Local Sustainability Planning: The Cleveland Carbon Fund

I am really interested in environmental policy developments in the Great Lakes region, since I am originally from Wisconsin and protecting the environment is a passion of mine. I came across the following article in the Plain Dealer, Clevelands’s major newspaper: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/123322159481880.xml&coll=2. The article outlines a local sustainability initiative developed by the “Cleveland Carbon Fund”. This is a new development debuting just this past January which allows individuals to donate a number and although larger organizations such as insurance companies have such funds that individuals and companies can contribute to to offset energy use, the organizers of this fund are calling it “the first ever community-based, open access carbon reduction fund” in the country.

So what is a carbon footprint? One definition of carbon footprint that I came across is “the total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product”. Greenhouse gases are needed, but an imbalance of them – particularly too much of them – will cause imbalances in the earth’s climate causing major natural disasters. A local fund like this I can see growing beyond just supporting projects that seek to reduce the carbon footprint – I can also see it addressing other environmental concerns such as protecting endangered species and helping to clean our waterways.

Who developed this fund? About half a year before the fund was launched, a steering committee was created with representatives from a number of major local organizations including the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Clinic.

How does the Cleveland fund work? I wanted to know more about the project besides just that it allowed individuals in the area to donate money to the fund which would then offset their carbon footprint. Where exactly will the money go? The clevelandcarbonfund.org website says the fund sponsors the formation and implementation of local carbon reduction projects. Examples of these projects include CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lamp) installation, showerhead replacement, and home weatherization. To be more specific, the home weatherization project would donate funds to seal and insulate homes to better retain heat in the winter. The fund website reports that weatherizing 20 homes, for instance, reduces carbon emissions by 40 tons each year.

While I am happy to hear of any sustainability efforts, I do not see how one person could be guaranteed a certain amount of carbon offset per dollar. The company does mention that the performance of the current project portfolio is $20 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. I would like to know how this is measured. The performance of the fund really depends on how the money is allocated. For instance, if a certain amount is allocated for a small local sustainability business to start, some of the funding may go to business start up and not necessarily to direct sustainability improvements. Secondly, if home weatherization services are donated to houses in low income areas, occupants may just choose to keep their house warmer than they normally would – which would not necessarily save energy.

Benefits to this fund are numerous regardless if the benefits are not directly translated into immediate decreases in carbon releases. It stimulates the local economy and helps build businesses focused on sustainability in the long run. This is especially important now considering that Cleveland is especially hard hit by the current recession. Even if immediate effects are not obtained, the fund sets the stage for long term sustainability benefits.

A fund like this could be translated to all levels of government and not just locally like the Cleveland Carbon Fund. Implementing a fund like this to a more widespread area would cause the fund to loose a number of benefits including stimulating the local economy and creating innovative small business. It would also loose the prospect of more evenly distributing wealth. A larger fund would more likely create or donate funds to larger sustainability businesses a.k.a gigantic corporations. Whether or not the environmental quality would improve at a larger level depends on where the money would go and the organization of the effort. There is a greater chance for corruption on a large scale. Businesses may not use 100% of the money in ways that contribute to sustainability, but like in recent scandals, may use it to give directors bonuses.

I could see a fund like this work at an international level if it was organized well. For instance, contributions could help set aside land to be protected in threatened areas throughout the world or be given to countries for the same types of projects that Northeastern Ohio has developed. Overall, I can see a fund like this at any level being successful not only for offsetting one’s carbon footprint but because of it’s ability develop innovative and energy efficient products and processes.

Sustainable Planning Tools

I am always interested in environmental documentaries to watch so the following review in the New York Times, “PBS and HBO Examine Global Warming, Dimming of the Sum and Vanishing Species” caught my eye. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/arts/television/18comb.html?fta=y

This article I think fits into 2 of the 11 general environmental topics we covered this week. One, the documentaries are important educational tools for sustainability planning. Wheeler states that “one common behind [education, communication, and consensus building] is the recognition that for political or social change to occur people’s beliefs, knowledge, values, and paradigms of thought must also change.” I completely agree, especially in a democratic society, the public at large must become aware of the environmental issues that we face. Educational grassroots efforts on the part of interest groups are likewise benefiting people in developing nations, helping them understand the concept of an endangered species. Many of the people in some of the most fragile areas do not understand that the areas that they live are unique to the planet – they simply think that the species and habitats that surround them are more far reaching than they are – which gives little motivation for them to protect those areas.

