purposes

Solution: Founding the Sierra Club, national parks (lobby for Yosemite)

Hetch Hetchy

Problem: SF has been seeking to build a dam for years because the town wants water, denied multiple times until 1906 earthquake

Focusing event: fire after earthquake, which opens policy window; SF desperately needs water now

Solution: Raker Bill of 1913 comes in and is favored by Pinchot; Muir leads opposition but bill is still passed in December by Congress

Belief Debate:

• preservationist beliefs say to protect the valley against the dam because we need to preserve wildlife and scenery for aesethetic and sublime purposes

• conservationist beliefs say to efficiently direct resources where they are needed and provide SF with water, electricity, economic growth, etc.

• ethical concerns also include local Indigenous and city nearby; this gives local people of SF control over Hetch Hetchy and watershed management, but doesn’t consider economic consequences for others

• Questions on water rights, taking resources from others, etc.

Silent Revolution and Post WWII values/1964 Wilderness Act

Belief shifts:

• material wellbeing and survival—>intangible quality of life; recreation and appreciation for nature (combination of conservationist and preservationist approaches)

• disposition and private land ownership—>federal ownership of land and retention—>federal and private land ownership with public access to land for enjoyment; buy more land!

• New values: environmental beauty, recreation and health; values only develop when societies become more wealthy because they can afford to protect and recreate in nature, but this is paradoxical and contradicted by Indigenous communities

Why shifts?

• increasing urbanization- let’s get out in nature more!

• post war trauma- focus on quality of life

• increase scientific info and discovery- more aware of public health and ecosystems

• economic prosperity and wealth- time and ability to enjoy, not just survival anymore, easier to travel (accessibility to cars, become more affordable, highways built)

• Civil Rights movement- environmental justice and environmental protection connect, more freedom/attention to young people

• Patriotism- Manifest Destiny, national parks, American pride after war

Beauty

• Problem: loss of attractive and underdeveloped areas

• Entrepreneurs: Leopold, Brower

• Solution: 1964 Wilderness Act- create federal wildnerness area, protect it from motorized use, extraction, or permanent infrastructure; Muir belief, pushback against Hetch Hetchy dam creation

Recreation

• problem: national parks increasing in popularity because after WWII, people have time to think about recreation, enjoy life, and ability to visit park more often; parks become overwhelmed

• Entrepreneurs: Morris and Stewart Udall (economist’s approach, official actors)

• Solution: 1964 Land and Water Conservation Fund- provide money for federal government to acquire new public lands; funds are from offshore oil leases

Health

• Problem: new synthetic chemicals being used and harming ecosystems

• Entrepreneurs: Rachel Carson (scientist’s approach, unofficial actor)

• Solution: 1972 DDT ban, 1976 TSCA- come later

Environmental decade and Earth Day

begins in the 60s characterized by focusing events, such as SB Oil Spill and CR Fire; leads to Earth Day in 1970

Earth day marks the beginning of rapid implementation of many Command and Control environmentalist policies during the 70s. Millions participate in rallies and teach-ins to support environments

Key actor: Senator Nelson of Wisconsin (philosopher’s approach, official actor)

Policies that come next: CAA, CWA, SDWA, TSCA, CERCLA (superfund), FIFRA

*characterized by a major shift to federal authority and command and control laws

Types of interest groups

1. national groups

• Actors: official; professionals, lawyers, scientists, policymakers, government workers

• Actions: make policies such as CWA, CAA, etc. (policy cycle); worried the EPA would be dominated by industry, so they wrote laws saying public can sue of the standards weren’t met (vague instruction on setting standards by Congress so they are not held as accountable)

• Characterization: compromising, lobbying, lawsuits

• Examples: Sierra Club, Audobon Society

2. Green groups

• Actors: unofficial; activists that don’t work within policy process, non professionals, global or national level groups

• Actions: draw attention to issues with media stunts, push from the outside, emphasize public education and direct action more than lobbying or intervention, change human beliefs and values (philosopher/lawyer’s approach)

• Characterization: uncompromising, all-or-nothing demands, loud

• Examples: Greenpeace, Earth First

3. Grassroots groups

• Actors: official and unofficial; community members, local politicians, non environmentalists

• Actions: draw attention to local community problems, seek federal aid

• Characterization: protesting, conflicting with national groups, believe every voice should be included fairly and representatively in decision making to provide best solution for all

• Examples: environmental justice groups, local land trusts

Key conflicts:

*Green groups reject compromise and business partnerships, while national groups want to compromise but cannot meet absolute demands (no fossil fuels, zero timber cut, etc.)

