Politics in Environmental Issues final

According to Nash, how did most European settlers of North America regard the wild state of nature that they found? How did they feel about "wilderness"?

Uncontrolled areas where they didn't have access to use the resources they were used to—felt the need to "conquer" the wilderness in order to prosper. Nature =resilient

Sense more physical discomfort about nature—wanted to change nature to make it more comfortable to live in—didn't understand that they would need to adapt differently than they had previously in Europe

Saw Americas as a new frontier, got away from over-controlling gov't in Europe—came to conquer nature & indigenous people to be comfortable

We've talked a lot about modern "cornucopian" values. Do you see cornucopian values reflected in how Americans viewed wilderness in the 1700s and 1800s? In what ways?

Yes--Americans saw uncultivated land as useless and thought that nature itself wanted to be cultivated and used.

Use the argument that in the Bible it says that man's duty is to rule over all on earth.

Nature is resilient

For Americans in the time periods that Nash covers, how important was economic growth? How important was the preservation of nature in a more-or-less untouched state? Which was more important, and why?

Economic growth was the most valued aspect in the quest for civilization. Nature was meant to be cultivated and ruled, the woods were unruly and needed to be controlled and conquered

Wilderness was evil and home to beasts and savage beings.

In your view, was there anything even remotely "environmentalist" (in Layzer's sense) about how Americans in the 1700s and 1800s regarded wilderness? Could you envision Americans during this time eventually developing something like environmentalist values? Why or why not?

Even though they held mostly cornucopian views, they also viewed Nature as being as sacred as the Garden of Eden which means they held some sort of admiration for it. They sought to expand their settlement to "Make an island of spiritual light in the surrounding darkness"

Saw nature as beautiful and spiritual—need to reach into wilderness to reach Heaven

Nash talks about early Americans' attitudes toward wilderness; Zinn talks about how Americans in the early/mid-1800s viewed and treated Native Americans*. Do you see any similarities between what these two writers have to say about Americans' values during these times? That is, do you see any similarities between Americans' values regarding wilderness, and regarding Native Americans? Any differences?

Americans wanted to conquer the land around them at all costs and sought to "spread civilization"

They say the native americans as being evil and dangerous like the savages in nature

Saw them as non compliant and ignorant—did not see them as equals, thought they were naive enough to be tricked. Did not trust the natives

Do you see modern cornucopian values reflected in how Andrew Jackson and other prominent Americans at this time viewed Native Americans? In what way?

Yes, Andrew Jackson sought to dominate over the land and grow the country—manifest destiny—Man was made to dominate over all species

Economy over preservation, whether that be of a native civilization or nature itself.

Saw push back as ignorance and did not understand the pushback they received.

What was "homesteading," and how did it reflect cornucopian values?

Opening up plots of land for white men/"heads of household" use-for improving the land and cultivate it-took land from native americans to make it profitable

Any "head of household" could receive 160 acres of federal land, basically for free

Settlers just had to live on the land and "make improvements to it" (usually farming)

Ultimately, 270 million acres (10% of the entire U.S.) were homesteaded

What specifically did the Homestead Act of 1862 do?

Passed by congress & signed by Lincoln in 1862-"head of household" could receive 160 acres of federal land for free

Settlers had to live on land and make improvements to it (farming-wise)

Changes wilderness into farmland often taking land away from the Native Americans

Does Reynolds appear to celebrate the Homestead Act? Why or why not? What does he think the Homestead Act accomplished?

Yes, it allowed for pro-union expansion in the west where Americans could learn to be independent and personal entrepreneurs of private land & was great for the economy after the war

Does Reynolds think that the Homestead Act would have passed if Southern states were still present in Congress in 1862? Why or why not? How does this reflect the importance of process in shaping who "wins" in politics?

No, Southern plantation owners were afraid that small western farmers would not be able to afford slaves-slavery would have moved into the west which would have been awful for the US given the fact that the war was to abolish slavery & its economy

What was the federal government seeking to accomplish with the Morrill Act of 1862, which established "land-grant universities"? How did this also reflect cornucopian values?