The article gives an overview of three documentaries – two on PBS, one on HBO. They are “Nova: Dimming the Sun”, “Journey to Planet Earth: The State of the Planet’s Wildlife”, and “Too Hot Not to Handle”. These are just some of the documentaries produced for the general public recently. I recently watched a PBS documentary called “Hot Zones: Journey to Planet Earth”. The movie, like the previous ones I mentioned is not only an educational device, but it touches upon the sustainability issues in industrialized versus less developed countries. For instance, “Hot Zones” talks about how many third world nations have lost all but less than 10% (in certain areas all but 1%) of their tropical rainforests to logging, farming, etc. The phrase hot zones refers to areas on earth that are densely packed with a high percentage of the world species and if destroyed a huge percentage of these species will be extinct forever. Some habitats are just one likely forest fire away from being swept away.

Countries like Brazil and Madagascar argue that they have the right to do what they please within their own countries while the international community including other countries, the UN, interest groups, scientists and biologists have been trying to stop the destruction. Overall everyone on earth is affected. A loss of a species and habitat has worldwide repercussions from the loss of our ability to study the species to the surrounding communities loosing the resources to sustain themselves.

One reason that these countries face such issues regarding regions that should be protected is because of informal housing arrangements. People do not have title to land and areas are not zoned against use. This situation leaves people, especially in areas where land and resources are scare, to encroach on regions that are endangered.

A New York Times article last September reports that “Portland Again Tops a Sustainable Cities List” - http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/portland-again-tops-a-sustainable-cities-list/?scp=1&sq=sustainability%20indicators&st=cse. Have you ever wondered how certain cities are measured based on their sustainability? Although it is common knowledge that Portland is an environmentally friendly city, who would have thought that Chicago ranks four – I always thought that city looked pretty industrial. How did Phoenix drop 10 spots from 22 to 32 in one year? What methods are used to measure a city’s sustainability?

The article summarizes that the criteria used to come up with the ranking analyzes a number of obvious issues such as transportation options as well as more obscure one such as emergency preparedness. The article refers to an organization called SustainLane which actually assembles criteria, outputs rankings (SustainLane U.S. City Rankings), and outlines how they came to their conclusions. Another issue that they look at in addition to the two that I mentioned before is what is happening at the city level – what policy is being created to help cities sustain themselves. So, not only do they look at what is being provided now – but what seeds have been planted to foster sustainable development.

In addition to organizations such as SustainLane, 25 large cities have assembled their own criteria as well according to “Planning for Sustainability” by Steven M. Wheeler. The most notable city and corresponding sustainability indicator comes from Seattle Washington – a city that is frequently among the top of sustainability rankings. Its called the Sustainable Seattle process and outlined a number of sustainable indicators that eventually grew to number 40. Another interesting set of indicators was developed by the Jacksonville, Florida local government and measure “Quality of Life”.

The indicators outlined vary per organization that developed them. Some are common such as Air Quality and others are criticized for not being accurate. For instance, how can a sense of community be measured? Some indicators are just measured locally, others by organizations, and others by large governmental departments such as the EPA. Overall sustainability indicators can be very specific in nature or can just give an overview of what is going on with the development of a region. In any case, they are useful to pointing out problems as well as show the improvements that sustainable development can bring.

Sustainability and Policy Making

1. How do you believe sustainability should be defined for policy-making?

A combination of strong and weak sustainability should be the goal for policy making with strong sustainability (although challenging) as the primary goal. Strong sustainability requires us to leave our future generations as well off as we are ourselves but acknowledges that capital cannot always replace natural resources – so leaving future generations with a lot of money and a fast-paced economy in place of natural resources will not do the trick. The weak sustainability mentality believes that a sum of money can be equivalent to an irreplaceable species. Strong sustainability argues that certain resources are irreplaceable. For instance once a certain habitat is gone we cannot bring it back because with it will disappear hundreds if not thousands of species along with it. We need to recognize that we are at such a fragile point in our planet’s economic development. For instance, if only one forest in the wrong part of the planet is swept with fire or overdeveloped it could be a significant percentage of species gone forever.

At the same time as promoting strong sustainability, we should honor certain aspects of weak sustainability in our policy making by understanding that making future generations as well off as we are requires a healthy economy in addition to natural resources so this collatoral is exchangeable to some extent. We should be careful not to slow the economy while seeking to protect the environment. Planning needs to be done in a way that maintains and even creates jobs instead of making people worse off in order to improve the environment.

2. What are the difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal?

Sustainability is a difficult policy goal to have because one does not see results in the short term and since legislative and presidential political positions have 2, 4, and 6 year electoral periods it is hard for them to get votes based on sustainability as a campaign issue. Sustainability requires a significant financial investment and money in policy is often spent where there are immediate or short term results. Additionally, especially during this time of economic crisis, other issues tend to take precedent over environmental issues.

