Recent Petroleum Industry Tragedies

This current problem occuring in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana is a tragedy, and alludes to other problems that attribute to the big picture. We have consistently been dependent on a handful of resources (oil,coal, natural gas) to provide our energy needs. These forms of energy have allowed the nation to prosper, as well as certain individuals and certain states, like my home state Texas. When we have incident such as this explosion of an oil rig platform occurs it just illuminates the hazards associated with industry. We also witnessed this a week and half ago when several miners died in a methane-sparked explosion in a coal mine in West Virginia.

The blame is always placed upon these petroleum companies, and rightfully so at times because of the profit driven nature. However, they have chosen their professions based on the need of millions of American's excessive hunger and need for more and more energy. In an indirect way, we are just as much apart of the fault as these industries, if not more. We provide the incentive and demand for these companies to continue to operate. They are merely utilizing the capitalist system we have created to be prosperous.

Consciously, we need to examine not just the issues surrounding these two incidents and who is at fault, but our overall consumption habits. Also, there needs to be steps taken in order to allow transition of these companies to not just be based in one area of energy, but allowing for them to utilize resources both financial and tangible for several forms of energy. It makes sense for "energy companies" to have a diverse profile, however in order to be encouraged to move in that direction, consumer habits must change and must be evident.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/us/23mine.html?hpw

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/us/23rig.html?hp

Ethanol Industry Doubles Its Efforts in Lobbying Washington

By Mary Clare Jalonick ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: 8:47 p.m. Saturday, April 17, 2010

Is corn-based ethanol fuel the wave of the future? Will it help create domestic jobs and be vital to the nation's energy supply? Or is it a taxpayer boondoggle responsible for higher food prices?

For some in Washington, the answers to those questions have changed.

For years, ethanol fuel derived from corn was almost politically untouchable, thanks to powerful advocates on Capitol Hill. The ethanol industry has consequently exploded over the last decade, thanks to government subsidies and incentives.

But skepticism about ethanol is rising, prompted by fluctuating food prices and an organized campaign by anti-ethanol advocates to discredit the industry.

"The old saying is that if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu," said Tom Buis, lobbyist and CEO of Growth Energy, a new ethanol industry group formed in 2008 as some ethanol companies grew worried that their political clout was waning. The organization's largest member is Poet LLC, one of the country's top two ethanol producers.

At stake are billions of dollars in tax credits for ethanol companies that expire at the end of the year and a pending action at the Environmental Protection Agency that could raise the amount of ethanol in every driver's fuel tank.

Once a slam dunk, Buis says the industry now has to work harder to convince an increasingly skeptical public and Congress that ethanol continues to deserve government money. A series of television ads launched this week are part of the group's efforts.

There's evidence that Congress is weary of giving money to an industry that critics say should be able to stand on its own after getting its start in the early 1980s with powerful congressional advocates like Sens. Bob Dole of Kansas and Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

"It is our view that after 30 years we should declare success," says Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents food companies that say they have seen their prices rise because of the high use of corn for ethanol.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is part of a growing patchwork of food companies, livestock producers, environmental groups and oil companies who have spent millions of dollars in the last few years framing ethanol's success as "food vs. fuel." They argue that the increase in production of corn and its diversion for ethanol is making animal feed more expensive, raising prices at the grocery store and tearing up the land.

The diversion of corn has been particularly tough on the meat industry, which uses corn for animal feed. But the ethanol industry disputes that the fuel has a substantial effect on food prices, saying corn prices only affect a small portion of each dollar overall spent at the grocery store.

Ethanol's opponents galvanized in 2008 as food prices skyrocketed and lawmakers debated whether ethanol was to blame. On Capitol Hill, money that may have once been used to boost the ethanol industry began to be diverted to what are called "advanced" biofuels, or other nonfood plant materials that could be used to make fuel. That industry is still in its infancy, but lawmakers, along with President Barack Obama, often say they are the way of the future.

As ethanol's political stock began to drop, Growth Energy hired some of the top farm lobbyists in town. Buis, a former Daschle aide, left his post as the president of the powerful National Farmers Union to work for the group, and Growth Energy signed on Retired Army general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark as a co-chairman.

They have petitioned the EPA to increase the concentration of ethanol in gasoline and last week launched the $2.5 million television ad campaign aimed at changing people's perception of the fuel.

The series of short ads the group is launching have no dialogue but just simple phrases on a green background and pointed digs at the oil industry. One ad says "no beaches have been closed due to ethanol spills" while another displays the phrase "No wars have ever been fought over ethanol." Another makes the point that "Ethanol has contributed $0 to the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela."

The formation of Growth Energy means the industry has now doubled its efforts in Washington. Together with a rival trade group, the Renewable Fuels Association, the industry spent more than $1.5 million on lobbying last year.

It's still unclear whether the increased efforts will pay off. After Growth Energy filed its petition last year to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, the EPA said in December it needed more tests to determine whether car engines could handle it. A decision is expected later this year.

With that decision and congressional debate over the tax credits approaching, Growth Energy is now positioning the ethanol industry as the underdog.

"We have to step up our game," Buis said. "A lot of people don't want to see us succeed."

Ethanol's rivals aren't backing down. The Brazilian ethanol industry, which is pushing Congress to reduce tariffs that protect the U.S. ethanol industry, launched its own rival campaign Monday to promote the benefits of sugar-cane ethanol, which they argue is more environmentally friendly than ethanol made from corn. Sugar-cane ethanol is widely produced and used in Brazil.

"We have every intention of staying in this fight," says Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group, a member of the anti-ethanol coalition. "This is a big issue for us."

Assignment #7: Sustainability Discussion Waste-To-Energy Plants

This story deals with an innovative method combating an age old problem, energy conversion from garbage or waste. A few countries in Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands have adopted an innovative technique of burning garbage and industrial waste using filtrated incinerators which then convert the heat into energy. It is a very novel approach to something which is a part of our daily lives. The program only burns non-recyclable materials, which allows for its recycling programs to continue, and then uses the energy for heating of homes. In Denmark there are nearly 30 of these plants which serve almost 100 different cities. These plants are called waste-to-energy plants which were spawned from the strict environmental regulations and pollution standards the European Union placed on its members.

This program demonstrates the ability of local governments to take the lead in preventing pollution within their communities, while maintaining sustainable practices. Although the initial costs associated with these types of plants and new technology is somewhat expensive, there is little to none pollution be emitted. Bi-products of the plant are sold to the manufacturing industry where they can be used and eventually recycled. Also, this eliminates the costly storage, use of green space, and pollution of a traditional landfill.

The article also compares this type of program to the sluggish and slow development of systems like this in the United States. Issues such as unwillingness to change habits, deal with the upfront costs, and relatively inexpensiveness of landfills are common in the argument. Also, the fact that communities traditionally are not supportive of plants to be built and operated in a location close to their residence is another issue. This is typically called NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard. Even traditional environmental groups have a hard time buying into the sustainable factors surrounding this method in a somewhat similar sense to nuclear energy.