Land grants for universities to focus on agriculture and mechanic arts

Created experiment stations at land grants to study ways to make farming more productive and efficient

Which "social-political groups" (as we understand the term) would have supported and benefited from cornucopian agricultural policies like homesteading and the land-grant university system? Why?

Average Americans looking to use land for farming and agriculture

Potential settlers: immigrants, land-poor U.S. citizens, formerly enslaved people (in theory)... really, anyone willing to move west and farm

People whose states would benefit from new colleges and universities

Entrepreneurs (railroads, service businesses, land speculators) who would benefit from population growth in the west

Which social-political groups were harmed by homesteading, or were unable to benefit fully from it? In your view, what explains why these groups did not have equal access to benefits from homesteading, or were actively harmed by it?

Native Americans lost their land through violence and forced dispossession; this expropriated land was then given to homesteaders or sold to finance land-grant institutions.

Formerly enslaved people did not have equal access to land for homesteading, often due to post-Civil War exploitative labor contracts.

In your view, was there a broad coalition of people in favor of homesteading? Why or why not, and what difference did this make for government policy around agriculture?

Yes because the west was seen as land for opportunity & expansion- people jumped at the opportunity for almost free land & small farmers were already being pushed westward because of their inability to keep up with plantation owners.

Helped push the gov't out of a slave economy by encouraging American families to do the agricultural work themselves.

How did the Morrill Act fund the establishment of land-grant universities in every state?

gave land to at least one university in each state from money from parcels of land taken from NA peoples-one condition: agricultural school/college-Cook College

The money made from confiscating Native American territory was used to fund universities in every state

How did the Morrill Act lead to violence against Native Americans, and violations of their rights?

Their land was not always paid for, and more often than not was seized from the Native Americans without giving them any other option nor place to live

What was the Dust Bowl? How did the Dust Bowl impact individual farmers, the overall economy, and the natural environment where it took place?

Over farming land became so barren and unprofitable that it turned into dust that caused dust storms and drought all throughout the South

What are some specific ways in which homesteading and intensive agriculture contributed to the Dust Bowl?

The manipulation of the land taken from the Native Americans unbalanced the natural environment which caused dirt storms across the Southern Great Plains region—one of the worst natural disaster recorded

What was Gifford Pinchot's basic attitude toward nature? Why do you think that Pinchot's views ultimately became known as "conservationism"?

not only does he recognize that natural resources aren't unlimited, but he was advocating for an extensive increase in gov't role in policy towards the environment

argues for the creation of US Forest Service-expansion of what gov't can do

How do forests benefit people, according to Pinchot? Why does Pinchot want the government to establish forest preserves?

logging and timber-national forests protect watersheds and forest health

conserving forests for economic reasons-forest damage holds economic consequences in terms of value of land & money needed to prevent erosion and flooding

destruction of forest means destruction of growth & the productive capacity of the land

What other kinds of environmental policies do you think Pinchot would support? Could he and Muir find common ground? Where do you think Pinchot and Muir would disagree?

pinchot- any policy enacted should have the most benefit for people, if we turn over to private landowners they'll deplete the resources in the forest→ sustainably use land, conserve resources-don't take them all at once

need gov't to play a role, greatest goods, conservation→ need a US Forest Service that employs administrators, financers, rangers, policy makers, scouts (managing natural resources to produce long term)

Muir and Pinchot both want to protect the environment, but Muir wants to preserve it from being destroyed through overuse while Pinchot prefers to conserve it for later use

Where would you put Pinchot on the environmentalist-to-cornucopian scale?

moderate cornucopian/moderate environmentalist- believes in gov't solutions for land use while keeping environmental and economical values in mind while forming argument

What was John Muir's basic attitude toward nature, and especially toward wilderness?

strong advocacy for preservation of forests and wild areas in their natural state

big role of govt in protecting these places

religious basis for this-wild areas where people can "meet God"

Why do you think that Muir's views ultimately become known as "preservationism"?

He did not want to exploit natural resources but rather wanted to protect them from being altered or ruined by humans and businesses

How does wilderness benefit people, according to Muir?

A place to meet God, a place to relax and experience enlightenment

Based on what Muir says in these essays, what kinds of policies do you think he would support? What role for government?