3. If you had to design a practical framework to help a state environmental agency (e.g., Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality) achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability, what would the framework look like?

The framework would be both applicable to industries and individual households. For more long term goals I would work with industries in two ways. I would facilitate the design of a program that would help industries decrease the pollutants that are created and released via their production methods. Secondly, I would work with them to create products from recycled materials and that produce less waste themselves. To promote economic aspects with this program I would either provide funding or incentives such as free publicity to companies who participate in this program.

I believe that in order to make a big impact with the environment in the long term we need to change the behavior of industries yet at the same time we need to change what the public is demanding. I would help create “lightweight” methods for the public to participate in (such as making recycling more accessible) and distribute easy and fun to read educational materials to help the public understand issues surrounding packaging and smart consumption. When it comes to promoting participation in environmental protection, education is key. People do not know what they need to to follow a policy unless it is clearly and easily articulated to them - even for the brightest of us. For instance, people will not know that you need to rinse recyclables unless you somehow tell them. They will not know that they shouldn’t tamper with a certain endangered plant unless they know what that plant is. A great way to access a generation of people is in the classroom. I would collaborate with the state department of education to create programs for learning about the environment and sustainability.

4. Voters and politician often want short term results, but many argue that sustainable development calls for a long-term policy plan. How do we take the long term view that sustainable development requires in this political environment?

A long term view requires a significant backing by the public in order to motivate politicians to take sustainability up as a campaign issue. Politicians, likewise, can also motivate the public to take sustainability up as an issue they believe in knowing that in turn the public will pressure politicians to take this up as an issue to focus lawmaking and government purses on.

Take for instance Al Gore’s strong advocation of the environment with his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. Millions of people have watched his powerful and persuasive documentary. While there are some right-wingers that still do not believe that the environment has suffered from our over-consumption of the planet, most people who watched did get the message. As a result, we are closer to convincing a number of politicians to take up the environment as a focus.

Frameworks for the Great Lakes Water Protection Act

I have changed my paper topic to H.R.54 (Great Lakes Water Protection Act) which seeks to "amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a deadline for restricting sewage dumping into the Great Lakes and to fund programs and activities for improving wastewater discharges into the Great Lakes."  I am particularly interested in this bill since grew up near Lake Michigan and I am moving to the Cleveland area which is near Lake Erie this summer.

1. What components of your policy issue are most relevant for Cohen’s “Values” Framework?

According to Cohen sewage has been being dumped into our waterways since the United States began and it has been found that sewage and other pollutants negatively affect its fragile ecosystem, including its aquatic food chains and fish populations. As of 2006, an average of around 24 billion gallons of untreated sewage had overflowed into the Great Lakes every year.  One report that analyzed municipal sewage treatment and discharges into the Great Lakes basin of 20 Canadian and American cities, blantantly said “We need to stop treating the Great Lakes like a toilet”.  The issue my policy bring ups is more about what we don’t value rather than what we do value.  The Great Lakes contains 9/10th of the freshwater in the United States and supplies significant amounts of our water usage in the U.S. and Canada.  We have been viewing the abundance of fresh water this region of the country has to offer as a convenience to be at our disposal instead of viewing it at a resource to be prized and protected.  Hopefully our values will change now that we recognize the fragile nature of the Great Lakes and treat them with respect instead of pillaging them for economic gain and convenience.

2. What components of your policy issue are relevant for Cohen’s “Political” Framework?

On January 6th of this year the Great Lakes Water Protection Act was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and then to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.  This bill is just one of many that seeks to protect the Great Lakes.  It grew out from an Obama campaign promise that proposed a $5 billion trust fund, phased out over 10 years, for Great Lakes cleanup.  The promise also included designating a coordinator to oversee Great Lakes programs and to amplify efforts against invasive species which is not included within this particular bill.  This bill does, however, seek to establish a Great Lakes Cleanup Fund from which amounts shall be provided for improving wastewater discharges.

The campaign promise and subsequent bill are in part a response to the growing number of interest groups regarding Great Lake Protection.  One such coalition, Healing Our Waters (HOW), is the product of several environmental groups and foundations coming together in 2005 for the purpose of creating public awareness and rallying support for Great Lakes avocation.  Competing interest groups siding with industry initiatives are likely to play up research that reports the environmental contamination in the Great Lakes claims the data is inadequate to prove the pollution poses a threat to human health.  Although the pollutants these interest groups are interested in are not necessarily sewage sludge, their efforts could undermine other efforts regarding sewage contamination as well.