What we could learn from this type of project is a couple of different things. First, we as Americans must change the way we view things and broaden our scope to not only are individual benefit, but the community, city, state, etc benefit too. Their needs to be a collective change among our perception, otherwise NIMBY will rule us. Secondly, adopting sustainable practices like this can have direct and immediate impacts, residents in Horsholm, Denmark and the other 97 municipalities have witnessed a decrease in their overall heating bill. We must understand the economic gains, as well as the environmental benefits too. Third, we do not have to sacrifice that must in order to achieve this type of system. Recycling will still be prevalent, and anything not able to be recycled will be burned in a waste-to-energy plant.

What I really like about this particular project is that it adopts principles of strong sustainability. This is evident by utilizing energy, creating electricity to power homes and provide heating, from human waste and garbage. The only problem I foresee with this is the fact that it may create a moral hazard to have more garbage than use recyclable products or recycle in general. More chemical waste could develop through programs like this. It could occur an influx of more garbage, however if the technology is provided to combat with this with low to zero pollution then the moral hazard becomes minimal.

Also, with this program we see an elimination of perfectly usable green space being exploited for waste storage. Coupled with that will be less transportation costs associated with sending waste to other nearby states for storage by merely just burning it. This is where economic sustainability comes into the equation by then allowing more funds to be diverted to other projects that are deemed more useful and sustainable. The hardest parts of the public taking an investment into plants like this are upfront costs, (which will be less in the long-term compared to use of landfills) and the location of these plants in relation to their communities. For the latter, financial incentives or credits could be given in order to encourage communities to allow for construction and operation of plants in their areas.

This might region-specific in Europe, however I believe this could be implemented in places like China, United States, and other large waste producers. Also, in the United States, states could provide region specific plans. The main area which concerns me would be industrial areas and manufacturing. They could benefit greatly, however as stated previously there may be more excessive use of products that are hard to dispose of or burn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

Sustainable Planning

Sustainable planning is a joint effort among many different related parties including citizens, communities, and several layers of governmental bodies. Among many things this brings specific regions together to deal with common issues, mainly economic and environmental concerns. These include proper transportation policies with the help of regional governmental entities such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) or Councils of Governments (COGs). Our MPO Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) deals with these types of issues along with infrastructure development, air quality problems and evaluations, and land management policies dealing with growth to the region (Wheeler 137-141). Wheeler also talks about how these MPOs deal with equity issues stating, “planners and public agencies have increasingly considered the degree to which lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color are exposed to toxic chemicals, pollution, and locally unwanted land uses” (Wheeler 147-148).

Additionally, the phrase or term “New Urbanism” has floated to the surface among many urban communities throughout the nation. This includes a greater mix of land use, increased use of residential densities, and preserving wildlife and green space areas (Wheeler, 156). With this we also have the adoption of five specific values, limiting urban sprawl, new expansion taking place next to current urban areas, visual connections within the region, mixture of land use, and the integration of the natural landscape (Wheeler, 163-164). The tail end of sustainable planning includes neighborhood planning that deals with area-specific design, traffic-calming and prevention of congestion, investment of green space (parks and recreational areas), ecological restoration, along with the economic problems and issues such as equity that are common to the area (Wheeler, 199-203).

Texas Oil Firms Oppose California Climate Law

By JOHN M. BRODER and CLIFFORD KRAUSS

WASHINGTON — Several Texas oil companies are bankrolling a petition drive to suspend California’s path-breaking climate change law in a move that may prove a bellwether for national efforts to address global warming.

The Valero Energy Corporation, a San Antonio-based company that is one of the nation’s largest independent oil refiners and retailers, has contributed $500,000 to a ballot initiative that would halt the carrying out of the California climate law known as Assembly Bill 32, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed in 2006. At least one other Texas oil company, Tesoro, with operations in California and a prominent antitax group are helping to finance the petition drive to place the initiative on the November general election ballot.

The California law, the first of its kind in the nation, is intended to reduce emissions of climate-altering gases by 15 percent below current levels by 2020 through a variety of means, including a regional cap-and-trade system. The bill also calls for greater efficiencies in buildings and transportation, more use of renewable sources of energy and greater reliance on clean-burning fuels. These are all major elements of climate change proposals now being discussed in Washington.

The fine points of the California plan, including the critical questions of how emissions permits would be allocated and how any revenues would be distributed, are still being worked out.

The ballot initiative would prevent the law’s taking effect until unemployment in California falls to 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. The state’s current unemployment rate is 12.5 percent. The average statewide unemployment rate in 2006 was 4.9 percent.

Mr. Schwarzenegger has said he considers the climate change law one of the signal achievements of his administration and wants to see it put in place. He said recently he believed the petition drive was fueled by the “greed” of out-of-state energy companies.

“I think that the California people are outraged about the fact that Texas oil companies, Texas oil companies, are coming to California and trying to change laws and policies in California,” he said at a green technology exhibition in Sacramento last month. “I mean, it’s outrageous.”

But the governor has also expressed concern that the new law, scheduled to take effect in 2012, not harm the state’s crippled economy and cause additional job losses.

The California Jobs Initiative, the group collecting petition signatures to upend the California law, has raised just under $1 million, according to a spokeswoman for the group. Most of the money came from oil companies, but the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, founded by the father of California’s antitax movement, contributed $100,000.

A Valero spokesman, Bill Day, said costs would rise at the company’s two large refineries in California under the new emissions law because refineries use a lot of electricity and natural gas to heat and refine crude oil. Electricity prices would go up under the law, he said, and the consumption of natural gas produces carbon emissions that would be penalized under the legislation.

“Like the national cap-and-trade legislation, it does nothing at all to alleviate the problem of climate change, but it would have tremendously bad impacts on the California economy,” Mr. Day said. “This is exactly the wrong time to be implementing a cap and trade program that will further hurt consumers and cause more job loses. We are supporting a measure that would give California voters the chance to express their opinion on whether this legislation should be implemented now.”

Valero has also been active in opposing federal cap-and-trade regulations. In response to the climate bill passed by the House last June, Valero organized a “Voices for Energy” campaign against the bill and placed signs at its gas stations around the country depicting Uncle Sam warning drivers that the legislation would increase gasoline prices.

Steven Maviglio, spokesman for Californians for Clean Energy & Jobs, an alliance supporting the climate bill, said he had little doubt the organizers of the initiative would collect the required 434,000 signatures by mid-April to win a spot on the November ballot. He said his organization, representing technology firms, environmental advocates and public health groups, had raised nearly $1 million to defend the law. But he said both sides in the fight would probably raise tens of millions of dollars for what he called an environmental “battle royal” in the fall.

“Valero has been very outspoken on the national level against climate change regulation,” said Mr. Maviglio, who served as spokesman for Gray Davis, the Democratic governor whom Mr. Schwarzenegger succeeded in a lively recall election in 2003. “This is a strategic effort by the oil companies to try to unravel this law before it spreads throughout the country. The theory is if they can kill it here, they can kill it everywhere.”