Muir-leave forests undisturbed-wilderness areas last truly wild parts of the country bc they're God's first temples, people want somewhere to rest, have encounters with the divine in forests

liked idea of Forest service, but he thought the forest service should do much more than planning to use natural resources, against using nature's resources

Where would you put Muir on the environmentalist-to-cornucopian scale?

strong environmentalist-very big on preserving nature & natural resources

For what reasons did Congress pass the original bill that established Yellowstone National Park in 1871? What about the land that became Yellowstone seemed special and worth protecting to people at that time?

Logging, railroads, jobs, economic incentive

Were railroad companies for or against creating Yellowstone National Park? Why?

For- good opportunity for business-to bring people from cities to see the parks in the west

Tourism around National Park system

The Adirondack Forest Preserve was established in 1885 under New York State law. What ends up being the most important and persuasive argument in favor of setting aside large tracts of land in the Adirondacks? Why did this argument carry so much weight?

Water flow and transportation was being impacted in the Hudson river-not preserving Adirondacks would affect drinking water and commerce-arguments that appealed to cornucopians NYC needs clean water, food supply, reliable transportation of goods-appeal to cornucopians and moderate environmentalists that wanted wilderness areas in Adirondacks-created coalition of people and social-political groups who wanted to preserve the land for both economic and environmental reasons

We talked a lot in the first half of class about how it can benefit environmental groups to make arguments that can appeal to people who are not also strong environmentalists—who may even be cornucopians. Do you see evidence of this in how Yellowstone National Park and the Adirondack Forest Preserve were established?

Yes, the reason they were conserved/preserved was for economic incentive-put in place for non-environmental reasons supported by coalitions made up of many people with different views to appeal to moderate enviros and cornucopians-turn into preserved areas

Why did railroads like Union Pacific support the establishment of national parks?

tourism-Railroads quickly realized the beautiful scenery along their passenger routes could be used as a selling point. Destination travel became a key marketing strategy

also opportunity for extensions of railroads in parks

What are some specific things that railroad companies did to convince elected officials and regular people that national parks were a good idea?

they lobbied congress into the creation of the national parks

The railroads began pressing legislators to unite the leadership of the parks under one "bureau." In 1911, at the first National Park Conference held in Yellowstone, representatives from every principal railroad endorsed the idea of consolidation.

At the Panama-Pacific International Exposition of 1915, the railroads made their biggest contribution to the creation of the National Park Service.

In your view, how important was it that railroads were part of the coalition in favor of national parks?

They helped separate a huge area of land from useable land (for development); the railroads used up little space and made as few stops as possible, conserved as much of the national parks as they could to help make them a tourist attraction so they would be able to profit from it--economic incentive pushed for the creation of the parks & their conservation--important for the environment!

In 1897, Congress passed the Forest Management Act, which established the National Forest Service and laid out the purpose of the national forest reserves (this is on p. 137 of Nash's book). Did the Forest Management Act hew more closely to Pinchot's vision for the national forests, or to Muir's?

*Winner* - Pinchot- views sit in place to support Gov't influence over nature-has direct relationship w politicians, wanted to create jobs that depend on natural resource extraction, investors and shareholders-want forests to be a source of economic growth-settle for US Forest Service-treat forests as places for the extraction of natural resources-continuous supply of timber, water flows

Muir won some important early battles for his preservationist vision, like getting Yosemite Valley preserved and convincing President Roosevelt to make the Grand Canyon a national park. But he didn't get his way with the national forests. Think about the social-political groups and businesses and organizations who had a stake in the national forest debate. Why do you think that Pinchot's side won?

his ideas coincided with the railroad people's views, timber business, miners

So many people who thought like Pinchot-groups in society and business-able to exercise power over decisions-making arguments to elected officials coming from regular people-reps would make decisions for votes-no strong environmentalist views in gov't at the time-$$ companies had-able to win conservationist argument

What were some of the environmental (and eventually economic) consequences that resulted from the federal government's policies to encourage intensive agriculture in the Midwest and Great Plains?

exhausted land, struggle→erosion, floods

dust storms bc of erosion, food shortages, public health disaster bc of respiratory issues, mobility issues

one of major factors that led country into great depression

What was the "New Deal" of President Franklin Roosevelt?

