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).
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
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.
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
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
Monday, February 1, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)