3. What components of your policy issue are most relevant for Cohen’s “Science and Technology” Framework?

The bill states that publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) cannot intentionally divert waste streams to bypass any portion of the treatment facility if the diversion results in a discharge into the Great Lakes.  This brings up two questions.  Why are treatment facilities bypassing parts of the treatment facilities?  The answer to this is that some treatment plants have not installed adequate back-up equipment when the equipment is down due to normal downtime periods or during preventive maintenance.  Secondly, does the technology exist to create appropriate treatment facilities that can prevent harmful discharges such as into the Great Lakes?  If not, can it be created?  The technology does exist, and like Cohen explained regarding gas tank leaks, the problem is not so much in the engineering aspects, but rather within the management aspects.  This bill provides a good framework for motivating local governments to improve their management processes in order to bring attention to the sewage treatment problem and come up with an adequate solution.

Another aspect of the policy regarding science and technology is not just the technology required to treat sewage appropriately but science is also required to understand if sewage dumping into the Great Lakes is harmful at all.  Research has gone both ways.  Some studies show that sewage and other pollutants have been harmful.  Others show that they do not pose a serious threat to human health.  Results of these studies play a large role in supporting different political viewpoints.

4. What components of your policy issue are most relevant for Cohen’s “Policy Design” Framework? 

The Great Lakes Water Protection Act amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (22 U.S.C. 1342) so it already relies on much of the framework of the previous Act.  There are additional components from the Great Lakes bill that add to this policy design framework, however.   If the act is passed funds would become available “to the Great Lakes States for programs and activities for improving wastewater discharges into the Great Lakes, including habitat protection and wetland restoration.”  These funds would come from violations of Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  The compliance date the bill sets for the stipulations in the Act (dumping sewage into the Great Lakes) is January 1, 2029.  After that date there is to be an increase in the maximum civil penalty - $100,000 per day for each day the violation occurs. 

5. What components of your policy issue are most relevant for Cohen’s “Management” Framework?

Management along with value are the most important roles in this legislation.  The Great Lakes Water Protection Act calls for a deadline because the technology exists, the management/organizational structures are in place, they just need to be implemented correctly to treat sewage in the appropriate way.  The reasons why sewage is being dumped into the Great Lakes is because of the lack of value we place on them and the management issues surrounding sewage disposal.  This bill creates a serious motivation for sewage treatment plants to literally clean up their act and provides the funding necessary to purchase necessary technology and build additional roles required to oversee correct treatment.

Developing Countries and the Environment

1. Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and the U.S. did to increase their economic well-being? Why or why not?

We now know if forests are destroyed at their current rate we will loose a number of precious resources we cannot get back including an unfathomable ½ of the worlds species to extinction. Although during their economic development Europe and the U.S. had the lawful right to exploit forests, I do not think they had the ethical right. Hundreds of species were extinct in the process and other irreversible environmental effects took place. If we knew then what we know now, I'd like to think we'd have done things differently. Likewise, I don’t think that developing countries have the ethical right to exploit forests and therefore, I don’t think they should have this right legally because exploiting forests will have astounding negative effects both on their futures and on the rest of the world’s. Yet, if an international law or protocol to this regard should come to be, support from industrialized nations should be a part of it. This support should include educating and facilitating developing nations to increase their economic well-being in a sustainable way.

It is possible for developing nations to grow economically without destroying forests. Richard Tobin in his article “Environment, Population, and the Developing World” argues, the export potential of forest products other than timber such as cork, rattan, oils, resins, and medicinal plants provide great economic incentives for these countries. For instance, one-fourth of the United State’s prescription drugs have their origins in tropical plants. Like I said before, to accomplish this sustainable growth, developed countries, such as the U.S. and Europe, should help. This could even be a stipulation within any law that is made to curtail forest exploitation.

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

a. Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?

I do think equity should be a goal in the climate change debate. It is hypocritical for developed nations to try to curtail the emissions on the part of developing nations without holding themselves to the same criteria. I think we need to take a good look at the emissions rates now and decide how we can lower these rates world-wide, yet allowing for minor increases in emissions on the part of developing countries based on their economic growth. Developing countries still should be concerned about their emissions, however, and equal treatment doesn’t mean that the industrialized nations should be the only ones to amp up their controls. For instance, pollution control devices should be required worldwide. In China, coal is used for most of the countries electrical power and yet the conversion process does not utilize the pollution control devices used in the United States and other countries.

b. What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?