There are already signs of economic and political unease in state capitals about climate change legislation. Arizona announced this year that it was pulling out of an embryonic regional greenhouse gas emissions trading group, and more than a dozen state attorneys general have challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate global warming gases.


John M. Broder reported from Washington, and Clifford Krauss from Houston.

Frameworks for Environmental Policy (Final Paper Main Points)

1).We are coming to a point where reform and action must be taken in order to preserve national security of our nation, decrease our amount of carbon emissions, and preserve our world’s environmental well-being. Issues such as air quality, water quality, and environmental preservation have been among those discussed among various political actors. However, energy consumption and use has been added to these debates connecting the very source of these problems. Also, numerous proposals, solutions, and initiatives have been drafted, enacted, and implemented only to witness incremental and gradual change over the course of three decades.

The oil industry will slowly decline and become a minimal presence in the realm of energy. Jobs will most likely be lost or phased out in this area, however many more will expand within development of renewable energy and green technology. The potential of the renewable-energy mandate on utility companies will result in placing additional burdens on ratepayers and consumers. However over time, the price of efficiency will pay off, merely it is perception and possibly impatience by the public that could cause potential problems. Most economists will agree that, in order to reduce our dependence on petroleum we must make the price of using it more expensive than the alternative.

2).The bill is sponsored by Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman (CA-30) who has along with co-sponsor Representative Ed Markey (D-MA). The bill was introduced last spring and was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26 by a vote 219-212. It has been sent to the Senate and possibly voted on with comprehensive debate this spring or summer. However, there have been talks of the Senate developing their own version or type of bill for debate. The Obama Administration, along with the Democratic controlled Congress are notable victors if legislation would become law.

Several utility and energy companies (Shell, Exelon, BP Solar, Entergy, and Renewable Fuels Association) have shown support for the bill along with manufacturing, labor, and agriculture companies. There are provisions in the bill that incrementally benefit these companies and industries, especially with the pollution offsets it outlines. Traditional environmental interest groups such as the Sierra Club have demonstrated strong support for ACES too. However, one notable organization, Greenpeace is against it stating that they disagree on the amount of minimal reduction required through the bill of emissions reduction. Many of the oil industry vehemently oppose this bill due to its threat to their profitable business.

3). The four main areas within the legislation that are yet unknown or speculative discussed by the EPA, DOE, and other private entities. One the EPA is not sure how advanced and developed nuclear technology will be, something to which is crucial for this legislation to be successful. Secondly, there is question to how many international offset projects will be available over the course of the next decade; this has the potential to skew benefits stated in emissions and agricultural offsets. Also, the exact amount of reduction of greenhouse gases during the course of the next 15 years is not solidified and could be altered by other unintended consequences. Lastly, and quite possibly one of the most important factors according to the EPA is the impact of the output based rebates to energy intensive and trade exposed industries.

This has consequences attached to that of the global economy, not only the United States. Moreover, the cost associated with funding for projects with ACES might not cover problems occurring during implementation, or may view policy in a normative perspective (accounting for issues in an ideal setting, instead of a realistic setting). One of the most debated aspects of the bill is that projections of future costs and pollution levels are very difficult to predict. Also, there is uncertainty about the future direction of the basic drivers of greenhouse gas emissions and the responsiveness economically, technologically, and behaviorally.

4). There are many things which the legislation looks to achieve through its language, these include renewable energy investments, new regulations, and programs dealing with climate change. Roughly $846 billion in new federal revenue will be generated over the next decade, while a projected $821 billion will be needed to meet the bill’s mandates. The bill contains numerous clean energy provisions such as stricter renewable electricity standards, more investments in clean energy, support of private investment in clean energy, and a modernization of our electrical grid. This mandates the entire nation to have at least 20 percent of energy use stem from renewable energy by the end of the decade. Also, roughly $200 billion will be allocated through the next 15 years towards state programs in energy efficiency, carbon capture technology advancement, and more research and development for renewable energy.

One of the more important and larger projects with the American Clean Energy and Security Act is the investment and expansion of transmission lines for smart grid technology for our nation. Additionally, there are energy efficiency provisions such as building, appliance, and vehicle standards listed within the bill which attempt to make our building structures more efficient by 50 percent towards the end of the decade. Furthermore, the legislation seeks to take a preemptive and proactive stance of combating climate change such as capping carbon emissions from major polluters, prevention of tropical deforestation, emission and agricultural offsets, cost-containment measures, and lastly carbon capture programs. The extensive nature of these programs strives to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent in 2020 and 80 by 2050 of the 2005 pollution levels.

5). The primary government entities responsible for implementation of the legislation if signed into law would be the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, along with minimal roles from Department of Education, and Department of Labor. Much of these organizations will perform enforcement, inspection, and implementation of programs outlined within the bill. New technologies in energy are available in both private and public sectors, and are vital to the bill’s success.

There is funding through some of the programs listed in the bill provided by the federal government in credits, grants, and loans. In dealing with these sources of funding local governments will be vital in distribution and assurance that money is being properly utilized. Along with new funding will be the creation of new intergovernmental organizations and entities such as the new USDA Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee, the International Climate Change Adaption Program, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training program. U.S. government institutions, as well as state and local governments have some experience in dealing with this type of issue stemming from environmental legislation in the 1970s and early 1990s adopting new regulations and standards. Due to its large scope of addressing several issues, it may take some time to witness successful implementation though.

Americans Rebuild for the "New Urban Century"

(CNN) -- In Charlotte, North Carolina, commuters zip along a sparkling new light rail system into a booming downtown district.

In Sacramento, California, construction workers hammer away at the next generation of green buildings.

And in New York City, rush-hour commuters pedal across popular bike paths that have spread like kudzu across the metropolis.

Those snapshots from cities across America offer a glimpse of the future. Americans are rebuilding their cities and communities to make people, not cars, the center of a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, urban planners and transportation experts say.

"We're creating infrastructure for human beings, rather than automobiles," says Michael Smith, CEO of Center City Partners in Charlotte, a group of business leaders that has helped lead a revival of the city's downtown.

Creating a new infrastructure means new rules, experts say.

What's on the way out: sprawling interstates, suburban living, long car commutes.

What's now in: light rail, green space and vibrant downtown districts.

"As you look at the cities that are going to thrive in the next century, there's a belief that we're entering the urban century," Smith says. "There's a new urbanism that's not about cul-de-sacs or expressways. It's sidewalks, bike paths and parks."

Where America is rebuilding

Smith points to downtown Charlotte as a prime example. During the past decade, downtown Charlotte has added new restaurants, art centers, the soon-to-be-opened NASCAR Hall of Fame and nightspots, Smith says.

Charlotte's downtown growth was the result of good planning, Smith says. Thirty years ago, the city's business and political leaders decided that Charlotte couldn't sustain its suburban growth. So they began rebuilding downtown and eventually won public support to install a light rail system, he says.