*Grassroots groups conflict with national groups and feel that federal government is overlooking them and not attending to priorities, especially social justice issues

1980s environmental politics: Reagan presidency

Characterization: Reagan pushes back against 1970s laws that have emerged, undo rapid progress

Successes: managed to slow things down by appointing people opposed to conservation in environmental law positions, such as for the head of the EPA

Failures: faced backlash, had incomplete erasure of laws, eventually led to gridlock in 90s where issues were so partisan that Congress could neither repeal or enact laws

*the general problem with presidents implementing environmental laws is that once the next one comes in, all can be undone/repealed; very unstable and it’s impossible for Congress to agree on anything

Command and Control

Lawyer’s approach that forces the industry to solve the problem

1. Command: fines and criminal enforcement; set a penalty, polluters are bad guys, no collaboration (all-or-nothing demands)

2. Control: limit flexibility, set strict technical regulations and deadlines (this is how you will meet demand, and this is your timeline)

3. Cost: not considering cost, only human and ecosystem health; the cost is the company’s problem!

Pros:

• immediate results, prioritizes environmental goals

• good guy and bad guy political image (public lawsuits)

• strong motivation for corporate change

• allows for best technology

Cons:

• weak enforcement sometimes (push back deadlines, inconsistencies and vague language)

• environmentalism becomes anti-business

• expensive, doesn’t consider cost

• encourages sneaky behavior

• risk of loss to industry

• demanding, inflexible, unrealistic standards

• complex and mandatory permits, very complicated BACT

Clean Air Act (CAA, amendments in 1970, 1977, and 1990); NAAQS; BACT

Problem/command and control approach: need to set limits to emissions and deadlines for decreasing emissions, concerned about public health

• Congress was not happy about how slow the responses and progress was; air quality was worsening, state implementation was not powerful as courts or federal government because they had fewer resources, fear of losing industry, funding issues

  • deadline: 90% reduction in emissions by 1975 (met)

Solutions (commands are deadlines, controls are how standards are established and met)

• National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): standards determined by the EPA and enforced by federal and state governments to protect human health; provided a margin of safety against unacceptable levels of air pollutants, set facility emission limits

  • deadline: 1975 (extended)

• Best Available Control Technology (BACT): cut pollution by installing technology that does the best job of reducing emissions, set by EPA'; subject to language redefinition as technology improves, older technology could lower standards (older powerplants will die anyway) and more applied to newer buildings

  • had deadlines for these too

• State Implementation Plan (SIP): states would make a plan to show how they would meet the EPA standards (control); EPA could reject SIP and implement sanctions if needed

  • deadline: were to be in compliance with EPA by 1975 (extended)

Problems with this law:

• did not pay attention to cost- not all companies and polluters could afford BACT or work fast enough to meet deadlines due to financial constraints, issue with funding states for their SIPs

• demanding, non-negotiable, and inflexible- demanded dramatic changes by strict deadlines, had ambitious standards, many obstacles to meeting deadlines

• ambiguous mandates- expected EPA to set standards and BACT but was subject to ambiguous mandates (vague language telling EPA what to do so Congress was not held accountable)

Successes:

• dramatic improvements to outdoor air quality

• benefits larger than costs

• lives saved

Technology forcing

Different from BACT in that instead of calling for the implementation of technology that already exists, it called for engineers, scientists, etc. to figure it out and build new technology to meet standards/deadlines

Example: catalytic converter (reduce emissions from cars)

Clean Water Act (CWA, 1972)

Problem and command/control approach: need to set limits to waters are 100% swimmable and fishable (safest water possible, zero discharge, remove all contaminants)

• an amendment to the past weak federal water quality laws

• deadlines: eliminate pollutants by 1985, swimmable and fishable by 1983

Solutions:

• Water Quality Criteria (WQC): define maximum concentrations of pollutants allowed in surface waters; set at levels posing no threats to the ecosystem or humans, requires states to follow EPA guidelines for body of water depending on its intended use (fishing, boating, waste disposal, etc.)