It is easy to see why a developing nation would value economic development more than slowing down global warming because, in many of these nations, the citizens are worried about surviving now rather than the prospects of their future generations. However, it is imperative that the most populous and largest contributors of emissions of the developing nations be required to participate in reducing emissions. Industrialized nations should support the efforts of these developing nations by supporting some of their other urgent needs such as food, health, and education resources (and likewise help them lower their population growth rates in an ethical manner).

No doubt the industrialized nations are the greatest contributors to emissions, but, for instance, China is a huge contributor to emissions as well even though it is a developing nation. According to Tobin, between 1999 and 2003, 40 percent of the increase in the world’s demand for petroleum was due to China and yet this demand is set to double between 2003 and 2025. Tobin also notes that, “If recent projections are accurate, China will provide the world’s largest absolute increases in carbon dioxide emissions between 2000 and 2020.”

As of 2004, the estimated population in the worlds developed countries was 1.206 billion and the totals for the developing countries were 5.190 billion. It is a very scary prospect to think that the developing countries will become as big of contributors to emissions as industrialized nations are at the moment. Industrialized nations better set the stage for lower emissions soon, before the rest of the world follows in the footsteps of our technologies.

The Captive Primate Safety Act

My dad and his brothers and sisters had a pet monkey when they were kids. A neighbor who had been drafted to Vietnam in the 60’s and had brought home with him the exotic pet. He soon realized that he could not or did not want to handle the high demanding pet, and brought it to my grandma and grandpa’s house for their kids to have. My dad’s family found the animal to be temperamental, hyper, entertaining and as my dad describes it, “just an overall squirrelly little thing”. From his description I would assume it is some relation to the squirrel monkey. Devastatingly, the animal had gotten out of the house somehow in the dead of a Wisconsin winter and froze to death.

As fun as it sounds to have a pet monkey, animal guardianship (I prefer not to call it ownership), particularly of certain protected species, should not be taken lightly - especially by those who are not trained veterinarians or other certified animal behaviorists or experts. For my 20-25 page final paper topic I have chosen to write about H.R.80, or the Captive Primate Safety Act, which seeks to “amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to treat non-human primates as prohibited wildlife species under that Act, to make corrections in the provisions relating to captive wildlife offenses under that Act, and for other purposes”. H.R.80 was introduced in the 110th Congress without success and was reintroduced in the 111th due to a near fatal chimpanzee attack on a woman leading to severe handicap and disfiguration. The Lacey Act Amendments, which actually combined the Lacey Act of 1900 with the Black Bass Acts of 1926, make it unlawful for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase a live animal of any prohibited wildlife species in interstate or foreign commerce. This amendment would include non-human primates as a “prohibited wildlife species” under the act.

Just a few days ago, on March 12, 2009 the bill was referred to the Senate committee, was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Biggest Polluter in Cleveland

I am moving to Cleveland, Ohio in the next few months so I am particularly interested in environmental issues in that area. In googling information regarding environmental justice issues in that area, the name Mittal Steel - the biggest polluter in the Cleveland area - kept coming up again and again in the search results. Arcelor Mittal is an international company that produces nearly 10 percent of the world’s steel.

In my search I discovered that a number of environmental activist groups have focused efforts on the Mittal Steel company. Additionally, I found an article regarding the environmental justice issues surrounding the plant in a news release http://www.ohioej.org/newsreleases/cleveland_ej_forum.htm published by the Ohioans for Health, Environment and Justice group (OHEJ). The OHEJ and other environmental justice interests groups charge Mittal Steel with discrimination since a large minority and poor population lives around the plant. In the article one group member says that the working-class neighborhoods surrounding Mittal Still fit the classic definition of an “environmental justice community” with a 59% minority population (primarily African American and Hispanic) and with 26.9% of the residents below the poverty level.

In looking at the history of the ArcelorMittal company, I found that the company came to be from the merging of multiple steel mills. One of their largest facilities in the US is in Cleveland, OH, located on the Cuyahoga River for access to shipping via the Port of Cleveland and the Great Lakes in addition to highway and railroad systems. The Cleveland location is the result of a merger of Corrigan McKinney Steel and Otis Steel which were built in 1913 on the East Side and in 1914 on the West Side, respectively. Both companies were originally built at this location due to the convenience of shipping and the iron ore and coal reserves. The towns grew around them due to employment opportunities.