AAA-incentivized corn & wheat farmers to cut production, plant grasses & legumes instead of "cash crops"

Soil Conservation service-researched & encouraged environmentally responsible farming

prairie states conservation project employed people to plant forests and wind breaks across great plains & midwest

create programs to employ people→ "ballooning" federal government giving gov't

What kind of political coalition (broad or narrow) was Roosevelt able to mobilize in favor of the New Deal? What are some examples of social-political groups that were a part of Roosevelt's New Deal coalition?

broad coalition that supported new deal-non-farmers in western states affected by dust bowl & farmers that affected→use economic terms to talk up new deal

How did the New Deal reflect a new approach to farm policy that was more "environmentalist" in character?

cash incentives(direct gov't spending) specified crops that couldn't plant-growing environmental gov't policy-idea of sustainability-lands that would be productive for the future

Why did Bennett think that soil erosion was such an important problem?

concerned ab soil erosion-huge call to action, biggest problem facing the US< soil lands most important for mankind-war where foreign power had come to US and destroyed 90,000 acres of US land-US needs to take action to soil erosion

Did Bennet recommend small steps to address the problem of soil erosion, or big ones? What kind of role did Bennet want the federal government to play in this effort?

big steps, fed gov't only ones who can take those steps-reestablishing vegetative cover over land, regulating overgrazing, protecting space from fire using water regimes, and wanted to use tech to better environment

How did Bennett's recommendations for government policy toward agriculture represent a break with the cornucopian values of homesteading and agricultural expansion?

calling for direct action from US gov't to protect land

What was the Soil Conservation Service (which today is called the Natural Resources Conservation Service)? What are some things that SCS did to address the soil erosion problem?

encouraged environmentally friendly farming-invested $$ in environmental research-demonstrations, plant nurseries, flood surveys, many projects to help environment

What was the Prairie States Forestry Project and its "shelter belt," and how did this also help to combat soil erosion?

spreading-planted 220 million trees creating 18000 miles of windbreaks on 30,000 farms to combat dust storms & erosion

What did the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) do that was quite revolutionary?

incentivized farmers to not plant dangerous plants-legumes and beans and grasses to increase nitrogen in soil-paying farmers directly to cut production

How did the AAA, the Soil Conservation Service and the Prairie States Forest Project begin to reflect what we've been calling "environmentalist" values? Think about both "axes of values" that we've talked about in this class!

heavy involvement of gov't-direct intervention & concern for environment, sustainability, & future generations

Why does Woolen say that the conservation initiatives in the New Deal represent the first time the U.S. government made "sustainable development" a goal?

long term programs to prevent further damage to soil & environment-first time focused on long term planning- talk of future generation & land use

Rachel Carson was not, when she wrote Silent Spring, doing original science of her own. All of the science she talked about in her book was done by other people, and much of it had already been written about in academic journals. So what was Carson's contribution to the debate over hazardous chemicals? Why was Silent Spring so important?

Carson was able to popularize the idea to the public without being stopped and challenged until the book's release. The scientific data was already there for her to relegate to the public. This data was just sitting there unknown to the public and she made that information public. Silent Spring accomplished the goal of informing the masses about something they were being lied to about. It exposed not only the government but chemical companies that claimed their stuff was safe and not dangerous.

In other words, why did Carson's work matter so much to the environmental politics of the era (the 1960s—the dawn of the modern environmental movement in the U.S.)?

Carson's work was one of the first times that the general public was let in on information that was hidden from them. She exposed the dangers that the chemicals possessed towards wildlife, the environment, and humans. This caused people to have a realization and they connected the dots of what was happening causing their opinions to change. This resulted in a shift in the environmental movement.

How does Rachel Carson's life and work demonstrate the potential political power of experts as a resource for civil society organizations?

Rachel Carson's life work demonstrates how influential experts are as a resource to civil society organizations. When people are presented with the "facts" they are much more likely to change their ways of thinking. This is especially true if you frame the issue as a potential harm to themselves they will be much more likely to be against it and get the ball of change rolling. This is what we see here with Carson's Silent Spring which was the catalyst for the environmentalist movement that we know today leading to the creation of the Clean Air and Water Act as well as the Endangered Species Act under Nixon.