Even the Great Recession couldn't stop Charlotte's downtown revival because the rebuilding projects had so much momentum, Smith says.

"We were fortunate to have 30 cranes swinging in our city center as we moved into the teeth of the recession," Smith says.

What's happening in Charlotte is happening across the country, says Kathleen Hughes, executive producer of "Blueprint America," an ongoing PBS series that looks at the rebuilding of America's infrastructure.

During her research, Hughes says she encountered plenty of communities that are using stimulus money for embracing light rail projects and pushing the revitalization of downtown districts.

"There's a sense that America has been built out and spread out too far, and many of us live too far from our neighbors," Hughes says.

Americans aren't just rebuilding their transportation grid; they're also embracing alternate forms of travel, others say.

Bike lanes are popping up in American cities, says Aaron Naparstek, founder of Streetsblog. It's an online community for the Livable Streets movement, a coalition that seeks to transform cities by improving conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.

In cities such as Portland, Oregon, or New York, it's common now to see commuters biking to work, Naparstek says. In New York City alone, 300 miles of bike lanes have been added in the past four years, he says.

Naparstek says he can remember the moment when he thinks Americans' attitude to cars shifted.

"I'm old enough to remember my dad waiting in the gas lines during the first OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] gas crisis," he says. "To me, that was the beginning of the end for the American romance with the automobile."

Rebuilding values as well as roads

As America rebuilds, new industries arise as well.

Oscar Ortega was a construction company foreman who made about $70,000 a year before he was laid off at the end of 2007. With a wife and four daughters, he performed odd jobs to stay afloat.

"I tried not to let it affect me," he says. "If I walked around the home moping, it would affect my family. I tried to be as strong as I could."

Then Ortega read about job openings at ZETA Communities, a green construction company in Sacramento, California. ZETA builds "net-zero" energy homes (homes that produce as much energy as they consume by using devices such as solar panels).

Ortega applied and got a call back. Two years later, he's working as a green builder.

"I feel reborn," he says. "That's what the future is all about: staying green and saving the environment. This new construction is the wave of the future. I'm really excited to be a part of it."

Americans are not only rebuilding their cities and homes, they're also rebuilding their sense of community.

The Great Recession has also forced some to rediscover the value of community. Some of this has been done by establishing time banks, where members trade services that are tracked by hours rather than dollar value.

For example, one member of a time bank may provide an hour of tax advice to another. Another may weed a person's garden for an hour. Each hour-long act receives a "time dollar" that can be used to purchase someone else's labor.

Time banks are designed to build community, its founders say. It teaches people that everyone has value, even if they don't have a job. Thirty-five states have time banks, group founders say.

"The idea is that nobody's labor is worth more than anybody else's labor. We're all in this together," says Judith Lasker, a time bank member and a sociology professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who is writing a book about time bank organizations.

Some Americans are rebuilding their sense of values as well.

Matt Fredenberg of Alpharetta, Georgia, seems like a rarity in the Great Recession; he's working in a thriving industry.

Fredenberg helps his mother and sister run a Senior Helpers franchise. The national franchise sends workers to homes to help family members take care of aging relatives. Their services range from light housekeeping to running errands.

Fredenberg, 26, says his family franchise has 120 employees after four years of operation. Business has been so good that he says "we're hiring like crazy."

But Fredenberg is not talking about parlaying his success into buying bigger and shinier toys. He says he wants to learn from the mistakes of his parents' generation.

Fredenberg says he doesn't own a credit card, uses coupons to eat out and shuns buying more than he needs. His friends do the same.

"Even with cars and houses, we realize that you don't have to have the best," he says. "It doesn't have to be brand new and huge."

Though times are now tough, Fredenberg says his generation is confident. Better days are ahead.

"People are willing to sacrifice some luxuries to be more practical," he says. "We'll come out of this. People are willing to do what it takes."

Defining Sustainability

Sustainable development in growth has gained steam over the last past decade with the heightened awareness of our ability to pollute, waste, and diminish our natural surrounding environment. The concept of sustainable development includes a host of things which can prevent or decrease such problems in our communities. These entail dealing with proper land use and management tactics, curbing our transportation habits, limiting and conserving our energy resource use, and addressing the problems of inequality among the wealthy and low-income. According to Wheeler, “planners in the past often abandoned holistic understanding of urban environments and ignored the realities of political and economic power within society” (Wheeler, 12).

The foundation of sustainable development to some degree originates with the idea of “land ethic” which is a human responsibility to care for particular lands and ecosystems (Wheeler, 20). Coupled with the previous term of land ethic, the thought of this type of emerging development seeks to not add any more distress environmentally on the area that could eventually affect future residents and the community in a negative manner. There are also several different methods to accomplish this such as maintaining natural capital, sustaining human livelihood, and maintenance and improvement of systems within development (Wheeler, 24-25).

With the planning that goes along with sustainable development there are key elements that are present in each project such as long-term goals and objectives, focusing on location and place, realization of environmental limitations, and ongoing community involvement and problem-solving. Additionally, there are what’s called the “three Es” of sustainable planning which include the environment, economics, and equity. Each is critical in having a successful and healthy project for the community and its benefactors. Also, it seeks for social responsibility, a critical factor, in development to allow for accountability of planners, participants, and local entities in the process (Wheeler, 53-62).

Frameworks for Environmental Policy

There are many similar discussion points brought to our attention in Steven Cohen’s “Understanding Environmental Policy. I thoroughly enjoyed his examples of New York City’s solid waste disposal, toxic waste dumping, and simply expansion of individual lifestyles. All three have aided in the process of increases pollution and damaging our local environments. I do believe, as he outlines with the example of San Francisco’s Pay-As-You-Throw program, that there can be innovative measures taken by public entities to combat polluters. Also, I believe he hits home with a great demonstration of how we can be consumed in our own consumption of our private lifestyle, that we become “Jetsoneque”. Meaning of course we are forgetting and neglecting our natural environment due to use and expansion of technology (Cohen, Ch. 2-5).

Furthermore, Cohen emphasizes many of the key issues and historical problems that have been a part of America’s history. These include addressing the problem of pollution through a symptomatic approach rather than an interconnected way. Basically meaning we treat the symptoms of a problem without recognizing that something much larger is at fault and occurring before us. It is almost as if issues are taken in piecemeal form for the majority of the time. This can be attributed to a host of factors including those behind policy making and action implementation. I also find his distinct period labels interesting discussed in three stages; 1970s-1990 “regulating for environmental protection, 1980s-1990s “efficiency-based regulatory reform and flexibility, and lastly 1990-present “toward sustainable communities.” I am curious if there could be potential for a new stage within this series as race forward in renewable energy and technology through these next two or three decades (Cohen, Ch. 6-8).

The American Clean Energy and Security Act

The piece of legislation which I have chosen is HR 2454 The American Clean Energy and Security Act. The bill has been passed in the US House of Representatives 219-212 last summer, however has not been sent to the Senate for consideration. The legislation seeks to tackle several issues regarding energy use, energy efficiency, and global climate change. Also there are many different standards to which it mandates of private industry to adopt.