In the article “Environmental Justice: Normative Concerns, Empirical Evidence, and Government Action,” Evan J. Rinquist considers five potential causes of environmental inequities: scientific rationality, market rationality, neighborhood transition, political power, explicit discrimination. According to the history of the Cleveland plant, I think the previous companies selected the location based on scientific rationality; that is, the site selection was driven by technical criteria such as its geological characteristics of easy transport and raw material access. The original population settled at the plant’s foot due to the proximity of the steel working jobs. Neighborhood transition ensued and the high percentages of poor and minority populations came to live there.

Although I do not think that the location of Mittal Steel was selected with explicit discrimination, I do think that they are out of line with the way they conduct their business. The Ohio Citizen Action Program Director, Liz Ilg, says the company does not report its emissions correctly because they do no collect real data and instead use estimates based on the emissions of other steel plants with better pollution equipment. Even with underreported values, Mittal is still the biggest polluter in Cleveland according to the U.S. EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory. Meanwhile, the current residents suffer from the amount of pollution that the plant emits leading to health problems and, according to the news release, doctors have been telling nearby residents to move away from the plant to protect their health.

Contingency Valuation

This week's assignment posed the following two questions:

Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think might be conductive to using contingency valuation. Briefly describe why CV would be appropriate in this case.

Contingency valuation is a method of assessing value by surveying people what they are willing to spend on a given thing such as an object, a project, or program. The contingency valuation method has been a matter of debate for its of assessing environmental projects, programs, and events. One area I do think should be conductive to contingency valuation is the amount of land we are willing to allocate to county, state, and national parks. The public should come up with the value they are willing to spend to have these resources in the country. Like you can see with my assessment of endangered species protection below, I am also hesitant to subject the protection of national parks to contingency valuation because I do not think the general public values nature as much as it will in the future when we see more of the effects of environmental neglect, but I am more abliged to put park protection under the valuation of contingency valuation because I believe that the public will project more accurate numbers due to the tangibility of parks and the ability for us to refoster park environments if natural areas start to disappear. We are not able to rehabilitate an extinct species. I think that the public not only values the use of the parks but I also think they attribute an existence value to these areas and I think these numbers should be used in calculating the contingency value of parks. An existence value is a value the public puts on a good for it just existing. For instance a person may never see Niagra Falls, but that does not mean that person does not gain value from the knowledge of its existence.

Another area that I think can successfully be assessed with contingency valuation is the area of clean air and clean water. Although I do not think a certain level of cleanliness should be calculated this way, because I don’t think you can put a price on our ability to breath and sustain ourselves with water. I think asking the public what price they would put on increasing the cleanliness of air and water “one more increment”, with the term increment indicating a generic amount used just to illustrate this case, could be calculated with contingency valuation. This is because the levels already provided allow them to live a normal life, but the study would leave it up to the public to determine their value of more purer resources of air and water over other commodities.

As a note, I am unsure of my idea of contingency valuation altogether. I have doubts about the general public’s value of nature and I think a great many people at this point would “free ride” from those that really care about the environment. It also would be nice if we could just say that a clean environment is priceless, but practicality and the concepts of economics and scarcity force us to put values on things that we’d like to call priceless.

Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think would definitely not be conductive to using contingency valuation. Briefly describe why CV would not be appropriate in this case.

Areas that I do not think it is appropriate to use for is the protection of threatened and endangered species as well as the prevention and cleanup of oil spills. The reason I think that it should not be used for threatened and endangered species protection is because one cannot put a value on the disappearance of a species. One could argue that that is the case with clean air and clean water but I think these areas are more appropriate to subject to contingency valuation because we can assume a certain level of toxins in the environment and take on a risk for small levels without disrupting our lives at all. On the other hand, scientists can predict with some level of certainty if a species can survive or not without adequate amounts of their habitat or how long a few animals left can survive without human intervention. With the knowledge that certain species will become completely extinct, it is essential that we allocate a level of funds to the cause regardless of what the public is willing to pay because once a species is gone it is gone. I am also hesitant to subject endangered species protection to contingency valuation because I do not think the general public values nature as much as it will in the future when we see more of the effects of environmental neglect and when it is too late to bring a species back from extinction. I think we should allow the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Department, and other environmental agencies make judgements for what value is needed to protect species. It seems like the government has agreed with my judgment since a look at the Endangered Species Act of 1973 allocated an infinite amount of funds to the protection of threatened and endangered species.