Carson was one of the first women to attain a leadership position in a federal environmental agency. Do you think that her gender constituted an advantage or disadvantage, or both, to her as an environmental advocate? Why?

I believe that her gender ultimately was a disadvantage for Carson as an environmental advocate. This specifically relates to her background of being a biologist during a time where women in the science field were rare. She often had to constantly prove herself not only to her colleagues but her readers. She was often disrespected and needed to prove that her information was factual and such. After the book was published her gender was used against her to disprove her findings.

How did public opinion about environmental issues change over the course of the 1960s and into the early 1970s? Why did this matter to politicians and elected officials?

more people wanted a stronger gov't state in regards to protecting the environment

issues having salience with politicians-want to get reelected

What are some reasons why, in Layzer's view, public opinion on environmental issues changed so dramatically over this time period?

ww2-vietnam war-growing affluence post war USA disposable income, free time, people more educated & focusing on environmental issues (know more than before)

points out air pollution in NYC, LA, santa barbara oil fill, ohio river fire-same issues happening before & after, but more press coverage of these things in 70s, people cared more about this

What was the particular significance of Earth Day in the environmental politics of the time? What happened on Earth Day, and what difference did it make in the push to get strong new environmental laws passed?

20 million people, 2,000 colleges, 10,000 elementary & high schools, 2,000 communities came together to support Earth Day

worked to organize event for months

politicians participated in the Earth Day programs-congress closed down because so many politicians were on the stump on Earth Day

Quarles highlights the 1970 decision by Nixon's Secretary of the Interior, Walter Hickel, to sue the Florida Power and Light Company. What was this lawsuit about, and why was it important?

-Wally Hickel- governor of alaska w business background ie oil industry- pre-cabinet not interested in environmental issues, super cornucopian businessman→ interview before pushed him to question environmental policy-lawsuit of florida power and light-judge superheated water being pushed into the bay that would damage the marine life, he sued the powerplant over the environmental damage that the plant would induce (use a lot water to cool operations & put hot water back in-rising temps would damage ecologically important bay)

-became an environmental leader because of the public protest and political response-when his intervention blocked the petrochemical plant in Beaufort, 45,000 resident signatures expressing thanks

-became symbol of the new approach to environmental issues-ironic because he was a businessman and developer-makes his role as a symbol even more appropriate-eruption of citizen protest-demand that gov't do something to save the environment

According to Quarles, how did changing public opinion on environmental issues play a role in getting Hickel to sue Florida Power and Light? What are some examples of how Hickel became aware that public opinion on environmental issues was changing?

became an environmental leader because of the public protest and political response-when his intervention blocked the petrochemical plant in Beaufort, 45,000 resident signatures expressing thanks

became symbol of the new approach to environmental issues-ironic because he was a businessman and developer-makes his role as a symbol even more appropriate-eruption of citizen protest-demand that gov't do something to save the environment

What public event specifically offered a dramatic illustration of how people were feeling about environmental issues in the late 1960s? Why would this event have mattered to federal officials like Hickel, and, ultimately, President Nixon?

Silent Spring & Santa Barbara oil spill, jet port construction in everglades, LWV crusade for clean water-drawing attention to the environmental issues

Earth day-rallies of 25,000 people in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington & other cities-sit ins, teach-ins, people collectively cleaning up their communities from litter-2,000 university campuses & 10,000 schools

spoke to gov't about how people across the nation were concerned with the environment—Hickel became an environmental leader- "felt the force" of the citizens who were reaching out to him through

Whitaker worked in the White House under President Nixon in the 1970s. According to Whitaker, how was Nixon influenced by changing public opinion on environmental issues?

public was so interested that Nixon had no choice but to focus on environmental issues-public more vocal about environmental concerns, Polls- showing Nixon public opinion on pollution- top 3 concerns of average american

According to Whitaker (and Layzer), what role did post-WWII American affluence and prosperity play in the spread of environmentalist values? Why, in Whitaker's view, are affluence and environmentalist values connected? Do you agree?

more time, more education, more disposable income which contributed, rise of TV spreading media coverage

According to Whitaker, what was the role of experts and scientists in the spread of environmentalist values during the 1960s?