Clean energy provisions include renewable electricity standards, investments in clean energy, support of private investment in clean energy, and modernization of our electrical grid. Furthermore, there are energy efficiency provisions such as building, appliance, and vehicle standards. Lastly, there are things within the bill which combat climate change such as capping carbon emissions from major polluters, prevention of tropical deforestation, emission and agricultural offsets, cost-containment measures, and carbon capture programs.

The policy in my estimation is very intriguing and ambitious in what it attempts to accomplish. I thought it would be something worthwhile to investigate and compare among previous energy and environmental legislation. There has not been drastically altering legislation regarding both energy use and the environment in quite some time. Moreover, if enacted by the United States, this could be a game changer like the recent passage of healthcare legislation. Not only would this help deter and prevent further problems regarding our environment, it would outline a platform or foundation to work from. This has the potential to force private firms to innovate outside the convenience of being polluters.

Industrialized and Developing Nations Can Unite?

Developing countries should not be able to venture down the same path as industrialized nations for economic success by using fossil fuels and pillaging their own environments. However, they will and have the right to make the case behind attempting to take up the same economic tactics as the United States and Europe did. However, the ramifications from our actions and those that these countries are/or will be up taking has caused substantiated damage to our environmental quality. Not only will harm be delivered upon the rest of the globe, but these poorer developing nations as well in the long term, for a mere small-term economic gain. However, I believe that there are solutions to this quandary that involve all parties. To not take stake in this idea lays claim to immunity of a generation’s profit, for another generation’s poverty.

Western nations, led by the United States, can accomplish a comprehensive solution by aiding these countries in financial assistance, along with equitably choosing to trade more with these nations, as opposed to the usual suspects of China and India. These countries quite possibly could profit more and have some of the wealth spread onto them, providing more monetary support to invest in cleaner technologies to produce goods. Also, these western nations could set up an incentive program geared to help these countries climb out of economic stagnancy without sacrificing our environment. We are just as responsible to help provide assistance to these countries in order to compensate for their competitive advantage. Otherwise, we have no basis or contention against allowing developing countries to use dirty fuels to help increase economic viability.

The discussion of climate change should involve all related parties, which includes those developing nations which are vital to the solution. Industrialized nations may have started the problem, and help maintain a certain level of it to climate change, however developing nations will only expedite problems associated with it. China and India two of the larger developing nations are contributing to severe damage to their local environments, which in effect harm the globe as well. The use of renewable energy among western nations will not help offset the problems related to climate change if China continues to build more coal-fired plants, while having more of its citizens owning vehicles each year.

There needs to be a solution that seeks to benefit everyone in some way, while seeing a sacrifice placed on those nations more well off. This does not mean a transfer or redistribution of wealth, but merely assistance for these developing nations across the board to compete, without destroying their own land. Possibly offering financial assistance, and energy efficient incentives to those American and European companies operating within developing nation’s borders might help the overall problem. The world’s developing nations need to be shown their connection to economic success and the environment. For example, someone would use asbestos in their home because it is cheap because it is a hazard to one’s health and threatens livelihood. Lastly, these developing nations need to be in the discussion, be given options viable and equitable to them, allowed to partner with leaders of the industrialized world to solve this extremely large problem. Also, I would expect them to look to western nations to provide reasonable financial support in order to aide them while taking on these solutions.

As discussed above, China is an important part in the discussion of dealing with developing nation's and their success. Below is an interesting link to a podcast, NPRs Planet Money, which discusses China's currency situation and its relation not only to its economic success, but competitive advantage over other developing nations in trading with the US. They also talk about implications regarding China and how it handles its currency. I thought this might be relevant to this discussion.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/03/podcast_why_chinas_central_ban.html

Wal-Mart Amps Up the Green Light

Here is a very interesting article about Wal-Mart and the investment in "being green" as one of the powerful companies on our globe. Such as local governments have done while Congress and other powerful world leaders debate and talk about solving problems associated with climate change, so are private businesses. Check it out.

http://blogs.edf.org/personalnature/

Self-Destruction In An Oven

Climate change has been debated for nearly three decades now, and has even seen a name change from global warming to its current and more aptly title "climate change." We are more increasingly witnessing this effect on our home each day and each year. Record snowfalls on the east coast, cold spells throughout 49 of our 50 states, and oddly more than usual rainfall in our current region, the Valley of the Sun. Climate change has been hotly contested and discussed, and unfortunately no unified action has occured. The initial development of Kyoto sounded great with ideas of national policies combatting greenhouse gases, transnational emissions trading schemes, and joint venture programs through nations.

One good thing that stems from this is the progress that the European Union has made. Fifteen of the EU's current 25 Annex I countries have less than half emissions per capita than the United States. More inspiring the EU has lowered their 1990 levels, something to drawn from.

I somewhat chuckle to myself when I see the arguements, stagnance, and complanceny of our role within climate change nationally. Several legislators vow to represent their constituents' interests in climate change, however cannot come to a consensus to take action properly. Ironically, local governments are leading the nation by example by having nearly 1,000 city mayors signing on to the ideas of the Kyoto Protocol. More energy efficient methods are being adopted locally, while the constant parlimentary arguements flood our nation's legislative chambers. The traditional fight of economic sacrifice versus environmental maintenance, management, and preservation. We do not all need to be living in trees, eating tofu, or cut off from the grid, however a comprehensive and unified approach among national government, private business, and citizens is imperative finding a common consensus in the balance between the two. All the while, our globe is heating up, altering our normal climates, and causing other problems including economic distress.

Environmental Justice Article and Analysis

The City of Cincinnati, Ohio has an ongoing discussion over a potential ordinance involving environmental protection and regulation within its city. The article, cited from early January 2010, reviews a traditional battle between business growth and environmental sacrifice in an urban setting. The ordinance, aptly titled in the report as “the first-of-its-kind” attempts to place strong oversight over business development, pollution, and waste with the use of a general review board. Furthermore, it would attempt to prevent industrial pollution from occurring in its traditional settings of lower-income and minority neighborhoods.

However, the issue remains of whether to implement the new ordinance due to a couple of different issues. First, the city is struggling like most other municipalities, with a budget deficit for this fiscal year at around $40 million. Secondly, city officials see this ordinance as a deterrent to business development in a time period where new revenue is desperately needed. These issues bring up some things that Press and Manzmanian talk of in sustainable production. Such things as market-based incentives and bringing these businesses to the table for their own input might be healthy solutions (Vig, 221-223). Also, seek to get the surrounding communities involved in order to prevent their own well being from being exploited.