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit: approved and enforced by states, regulates facility to release discharge into water as a point-source pollutant

• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs): weaker attempt to solve nonpoint issue by saying regulator has to establish the total amount of pollution that can go into the water at a time

• no BACT, but still encouraged technological innovation

• inspections and fines for non-compliance

Problems with this law:

• ambiguous mandates- vague language Congress uses in instructing EPA on what to implement, makes Congress held less accountable

• No consideration to cost INITIALLY- considered cost later, gave money to states for wastewater treatment, federal loans (cooperative federalism)

• non-negotiable standards, but deadlines are extended

• less progress made than CAA- hard to track nonpoint source pollution since multiple people involved and easy to spread

• hard to remove all contaminants because it’s expensive, hard to have 100% clean

Successes:

• cooperative federalism between national and state governments

• grants were given to meet standards so states could implement wastewater treatment

Ambiguous mandate

way to push debate to next step in policy cycle by leaving the standards and specifics up to experts; makes it easier to set law since no specific boundary set and specifics can be set later, but leaves vague language so it’s difficult for EPA to know what exactly the expectations are (Congress held less accountable if public objects)

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 1974, amended 1986)

Problem and command/control approach: concern about human health alone and not cost, EPA needs to set standards for contaminants in drinking water

• amendment in 1986: EPA may consider costs now; happened because of state/local pressure, small water systems and low income chad unfair costs, and expensive infrastructure

Solutions:

• National Primary Drinking Water Standards (NPDWS): EPA standards for chemical and microbio contaminants

• Right to know: community water systems are required to provide their customers with annual consumer confidence reports on local water supplies

  • 1996 amendment, philosopher’s approach

• Give states responsibility of enforcing standards, give them money and consider costs with amendment (grant funds, rotating federal loan, etc)

Problems with this law:

• didn’t consider costs at first (then had cooperative federalism)

• private water lines, wells, and groundwater not covered; lead pipes still a problem

• slow progress

Successes:

• right to know made it so people were more supportive of getting better systems and also as a way to check companies so they didn’t look bad and complied with standards

• cooperative federalism, transferring of funds

Cooperative federalism

shared authority between the national and state governments, allows for federal funds to be given to states so they may meet national set standards by EPA

*Occurred in CWA, SDWA

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 1976); Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (2016, amendment)

Problem and command/control approach: need EPA to identify, evaluate, and regulate risks associated with commercial chemicals that are already in circulation or being prepared

• amendment: Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act of 2016

• make EPA prioritize chemicals for assessment, new deadlines for action on these high priority chemicals (command and control)

• EPA evaluates risk without regard to cost and for highly exposed or vulnerable groups

• new fees on chemical companies to do EPA testing (command and control, impose a penalty)

Solutions:

• Pre-market notification/registration: industry is required to tell EPA about chemical’s commercial use and benefit, such as by sending in data on health and environmental risks

• EPA determines unreasonable risk: see data from industry, subsequently ban the chemical altogether

• EPA makes inventory of chemicals in commercial production to keep track, requires industry testing

Problems with this law:

• EPA was made more difficult because it had to force industry to prove a chemical unsafe or posed unreasonable risk

• “Unreasonable risk” is subjective, conflict of interest since EPA relies on industrial data

• limited EPA staffing, not many chemicals reviewed; missed risks of flame retardants and PFAs, which were used for many years even with evidence of toxicity and found in high levels in children

Successes:

• Clear and enforceable deadlines, transparency for chemical info, assurances agency would have budget to carry this out (considered cost until 2016 amendment)

• when cost was not considered anymore, it zoomed in on vulnerable groups; social justice

• got EPA to speed up on meeting deadlines by setting way to prioritize chemicals with 2016 amendment

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 1972)

Problem and command/control approach: weak command and control to notify/register new chemicals with the EPA and not pose unreasonable risk, including pesticides, fungicides, etc.

• inspired after Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and DDT ban

• authority given to Department of Agriculture

• takes economic, social, and environmental costs into account

Solutions:

• EPA is required to balance cost and benefits with proof of harm if agencies cancel or suspend registration of pesticide

• Establishing max permissible concentrations on or in raw agricultural products and processed foods

• requires special attention to routes of exposure

Problem with this law:

• limited impact

• many compounds approved here have been banned elsewhere

Successes:

• DDT ban

Love Canal, Lois Gibbs, LCHA

• The focusing event for hazardous waste policy (CERCLA/Superfund)

• Started in the abandoned canal near Niagara Falls, where Hooker Chemical company had dumped hazardous waste into during the 50s

• school district built over this and eventually a neighborhood

Health/socioeconomic problems:

1. Physical- children are born with birth defects, have epilepsy, asthma, diseases, etc.; adults are also developing issues

2. Hazards- children have easy access to explosive rock material, chemicals are oozing into yards, smells and contamination happening