The other arena that I do not think should be assessed with contingency valuation is the clean up and prevention of toxic spills including oil spills. The reason behind this is because on don’t think one can practically put a value on an accident of this level. For instance, consider the Chernobyl disaster. How can one value the loss of life and the disabilities that people have suffered as a result of the disaster.? The United States tried to value the 1986 Exxon oil spill in Alaska this way and although the payment was over one billion, experts have calculated the costs to be more along the lines of 3 billion. Overall, I think these situations are far too complex to attribute them to contingency valuation. Perhaps some of the estimates can be completed with contingency valuation such as the destruction of concrete property, but I do not think the more intangible costs such as loss of life, disability, and even loss of animal life associated with disasters can be calculated in this manner.

Engaging the Public

This week in class we were asked: "Should public managers and environmental planners engage the public when they know that the public’s knowledge is limited about the science of an environmental issue? If so, how would you go about doing that? If not, what are the consequences of not including them?"

Public managers and environmental planners should absolutely engage the public with environmental issues even if the public’s knowledge is limited about the science of an environmental issue. By nature, environmental issues are public issues and affect broad populations so I think in a democratic society, the public should always be informed and involved in making decisions. In a case where the public is not involved in decision making and just needs to be informed about an environmental issue then the public should be informed via print or some other medium in a way that breaks down complex subject matter for the audience to digest. If the public knowledge is both limited about the science of an environmental issue and they are involved with decision making regarding the issue then they need to be effectively educated on the subject and presented the different sides to the decision and the impact each decision could have.

Unfortunately, most of the time different interest groups do the educating on an environmental issue that the public is voting on often presenting the information in a way that is confusing to the public in order to achieve their objectives. For instance, a business that would prefer a chemical not to be categorized as toxic will present only one side of the issue, for instance how categorizing the chemical as toxic will have a negative impact on the industry and cause prices of products that depend on this chemical to go up, but will not present the dangers to public health that are affiliated with not labeling the chemical as toxic. This may not be the best example since the public will likely not be involved in categorizing chemicals as toxic or non-toxic, but it gets my point across that interest groups are not the best educators. Instead, I propose that the EPA or a public agency should be required to put out appropriate and effective educational materials regarding environmental issues. I emphasize effective educational materials because I think many times the information regarding complex subject matter is not scaffolded appropriately - in other words presented in a way where the public can digest starting from the basics - and instead is presented in a complex manner which alienates most of the public from getting involved.

If the public is not informed and unbiasly educated on environmental issues that they are to make decisions about, this will end up affected the general public negatively. Regarding issues that the public is not involved in decision making for, it still has a right to be informed since all environmental issues are by nature public issues. Furthermore, even if the U.S. public is not directly involved with a specific environmental issue they still should be in the know since they have the ability and right to get involved in interest groups to influence decisions and it votes in representatives who are involved with the direct decisions.

A look back at Environmental Policy

The history of environmental policy from the 1970’s through 2008 was marked by a great deal of change. Before the 1970’s environmental policy was not given much thought, however with the 1970’s came an increased awareness for quality of life issues including protecting the environment. This awareness came from both the public as well as lawmakers and was not only present in the United States, but internationally as well. Environmental policy has been approached differently by each of the eight administrations (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W Bush) since the 1970’s and although it has improved, instead of progressing consistently since then, growth in this arena has been quite irregular.

Until the 1970’s, the federal governments role in regard to protecting the environment had been to preserve areas of land such as national parks and wildlife refuges and led to several acts regarding preservation, the first being the Wilderness Act of 1964. In addition to land preservation, the United States also began to put efforts toward reducing world population growth. Air and water pollution as well as solid waste until 1970 were considered for the most part to be local and state concerns, but were slowly working their way into the federal agenda.
The 1970’s were entered with the passing of The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that was signed into law on January 1, 1970 by Nixon who then proclaimed the 1970’s as the “environmental decade”. Shortly thereafter, Earth Day was observed worldwide by 200 million people on April 22, 1970. The 1970’s marked a highly progressive era in terms of environmental policy. The number of Acts during the Nixon, Carter, and Ford administrations marked a progression past mere land conservation to include waste disposal, emissions, water pollution, pesticides, coast protection, threatened and endangered species, drinking water, toxic substances, forest management, mining, clean air and water, and energy conservation.

The 1980’s brought a new presidency with a different set of goals. Reagan’s republican-flavored administration focused on cutting back federal funding for environmental objectives and sought to move environmental responsibilities to the states. This attitude caused a backlash of public activism around environmental issues. Yet, the election of republican George Bush Senior surprisingly led to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

1992-2000 saw the office of Bill Clinton and a pro-environmental vice president in Al Gore. Although many environmentalists were disappointed with the successes of the Clinton administration, the 1990’s marked a period of several world conferences, including the United Nations Conference in 1992 held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil often referred to as the “Earth Summit.” A major accomplishment of this summit was the UNFCCC treaty which led to the Kyoto Protocol.