In the past several of the poorer areas of the city have been imposed on by industry being developed and using their locality as their advantage. There has been vast amounts of pollutants that have plagued these areas in Cincinnati, which looked upon with a blind eye. This occurred mainly because of the wealth in industry and manufacturing it saw. However, now the city along with Detroit, Cleveland, and Baltimore, sees itself apart of the deteriorating “Rust Belt.” The issue of cost to implement this new ordinance would be up to $300,000 per year. However, the cost could amount to more with another incident similar to that of 2005, when a styrene leak occurred forcing hundreds to leave the Columbia Tusculum area. More legal costs could amount if something preemptive does not take hold.

As stated in the Vig readings within chapter 10, focusing on examples of companies shifting the way they conduct business is key. Such examples like Jupiter Aluminum Corp and SSAB, Iowa Inc being more environmental sound and more sustainable should be referenced. Also, the use of Marc Eisner’s proposition of market rewards, more reliance on business associations, and more transparent methods of tracking a company’s pollutant levels needs to be discussed here in Cincinnati (Vig, 234-238).

This also got me thinking of where the city plans to go as far as implementing this plan. It seemed as if there was not a plan to possibly deal with business reacting negatively to more environmentally strict regulations. Paehlke brings this type of thinking to mind in chapter 11 with the idea of the “triple-bottom line” of being economically prosperous, maintaining social well-being, and improving environmental quality. As he states it might be harmful for some industries if sustainability does not fit their business plan, however the urban area needs to design a better overall plan to improve this (Vig, 245-249). Moreover, the city might look to improve some of those communities affected by industrial toxic waste through brownfield redevelopment and express to all of its citizens as Paehlke states an “urban-oriented environmental vision.” (Vig, 250).

Lastly, it is important to not rely on a too heavily regulated government and a relaxed form of business policing itself. Through reading several authors in environmental policy, it seems like this creates the “deceive-and-achieve game.” Both private business and government entities need to be on the same page striving for what many of these authors state as a “win-win strategy.” (Potoski and Prakash, 2004).

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-19706-slow-ride-to-nowhere.html

How Sustainable Can We Be?

The discussion of sustainability seems to be on the minds of many when it comes to an answer of new growth and development while ensuring environmental preservation. The idea of sustainable growth is a progressive and very interesting way to maintain a good quality of life without sacrifice our surrounding area. Even the definition of sustainability, "the capacity to continuously produce the necessities of a quality human existence within the bounds of a natural world of undiminished quality," sounds all too perfect and easy (Vig, 245). So how do we get there?

Understanding what each of our communities need, as well as their assets and drawbacks is important. Also, I believe that knowing in this process of becoming sustainable that there will be some causalities within the private sector. However, in a utilitarian manner, more will certainly benefit. Next, we need to free ourselves from aspire to need more and more, and consume more and more. This includes things like urban sprawl, food consumption, and excessive use of energy.

Additionally, as suggested by authors within environmental studies, investment in more efficient modes of transportation, more ways to deter over use of personal vehicles, and more smart growth within smaller areas of cities such as urban villages. I like seeing the four stage approach of a sustainable city of revitalizing central cities, development on transit-oriented locations, discouragement of urban sprawl, and extension of transit-systems (Vig, 247-551). Hopefully, these ideas and more can be nurtured and developed in order to improve our homes, communities, cities, and our nation, with the intentions of being adopted by other countries all over the globe. We must continue to innovate to invigorate.

Environmental Justice and It's Relationship With Development

Communities have long faced the problems and impacts related to careless development and overuse of local property in favor of economic gain. Typically this involves the creation of industry in a local area with the intention to create jobs and stability to a community and usually that is how it is or was pitched. As we see though in the readings, along with other regional example there are several unintended consequences that may have caused more distress than good. Also, we see the development and placement of industry within areas which may not have a strong voice of opposition due to lack of resources. Based on David Konisky’s article, the results are somewhat astonishing displaying that the lower social economic class within an area, the less environmental enforcement takes place. Is this merely because residents are unaware of conditions, lack community unity in favor of more action, or are just apathetic towards local conditions? For the most part I would assume that most of the time the community lacks organizing efforts and financial resources to push for more enforcement.

Now industry development has been vital to economic success over the last century, however new foresight was and is needed to improve the use of these areas. This could include improving the conditions and reinventing an industrialized area under Brownfield development. Also, some of these buildings have the potential to be converted to housing, retail, office, or possibly some other type of mixed-use. Pittsburgh, PA has done just this by now using former industrialized buildings for use of high-tech development and offices. This has allowed not only a safer way to utilize these structures, but has given the city a rebirth instead of slowly suffering and dying like their other rustbelt counterparts, Cleveland and Detroit.

Furthermore, there is a new mentality to improve areas along equitable lines that includes a new term called smart growth. Mainly, the basic premise of smart growth looks to revive urban and inner city areas, where many low-income citizens reside. Ideally the policy sounds pretty good, however such as the development several decades ago of industry, there are unintended consequences. One of the problems that can occur is gentrification of the community. Ironically, this hurts those intended to help, and new-comers somewhat benefit as free-riders off of the redevelopment. Fortunately, in areas across the nation more citizens have begun to get involved in the discussion of revitalization of communities voicing their concern, and allowing smart growth to be curbed in their interest. This needs to continue in order to increase the quality of life for low-income individuals (improving education and deterring crime), increase the discussion and thought behind being innovative (development of more efficient and effective ways of doing things), and give a renewal to areas that are drifting away and causing more economic distress (eliminating more money being used to only fix certain parts of a large problem).

NEPA and Valuing Nature

Public managers are not elected officials; however they are stilled regarded and accountable to actions that concern their constituents or community. Although, they may not be as publicly visible, they deal directly with issues regarding policy of local, state, and national legislators, and those services that affect communities through implementation and enforcement of policy. Thus, it is important for managers and planners to inform the public and raise awareness on issues concerning them. Public input and involvement is vital in maintaining trust among those you serve.

When dealing with issues regarding the environment there are several technical details and subtleties to keep in mind. Most of this information is generally useful to practitioners and academics but may seem somewhat cumbersome and confusing to the public at large. It is important to relay information, whether it be environmental impact effects, contamination hazards, or other situations regarding the state of the environment to elected officials and the public in a succinct and concise manner. This includes submitting facts, those who it potentially affects, severity risks, costs associated, and possibly solutions. The delivery of how one engages with the public is probably most important, relaying a sense of concern, awareness, professionalism, and stability demonstrating that there may be an issue with something while instilling faith in the institution.

Three environmental problems that come to mind when considering the use of contingent valuation are water use and conservation, transportation use in regards to air quality, and energy consumption dealing with electricity need. I believe these could work in relation to contingent valuation because of the user costs already associated with each. Also, each of these is used by consumers on a daily basis and might be more susceptible in implement CV. For instance, consumers could be prompted on willingness to pay based on conservation of the Colorado and Salt Rivers or other natural water ways within the state being used. Also, some of these water sources are also used for recreational activity, and thus might carry more weight of importance.