more resources publicized, press was spreading scientific discoveries

gov't funding science & more people moving into these fields & expressing issues they learn about

According to Layzer, why did Senator Ed Muskie eventually propose an air pollution bill (most of which eventually became law) that was significantly stronger than what President Nixon had asked for?

powerful dem senator-sympathetic to environmental concerns-Muskie wanted to set himself above Nixon to run for pres-embarrassed that Nixon got there first

strong environmental leader in senate-EPA needed to be independent-needed clear process on how EPA made decisions

planning to run for presidency-time to tap into environmental issues

Nixon=conservative republican— anti-communist, military hawk, cornucopian- advocacy for new environmental agency→concerned w re-election & maintaining support, after Earth day he decides he wants to support environmentalist views so he doesn't lose support → EPA

congress pass laws to formalize EPA & give it funding to reduce pollution→ Muskie: starts working on legislation for EPA that has strong process for developing rules about reducing pollution & how EPA and gov't can decide what is a hazard, tell private individuals and businesses how and when to reduce pollution

Ultimately, support in the Senate for both the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act was nearly unanimous. The same was true in the House of Representatives. Can you imagine that happening today? Why or why not?

No, gov't is too polarized today to make a decision together & agree

Political scientist Theodore Lowi and environmental advocate Ralph Nader wrote reports that influenced the debate over what powers the EPA should have. What were some concerns that Lowi and Nader had, and how did lawmakers address these concerns in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act? (Incidentally, do Lowi's and Nader's concerns remind you of anything that we read in the first few weeks of class???)

concerned with industry & special industry capture of EPA-worried that a new agency set up to protect the environment would be too strongly influenced by polluters & industry influence→ "too cozy" with industry→ have to lay out rule making process that creates distance within EPA and industry→independent of industry influence

executive branch agencies being captured by public opinion-regulatory mechanisms keeping EPA working quickly-keeping lobbyists and influence from muddling opinion

power in the hands of the EPA w focus on public opinion

To what major social forces does Quarles attribute the establishment of the EPA? Are these the same forces that drove Hickel to sue Florida Power and Light, or different ones?

public pressure huge force for forming EPA-same public pressure rallying, press coverage, polls, and Earth day

The EPA was a pretty radical idea, and President Nixon was no environmentalist. According to Quarles, why did Nixon become a champion of a new agency in the executive branch that would have broad powers to reduce pollution?

too complicated to make another committee in house-put power in executive branch to simplify and give it more power

internal politics in executive branch-council looking into gov't reorganization-dealing with enviro issues-establishment of massive branch of cabinet that would be department of environmental resources-influence other cabinet agencies-secretary of interior would have a lot of projects in his portfolio, Hickel fell out of favor with Nixon in Kent State bc students protesting war-Hickel wrote a letter to Nixon & it was leaked-public protest, commenting on the way gov't handled shooting

EPA was established instead so Hickel didn't get so much power bc of Nixon's opinion about Hickel

According to Quarles, why did Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the EPA (the big boss), work his new staff so hard? What was he responding to? (Quarles' thoughts on this topic are on the last few pages of the chapter.)

encouraged positive attitude in employees-Founding chief- saw it as his role as first administrator to create a sense of mission, values of EPA passed down to further generation

just like Nixon, saw what was going on in country with demonstrations and popular support→Ruckelshaus wanted to show the people he was making decisions that they were fighting for-drove his staff very hard to write new rules, get in shape- "go-getter" -push EPA as far as it could go

responding from public pressure-saw support in people and EPA-new in town "had something to prove"

combating systems in place-establishing their "space"--massive overhaul of fed gov't & environmental policy

Roles of EPA- statute→regulation/rule

determines what pollutants are considered hazardous to human health

determines a maximum achievable reduction for each pollutant

prior to EPA- states regulated pollution laws- gov't regulating pollution (uniform standards) across states

CLA & CWA set clear goals that EPA has to meet-specify clear multi-step process that EPA had to go through-strict deadlines EPA has to follow & limited role for free market-gov't sets course & market has to follow

What are some ways in which conservative/cornucopian philanthropists, like Joseph Coors and the Koch brothers, have played a central role in organized climate change denial? What does this say about why money can be such a powerful organizational resource?