3. Economic- people have built livelihoods there, get education there, and if they move they have nowhere to go; property value collapses after federal emergency declared

The 70s:

• rain overflows the storage basin, city begins doing community health surveys and finds health problems arising; large scale contamination reported, reporters begin covering Love Canal (drawing attention, focusing event)

  • this is bounded rationality because there is unpredictability and limited resources/abilities/knowledge in the situation unfolding; however, the policy window begins to open

• State and EPA get involved, find high concentrations of toxins in basements, local media covers more

• Local residents organize into the Love Canal Homeowners Association (LCHA) led by Lois Gibbs

  • Lois Gibbs: policy entrepreneur concerned for her kids and the neighborhood, not a professional or environmentalist but organized by canvasing

  • persistent, gathered community data, nonpartisan interest group formed

• LCHA does community health survey, more outcry for help

The 80s:

• in May 1980, a report about chromosomal damage in residents is leaked into the New York Times; this is the ultimate focusing event that throws the policy window wide open, and so large protests unfold and EPA officials are held hostage

• Second federal emergency declared, outer ring residents are to be moved, but there’s a concern about if the relocation will be permanent or have compensation

  • residents want to move, but without anywhere to go and lowered property value, they don’t want to be thrown somewhere temporary

  • Second declaration fails to include provisions for homes for full market value, meaning they cannot resell houses since Love Canal is now a hazardous waste site

• Permanent relocation and home purchases for outer ring residents is eventually authorized by president

• CERCLA (Superfund) comes out in December 1980

Superfund/Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 1980)

Problem: Love Canal needs funding to clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites; need to hold polluters accountable

Solutions:

1. Congress gives EPA the responsibility to identify, assess, and clean up sites using a revolving fund; includes pesticide plants, landfills, small industrial sites, rivers, and harbors

• The site must be approved to be on the EPA’s list

1. Polluters are held accountable (liability) by taxing petrochemical feedstocks, cruel oil importers, organic chemicals, etc. to generate funding needed for cleanup

• issue is companies dispose of hazardous waste in most cost efficient way, even if harmful, and then declare bankruptcy so not held accountable; this is a awy to make industries pay a tax if they frequently produce hazards and avoid having taxpayers suffer for industry actor’s bad choices

1. EPA can identify who is responsible for inactive or abandoned sites and force cleanup; parties may be used as a group or individually, and settlements are based on amount of substances contributed by each party

• Joint and several liability: anyone involved with site potentially responsible for al cleanup costs; motivates companies to act pre-emptively to make sure no hazardous waste is contaminating (lawyer’s approach)

1986: Right to know is added through toxic release inventory, firms publish data on all toxic releases and emissions decline occurs

1986: Congress increases funding with SARA, mandates faster and stricter cleanup standards; reduces delegation to EPA, gives deadlines to meet goals more quickly

Partnering with RCRA in not identifying hazardous waste itself, but dealing with cleanup and disposal of abandoned sites

Unique factors:

• The symbolic power of children at risk

• lots of elections at the time, pressure on officials

• small and close community, with Lois Gibbs as a key organizer

• Tangible health effects made public by community health survey, visible consequences

• Good media coverage, non-partisan

• hazardous waste was normalized and out in the open (visible problem)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 1976)

Problem and command/control approach: need a way to regulate existing hazardous water disposal practices and conserve/recover resources by management of solid waste

Solutions:

• EPA develops safe disposal plan for solid waste; Commerce Department promotes waste recovery technology

• EPA monitors and controls the production, storage, transportation, and disposal of wastes considered hazardous and determine which technology needed for disposal

• EPA identified and characterized wastes, and established paper trail for tracking generation and transportation of hazardous waste

• Call for EPA to set standards for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes

Problems with this law:

• slow because of unexpected complexity, lack of data, and staff constraints

Successes:

• Helped with CERCLA

TSCA, CERCLA, and RCRA differences

TSCA: manage and track commercial chemical use

RCRA: regulates how hazardous waste is disposed of

CERCLA: treats hazardous waste site cleanup and holding industry accountable

Brownfields

Moderately contaminated urban industrial sites

• Cities discovered after Superfund that these old sites were becoming impossible to get new investments in because companies didn’t want to be liable under Superfund

• Cities and communities lobbied Congress and created a new program under Superfund to redevelop these sites

• not a demand for cleanup, but gives resources to facilitate cleanup; however, it was uncompromising

• Greenfield standards are too expensive and not needed for new industrial use