In regards to transportation and energy consumption these reflect local communities and regions, which is important in the use of contingent valuation. One might care more about their local area rather than the nation, continent, or globe for that matter. Air quality, although difficult to deal with because of any absent ownership, could see local areas assess what their air means to them, and associate a tax or surcharge applied to mileage driven and miles per gallon. The only problem foreseen would be that consumers might feel discontent, if other regions do not follow similar suit. Energy consumption would be very similar to this, displaying to people the exploitation of natural resources in their region and the damage caused over time. Overall, I think contingent valuation might have a better chance of succeeding if the causes stay local.

Contingent valuation can be a useful tool is assessing damage and environmental worth pending on the resource we are examining. A couple things that probably would not work within CV would be the Earth’s ocean’s dealing with conservation and cleanup, urban sprawl associated with growth, and preservations of non-regional natural wonders. The commonality between each of these, at least in my perspective, is lack of ownership by any one party. Now, you’re probably saying what is different between our air and our oceans, and to me it is simple our utility and necessity for oxygen is more apparent to average citizens than massive water bodies which may not be remotely close to where someone resides. How could someone ideally state what the value of four large bodies of water which cover nearly 75 percent of our Earth. In my perspective it would be somewhat impossible. Would a tax placed on someone living in the Midwest, who may not see much utility from involuntarily giving money to protect an ocean?

Also, another non-local area which may be hard to impose CV might be preservation of natural wonders which are not already paid for by tax dollars such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone Parks. Like those who live in areas not within a reasonable amount of travel distance, what is the benefit that they will seek? For someone in New York State, I doubt they would ideally understand or place a value on La Jolla Beach. What is the true value of the Gulf of Mexico when you ask Floridians or Texans? Quite a different perspective I imagine. This leads me to believe that in order for CV to work it has to demonstrate some sort of utility and/or ownership to citizens.

Op Ed: Who Are We and Where are We Going in Environmental Policy?

The development of environmental issues and public concern has become a major discussion over the last portion of the 20th Century and early within our current one. There are several actors within these debates and policy initiatives including federal, state, and local governments, policy organizations/interest groups, as well as those federal institutions such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Congress, and our U.S. Supreme Court. Each of these has played an important role within shaping environmental policy. What is vital to note is that in most cases those non-governmental entities, such as citizens, sometimes lack the ability and capacity to address these issues. Also, these actors within the policy debate seek to reduce and mitigate health concerns while maintain an equilibrium between economic aspirations and environmental needs.

Within the major actors such as the president, they have a variety of ways influential to the process including agenda setting, appointments, budgets, initiatives, executive orders and oversight (Vig, 76). Congressional authority sometimes becomes an obstacle to a president’s approach, by passing legislation and conducting oversight, however they often find themselves placed in a precarious position by not always taking the lead in these actions. In addition, the U.S. Supreme embodies its interpretation of the law, in determining proper suit, application of law, and proper resolve of the affected parties. In many cases, the US Supreme Court is instrumental in setting precedents for proper environmental enforcement and management (Vig, 128-133).

When we start examining issues that encompass environmental regulations and standards, we first discover the sluggishness of the government action. Merely four major policy actions were taken prior to what some deem as “the environmental decade,” with the exception for major land conservation and preservation by President Teddy Roosevelt. The 1970s witness’s great strides in environmental quality and assurance with policy such as the Clean Water Acts of 1970, ’72, ’77, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which would enforce policy on behalf of the federal government. President Jimmy Carter was most likely the biggest proponent for environmental issues seeking major advances, conversely only to be later characterized by some as a belated success. Nonetheless, early in the 1980s such policies as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act demonstrated America’s focus and shift towards important pieces that would improve our nation (Vig, 9-15).

Unfortunately, this period would end abruptly with the introduction of a Congressional time of policy gridlock and President Ronald Reagan with his mentality as an “administrative president.” He illustrated this by slicing environmental spending using a very investigative and scrutinized approach to how effective these programs and policies worked. The appointments of Anne Gorsuch & James Watt, whom both demonstrated history divergent of environmental policy, displayed Reagan’s stance on these issues. It was Reagan though who would ultimately lose this scuffle to popular public viewpoints on issues regarding the environment (Vig, 79-81).

Following Reagan, G.H. Bush, the “environmental president,” and strong Congressional environmental leadership, took a bi-partisan approach. Bush demonstrated this through appointments and the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Bush though would vacate the office with the perception of the nation being somewhat disengaged from a worldwide comprehensive environmental standpoint (Vig 81-82). Assuming his position in 1992, President Clinton had lofty goals in environmental issues with raising CAFE standards and green technology investments. Clinton though, witnessed defeat in his overall objectives with a powerful conservative legislative body stalling several of his objectives. However, his ability to preserve more public land, since the progressively thinking Teddy Roosevelt, was a satisfactory achievement in his two terms (Vig, 82-84).

G.W. Bush, often described in controversial terms, especially in other topics regarding the nation’s issues, pushed for traditional conservative efforts by freeing up regulatory policies in a pro-business manner. He also maintained the Republican platform, similar to that of Reagan, seeking to investigate scientific issues hovering around climate change, and was allegedly involved in more deceptive tactics regarding environmental issues. However, Bush was occupied with several other problems (war on terrorism, economic crises, and natural disasters) that defined his administration (Vig, 85-90).

The pattern or trend throughout these past forty years can be summarized in the movement of a pendulum to some degree, with progressive policy and implementation occurring, while just as quickly being scrutinized, frozen, or eliminated. However, over time we have seen the public perception, legislative policy, attempts at national energy policy reform, and enforcement move into a modern progression, even though the EPA’s budget has nearly stayed “flat” for three decades (Vig-16-20). This can be attributed most likely to state and local governments taking it upon themselves with limited resources and citizen participation, while the political banter has continued on Pennsylvania Ave and the Hill. Although not all states have identical ideals regarding environmental management, several improvements have been made with regional partnerships, higher water and air quality standards (above federal guidelines), and economic incentives like tax credits and “green taxes.” Also, over half the states have “renewable portfolio standards” (Vig 29-37).

Moreover the Obama Administration has taken measures to demonstrate the seriousness and significance of climate change, and its direct relation to the environment, energy efficiency, and “smart” or “green” growth. Also, Obama, like President Clinton, is seeking to drastically complete these objectives. In just one and a half months after being sworn in as Commander-In-Chief, Obama has allotted $80 billion renewable energy projects and initiatives, new tax incentives, and environmental enforcement and conservation efforts. As stated earlier, the budget for the EPA was frozen for nearly three decades, but that “glacier” has melted and seen a current operating budget of $10.5 billion (Vig, 91-92).

Obama has created new opportunities and a vision by taking an innovative initiative allowing people to understand the importance of sustainability through creating green projects not only nationally but in their home. The investment may have totaled more than anticipated financially, however Americans are appreciating and observing the effects on the globe. China and India, two of the largest pollution producers are developing new green technology to compete with the United States. The new grid being build throughout our nation has created jobs for nearly 100,000 Americans, and will create an efficient manner of transmitting wind and solar energy, as well as nuclear power to both the east and west coast. Obama’s Administration working with Congress in a bi-partisan fashion has also allowed clean energy competition to take place, allowing consumers to choose which source of energy they want to use. Lastly, the President’s program giving tax incentives to public-private partnerships to go towards efforts of green space development and water conservation/treatment, which has helped improve blighted areas and ease concerns of water quality for several large metropolitan areas.