Coors and Koch play vital roles in the advancement of climate change denial through the funding of think tanks, front groups, and astroturf groups. They use their power, money, and influence to promote ideas that would support their businesses through funding institutions, scientists, think tanks, media, lobbyists, and much more. Money has the ability to buy you anything and in this case it is bought by the change of facts and ideas. If money can be used to influence large groups of people in this way like climate change, how else is money being used to influence public perception?

What are "think tanks," and what role do they play in climate change denial?

Think tanks are privately funded organizations that are tasked with producing specific ideas and talking points supporting a particular stance. They are often funded by large corporations such as Koch Industries. These think tanks promote the ideas and draft policy that corporations want in a more presentable fashion. This makes it easier for the public to digest and get behind.

What are "front groups," and what role do they play in climate change denial?

Front groups are organizations that are made up by another organization in the hopes to be perceived as more reliable. They often consist of contrarian scientists, contrarian leaders, and many more who are seen as reliable to push their ideas. Like conservative think tanks, front groups are very influential and often are more respected than corporations even if their opinions are the same. And since they are funded by these corporations, they are still getting what they want in the end.

What are "astroturf groups," and what role do they play in organized climate change denial? (Bonus points if you know where the term "astroturf" comes from!)

Astroturf groups are groups that are generated by think tanks or front groups that are meant to look like spontaneous grassroots movements to sway policy. They are very sporadic and short lived only popping up when necessary to either support or oppose policy. Astro Turf is synthetic grass which is face and it's a play on words from grassroots which has grass in the name and are real.

What do think tanks, front groups, and astroturf groups illustrate about the power of money as a political resource for organizations and groups?

Think tanks, front groups, and astroturf groups illustrate that money has the ability to buy supporters, create new narratives, change facts, and overall create an argument that has no real sustenance other than money. It further proves how much of an influential resource and powerful resource money is and can be.

From Salent's article, what are some ways that fossil fuel companies are using their financial resources to exercise political power? What specifically are they using their money resources for?

Fossil fuel companies are using their financial power to buy policy and support for their ideas. They are doing so by hiring lobbyists and funding campaigns and communities that support their ideas. Fossil fuel companies have hired 600 lobbyists which cost them $63.5 million, which is more than 2 per representative compared to environmentalist groups who have half the amount of lobbyists. They also spend $19 million on campaign funding and community support which also is double that of environmentalist groups.

Review: What are regulations, or rules? What is their relationship to "statues", where environmental policy is concerned?

Regulations or rules are policies created by the executive branch that is not signed into law. A statute on the other hand is a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by the president. In the case of environmental policy the EPA was created via statute which gives it the power to draft policy in the form of regulations on such things like air pollutants.

Review: When the President goes around" Congress to achieve her goals, how are her actions vulnerable to challenge?

Their actions are vulnerable to challenge in the sense that after they leave office policy they created can be easily revoked by the new administration.

Why did Senator John McCain back away from supporting a strong bill to address climate change in 2009, even though he was helping to write it?

Senator McCain backed away from supporting a strong climate change bill because he was up for reelection that year. With him being a Republican and his constituents holding more cornucopian values it would not have been beneficial for him to support an environmentalist policy while needing to appeal to cornucopians.

The Waxman-Markey bill to address climate change passed the House in 2009, when Democrats were in the majority. On the Senate side, Senators Graham and Lieberman spent a lot of time trying to get Republican senators to support the bill, even though Democrats had the majority in the Senate, too. Why was this necessary?

This was necessary because not all senators on the democratic side supported the bill. Furthermore, the senate has the filibuster in which if 40 out of 100 senators don't support legislation they can "stall" in a sense preventing the bill from being voted on. To ensure a vote and its potential passing it was important that the creators of the bill has support on the other side of the isle prior to bringing it to the floor.

What are some examples of how Graham and Lieberman tried to convince Republican senators, like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, to support their bill to address climate change? Did they succeed? Why or why not (in your opinion)?