While momentum for the environmental movement gained from the 1970’s to the turn of the century, the most recent Bush Administration slowed and even turned back much of this progress from the environmentalist’s perspective. The most significant backtracking occurred with the administration’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Overall, the Kyoto Protocol is an extension of the UNFCCC treaty that was created to control greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that cause global warming and threaten the stability of our climate system.
As an environmental policy scholar in the year 2012 writing an op-ed piece for the New York Times, I look back at the first 4 years of the Obama administration’s approach to environmental policies with great admiration. It has brought and era of great change similar to the 1970’s. Since the Obama presidency was paired with a majority Democratic control in the Senate as well as in the House, environmental laws were passed with ease. In addition to passing environmentally focused laws, the laws that were in place found the funding and passion they needed to be enforced properly.

Specifically, in the wake of the public’s increased concern for the cost of oil and prolonged dependence on foreign sources for this commodity, President Obama was able to garner support towards improving the emissions standards. With this attitude, we also rejoined the Kyoto protocol thus improving our standing with other equally minded nations. Another major initiative the Obama administration tackled was the quality of our drinking water and fresh water supplies in the U.S. Shortly after entering office, $5 billion was allocated toward immediate improvements to the Great Lakes. One of the laws that was passed by Congress consisted of another $26 billion dollars for futher restoration of the Great Lakes including enacting a zero tolerance for invasive species, which required closing a major contributory waterway to the lakes. Energy policy initiatives passed under Obama both spurred the economy and brought great promise to energy independence and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. From the stimulus package $100 billion dollars were allocated to support green technologies. A stipulation was written into the auto industry bailout that made the companies use a portion of the money to research and adapt more fuel efficient and emission conscious technologies. In essence, President Obama was able to take both the advantages and disadvantages of the times when he entered office and fashion them towards a more environmental approach to national policymaking.

Great Lakes Preservation Funding

I found two articles that I found particularly interesting regarding speculation about how the Obama administration will approach the environmental policy issues moving forward.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/32530574.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/36078824.html

These articles indicate that Obama will take a strong stand on water quality issues throughout his term, particularly involving the Great Lakes, the largest fresh water bodies in the world. Being from the Milwaukee area in Wisconsin, and moving to Cleveland, Ohio next year, I am particularly interested in the cleanliness and sustainability of the Great Lakes.

The first article indicates that the Obama administration will restore taxes from the rolled back levels for oil and gas companies to fund a $5 billion dollar “jump start” effort to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This effort should not be confused with the $26 billion plan to restore the great lakes that has been initiated within Congress, rather it is a commitment on the part of the Obama administration to make major changes with the Great Lakes. The article refers to the Great Lakes as a “national treasure” and even compared them to the Florida Everglades. The article mentions that funding to preserve them has take a back seat for a long time leading to the severe degradation from invading species and pollution. The Obama administration seeks to employ a “zero tolerance” policy for invading species.

I do not agree with the opinion piece I posted which argues that we should preserve the “Great Lakes” in a balanced way. The author argues that we can look at cleaning and preserving the Great Lakes while at the same time expand the oil refining industry along them. I do believe in balance between environmental preservation efforts and a strong economy, yet I do not believe it is necessary to increase the oil refining business along the lake to build the economy in the region. The author of this piece does mention that the country needs to move toward alternative fuels, and yes oil is needed now, but I do not believe Canada is the better supplier if it requires polluting Lake Superior, removing pristine wetlands, and risking disaster. After all, one out of three Canadians and one out of seven Americans receive their drinking water from the Great Lakes. If we want to move away from oil then why would we build this infrastructure to support it if we want to phase use of oil out? Yes we’d get oil from Canada, a conflict free source, but would we need to build this same risky infrastructure if we continue to get oil from our current sources? Growing the oil refinery business along Lake Michigan will provide jobs in Northern Wisconsin, but people in Northern Wisconsin also tend to be the environmental friendly types and I do not think these jobs would be ones that they would want (although a study to back up my opinion here would be in order to validate this thought). I believe we can protect the Great Lakes as well as build a strong economy if we focus on building greener industries in the area.

A play on words

My real name is not Kelli Green, but since this is a blog about environmental policy I figured I'd play with words.  Green is my favorite color and I alway's hoped it would become a last name of mine.  But, Alas, I am getting married and changing my last name to Pasquali soon instead.  In the meantime, I'm Kelli Thornton....or whynot...call me Ms. Green.