Environmental Policy Newspaper Article

President Obama is seeking to invest roughly $2.3 billion in more clean energy tax credits. This issue relates to a few different areas which overlap, renewable energy, the environment, economic competition, and job creation, since it is mainly regarding the manufacturing industry. Each of these relative areas aspires to create a multiplier effect inferred from the current Administration. President Obama seeks to be aggressive with America’s investment into more “green jobs,” yet while it may seem unpopular due to its cost to taxpayers. The tax credits also have the intention to help working and middle class America in nearly every state encompassing close to 200 different projects. However, the previous administration and more over the last two decades have not seen an increased effort to improve these areas which allows this opportunity to be accomplished. Obama’s perspective may mirror that of President Bill Clinton with very a strong stance to improve environmental issues. On the other hand the Carter Administration, which may have seemed somewhat lackluster in his effect at the time, established the mood for those like Clinton and Obama to push forward a more comprehensive approach (Vig, 75-79).

As those opposed to this particular issue will state, this may cost up to $8 billion if the President’s requested amount to Congress is approved, however it is an investment in our future. Furthermore, it is one that has the potential to pay dividends within advancements in energy efficiency, less damage to our environment over a long period of time, and the creation of competition in this field by creating more job opportunities. Recipients of the credit include manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power materials. While the Bush Administration did get the Energy Policy Act of 2006 passed, it may have sought too much investment in the petroleum industry, with little language adopting more conservation efforts. However, the policy did seek more use of nuclear power which has become more efficient and cleaner disposal techniques. Also, as opposed to Obama’s plan Bush sought tax reductions in many of these industries, rather than sustainable growth. Furthermore, the previous administration allowed through these policies a much more relaxed mentality allowing more “wiggle-room” for private industry to maneuver encouraging “clean coal” technology and increased off-shore drilling (Vig, 86-88).

Obama’s approach to these issues has become more populist over the last year, as he attempts to gain support from the “Right.” Nonetheless, he seeks to compete with other nations and strives to push America to be the leader and innovator in green technology and a cleaner nation. On the other hand, the amount of money being invested into this program only creates roughly 58,000 jobs with the intention to do more. That is only half of what the U.S. lost in December. I believe that this investment is imperative; however, I feel that this shift towards green technology and jobs is long overdue. Having that sentiment, the American people must be patient with these types of developments because of their impact on how we live and how it will improve the environment which we inhabit.

Within the discussion I would like to see more emphasis placed on the social costs savings and positive externalities on our environment in regards to these green jobs. For these jobs only will exist due to the nature that we want to preserve our well-endowed nation and our planet. Policymakers and the executive branch must not become confused with the means and the ends of what we are doing when regarding renewable energy and environmental preservation. Lastly, Obama needs to stress the impartiality of conserving our environment, demonstrating that no longer are these issues platform staples of the” Left” or the “Right,” but vital to both. In pushing for more of these jobs and developments in energy we can create a sustainable economy, while driving down greenhouse gas use and limiting use of fossil fuels by the largest consumer in the world, ourselves.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/74989-obama-announces-23b-in-clean-energy-manufacturing-credits

Federal Institutions & Their Effects on Environmental Issues

When we speak of environmental issues the debate sometimes turns toward a lofty left approach which sometimes can become absurd. However, most of the factors surrounding the discussion revolves around our executive, legislative, and judicial branches, along with the largest regulatory agency, the Environmental Protection Agency. Each of these components really has its own part to play in the dance they do with each other and the general public.

Presidential agendas and campaigns seeking to balloon or shrink the magnitude and effort of environmental protection has occurred throughout the past four decades. However, it also is somewhat of a constant battle fundamentally and philosophically with how each administration deals with these issues. Also, their work with their counterpart branch just blocks away becomes either a roadblock or pathway to improve or eliminate environmental regulations and standards.

Furthermore, there is a somewhat quiet presence of the U.S. Supreme Court and its interpretation of policy in both federal and state legislation. With the courts seeking to determine the right behind legal action, interpretation of law, and how to solve or remedy the problems being brought to suit. I really like seeing the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), as they are sort of a way to insert and ingrain those at fault to a societal gain.

History of Environmental Policy in the US Discussion

I find it interesting to how we as America have gotten to the point environmentally where we are. Also, in this discussion we witness the effect and influence the US Government, state and local governments, interest groups, and the policy method itself all among each other. Furthermore, it took the United States nearly to the anniversary of its bicentennial to see important environmental issues and problems be formidably addressed, only seeing roughly four policies aimed at issues regarding environmental protection, preservation, or conservation. Although the perception of championing policies and programs seeking these outcomes is that of being a liberal or that of the Democratic Party, it was a Republican President, Richard Nixon, who first created an organization that enforced these environmental issues, the EPA.

This alludes to the modern day point which I believe a consensus has been loosely agreed on. This is the idea that the environment is vital and important to preserve and maintain, however to what lengths is the arguement in legislatures at the state and national levels. It is that freedom among the states that allows this debate to be continued even if funding may be cut, redirected, or added pending on which party controls the White House and Capitol Hill.

As we see in the readings by Norman Vig, states seem to take the federal guidelines to enforcing environmental policy into their own hands. Some states may see the federal standards as the bare minimum, while others may use it as a maximum threshold to meet causing much variance among states and regions. Looking at states like Minnesota who developed the Toxic Pollution Prevention Act in 1990 and California who proposed the Green Wave Environmental Investment Initiative in 2004, allows for examples to be set for other states.

Lastly, it seems that the federal government has allowed much freedom with environmental policies within states even while states depend greatly on federal funding through grants. The areas such as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), climate registry reports, and other regional partnerships are very important and useful towards improving the quality of our environment. However, I remain skeptical about the reporting methods in some cases with accuracy, accountability, and responsibility in these related areas.

Welcome

I look forward to this class and hearing each of your thoughts on environmental issues throughout the semester. In relation to this class and some of my personal interests, I have been reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman, to which he discusses the overpopulating Earth, climate change, and globalization. Many things that he talks about in the book relates to environmental issues, including the impact of developments in third world nations such as India and China, and even Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, energy issues (dependence on petroleum and oil & renewable energy), among many other things.

Without giving away too much of the author's perspective and ideas, he maps out current problems and their relation within the environment, and provides possible solutions to growing issues. Friedman also gives his perspective on how we can push for massive green innovations which can result in revolutionizing the way we live.

If any of you are really interested in these types of issues and problems I strongly recommend checking this book out. It is a good read and gives you a good idea of where we are today in relation to not only the problems we deal with in the United States, but the rest of the globe.