Both senators Graham and Lieberman tried to convince fellow Republican senators Murkowski and Snowe to support the bill by allowing them to draft their "top ask" into the bill. A "top ask" is something that a senator wants in a bill and is the deciding factor to whether they vote yes or no for it. Graham and Leiberman were partially successful in their ways. They agreed with most senators' top tasks and included it in the bill, however some senators' requests were so extreme that they could not be included. In the end it didn't really matter since the bill did not pass the vote.

What statute gave the EPA the power to issue the rules and regulations that together formed Obama's Clean Power Plan?

The statute that gave the EPA the power to issue rules and regulations to support Obama's Clean Power Plan was the Clean Air Act.

What are some specific examples of rules/regulations created by the executive branch through the EPA's Clean Power Plan?

Specific examples include controlling carbon emissions from factories and setting standards for it. They also created a credit system that could be given to power plants that had low emissions levels and favored renewable energy practices.

Why did President Obama feel the need to use the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to address climate change?

Obama felt the need to use the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to address climate change because 1) he knew he wouldn't be able to pass any legislation in Congress after his failed attempts and 2) he along with the EPA are under legal obligation to protect citizens from air pollutants especially when there is innaction taken by states. He knew this was his only way to cement his legacy as an environmentalist and he also knew it was his responsibility to protect the American people from pollutants even if Congress or the states wouldn't.

Why did the Obama administration view addressing climate change through the existing Clean Air Act as a second-best solution?

The Obama administration wanted to pass legislation in the traditional sense because 1) it would look better in the future that both sides agreed on protecting and saving the environment 2) it is more appealing/nice of the administration to make laws through Congress rather than skipping them completely. However, Congress failed and Obama did it without them.

How is Obama's Clean Power Plan a good example of the relationship between a statute and a regulation or rule?

The Clean Power Plan is a good example of the relationship between a statute and regulation because it shows how one can give the power to do the other. It shows how interconnected the two actually are and how they can work together to make policy happen.

Once Obama acted, which branch of government became central to the plans of Obama's opponents for stopping executive branch efforts to address climate change?

The judicial branch became a central force in the attempt to stop Obama's efforts to address climate change. The opponents of his policy would sue the administration or agency carrying out the regulation since they disagreed with it. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA and the executive branch the authority to protect citizens from air pollutants no matter what, making it legal for Obama to skip over Congress when making this policy.

How did Trump seek to undo Obama's Clean Power Plan, once he became president? Did he succeed?

Trump's plan to undo Obama's Clean Power Plan was to cut spending to these climate change initiatives in the new budget. Trump was successful in undoing almost all of Obama's climate change policy including the Clean Power Plan.

What, according to Meyer, have been some of the political problems with most policy ideas to do something about climate change?

Most policy ideas that have to do with climate change aren't worded in an "inviting" sense that would entice cornucopians to support it. Rather they use strong language and focus directly on the issue strictly regarding the environment. Instead if they proposed legislation to lower gas prices or other pieces through renewable energy a larger coalition would be created in support of the bill increasing its chances of passing. As Layzer puts it, issue boxes are very important.

What is the Green New Deal? What are some major things that the Green New Deal, if fully enacted, would do? (I'll also talk about this in lecture.)

The Green New Deal is a new piece of legislation that would drastically reduce carbon emissions to meet the standards of the Paris Climate Agreement. If fully enacted the Green New Deal promises that every American could have a job in the government if they choose to. This goes along with massive changes to industry that would reduce carbon output for electricity production.

Do you think that there are similarities between the Green New Deal and Roosevelt's New Deal (which we talked about earlier this semester)? If so, what kinds of similarities come to mind?

Yes, there are a few similarities between the Green New Deal and Roosevelt's New Deal. The biggest one being the further expansion of the federal government especially at the executive level. Both wanted/ did increase government involvement in society taking matters into their own hands.

What is the political strategy behind the Green New Deal? Why do advocates of the Green New Deal think that it will appeal to a coalition of voters that is much broader than just strong environmentalists?

The political strategy behind the Green New Deal is that it will stimulate the economy with all the new jobs it is going to create while saving the environment. Advocates of the Green New Deal think that it will appeal to a broader coalition of voters because it includes more language regarding jobs, economic stimulation and growth, all keywords and phrases that cornucopians like to hear. Their hope is that enough cornucopians support the idea of boosting the economy with renewable energy sources.