Link to Article
In Texas, the U.S. Army and Veolia Environmental Services signed a contract with the City of Port Arthur to incinerate 1.8 million gallons of a deadly nerve agent (caustic VX hydrolysate) near the Carver Terrace housing project.
In chapter 11, Vig provided causes of environmental inequality. Two of those causes were: (1) intentional discrimination and (2) political power. Prior to the City of Port Arthur, Ohio and New Jersey were also considered for incineration sites. The residents in these states fought against allowing the incineration to occur. This relates to political power. The constituents of these states were aware of the impending negotiations and came together to fight against it. The residents of the City of Port Arthur were not notified during that negotiations were occurring between the City and the U.S. Army. The City made an announcement to the residents after the deal was completed. This is also an example of intentional discrimination, where private and public officials choose the site for the incineration without notifying or getting input from the residents.
The City’s population in 2006 was 60% African American. Carver Terrace housing project was built by the City to provide low-income housing to its constituents. In Konisky’s article, he mentions that there are inequalities in environmental enforcement in poor counties. City of Port Arthur is located in Jefferson County. Jefferson County has the largest concentration of chemical-industrial complexes and is ranked in the top 10 percent of dirtiest counties. A variety of statistics were provided in the article that displayed the correlation between hazardous facilities located throughout the State of Texas, including the City of Port Arthur, and the percentage of people of color.
The City of Port Arthur has numerous refineries and chemical plants located within its boundaries. The article claims that residents that live near these locations have a higher rate of cancer, asthma, liver and kidney disease. The Carver Terrace housing project is located near one of these refineries. Therefore, the residents of the housing project are already at higher risk of disease due to exposure to the refineries and will be put to additional risks with the incineration of the nerve agent.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Weekly Assignment #5
When federal regulations are passed regarding environmental issues, the states and local governments are usually responsible for implementing the policies. With this in mind, CV would be most useful utilized at a local level. First, the local communities have a personal stake in the potential program and will have first hand experience with the local environment. Next, it will be easier to implement a CV with a specific geographic region and easier to reach the constituents, which can potentially lead to more concrete sustentative results. Finally, at a local level, municipalities are more likely to listen to their constituents. A few environmental problems that would be conducive to CV would be local river cleanups, storm drainage, and water quality.
CV would not be appropriate for wide-spread environmental problems such as: global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. These issues are national, if not international. Providing a comprehensive survey to those affected by these environmental issues would be extremely difficult. This would lead to subpar CV results and the inability to apply the data collected. Large, world-wide or national issues would not be a good foot for CV due to restrictions in the theory.
CV would not be appropriate for wide-spread environmental problems such as: global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. These issues are national, if not international. Providing a comprehensive survey to those affected by these environmental issues would be extremely difficult. This would lead to subpar CV results and the inability to apply the data collected. Large, world-wide or national issues would not be a good foot for CV due to restrictions in the theory.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Weekly Assignment #4
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 issues? 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 engage the public in environmental issues. The public’s knowledge may be limited about the science surrounding issues. However, it is the government’s responsibility to communicate informative and understandable materials to the communities that would be affected by the environmental issue(s). Furthermore, by communicating the facts to the public would allow for discussion in the beginning of the process, as opposed to facts surfacing mid-implementation – which can lead to a delays and increase costs.
I would take the approach discussed in the Shepherd and Bowler article for public participation in the EIA process. As discussed in the article, Shepherd and Bowler developed an analytical framework for examining the effectiveness of involving the public and include: democracy, suitability, conflict resolution and improved planning. By taking these areas into consideration, agencies should take proactive measures in outreaching to the community and engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process. Creating a dialogue with the public, at the beginning of the EIA process, will provide a positive atmosphere and limit potential problems.
Public managers and environmental planners should engage the public in environmental issues. The public’s knowledge may be limited about the science surrounding issues. However, it is the government’s responsibility to communicate informative and understandable materials to the communities that would be affected by the environmental issue(s). Furthermore, by communicating the facts to the public would allow for discussion in the beginning of the process, as opposed to facts surfacing mid-implementation – which can lead to a delays and increase costs.
I would take the approach discussed in the Shepherd and Bowler article for public participation in the EIA process. As discussed in the article, Shepherd and Bowler developed an analytical framework for examining the effectiveness of involving the public and include: democracy, suitability, conflict resolution and improved planning. By taking these areas into consideration, agencies should take proactive measures in outreaching to the community and engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process. Creating a dialogue with the public, at the beginning of the EIA process, will provide a positive atmosphere and limit potential problems.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Weekly Assignment #3
My Op-Ed
In the early 1970’s environmental issues became a major political agenda in the United States (Vig, 1). Over the past few decades, public concern on environment issues has increased. However, environmental issues have not remained consistently at the top of the federal agenda. There are three areas that have had an influence on environmental policy since the 1970’s:
The Office of the President
The Office of the President has the power to make appointments of cabinet members, propose budgets, and oversee regulatory processes (Vig, 101). Additionally, the President has a major role in setting the Federal agenda (Vig, 101). The U.S. has had eight different presidents since 1970. Under each administration, the emphasis on environmental policy has varied.
During the Nixon Administration the focus was on environmental protection. Major strides were made in “air and water pollution control, pesticide regulation, endangered species protection, control of hazardous and toxic wastes, ocean and coastline protection,” etc (Vig, 13).
Under the Carter Administration, the focus was on environmental conservation. National wilderness and national park system protection expanded during this time (Vig, 13).
Energy independence was a top item of concern during the Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations (Vig, 14). There was little political or public support during this era on pursuing energy independence, therefore the item did not make its way onto the Federal agenda.
Under President Reagan, environmental policy progression was slowed. There was a period of economic decline during this time. President Reagan passed legislation to reduce income tax and cut spending for environmental and social programs (Vig, 104). Through the budgetary cuts, the Reagan Administration was able to cut personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was cut (Vig, 105). Additional, Reagan appointed officials who would support his anti-environmental stance (Vig, 105). The public concern over environmental issues grew during this time. During Reagan’s presidency, the U.S. was faced with the cold war and some tough economic times.
During the George H. W. Bush Administration, President Bush attempted to distance himself from the Reagan Administration’s stance on environmental policy. He appointed environmental leaders to positions in his administration (Vig, 106). Additionally, he passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. President Bush did not make strides on international environmental policy by threatening to boycott the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Vig, 107). He also refused to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity. During the Bush Administration, we were faced with the first Gulf War and a small decline in the economy.
The Clinton Administration made many environmental campaign promises. President Clinton’s appointments to environmental positions gained support of the environmental community (Vig, 108). During his first term, his environmental agenda did not gain much support from Congress, as President Clinton failed to gain support of environmentalists on key areas (Vig, 109). President Clinton used his presidential powers of budgeting and regulatory oversight to toughen environmental protection (Vig, 110). Additionally, the Clinton Administration strengthened the EPA, took measures to protect public lands, and to protect endangered species (Vig, 110).
The George W. Bush Administration initially focused on environmental issues at the beginning of his first term. However, shortly after he took office the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurred. This shifted the agenda and minimized environmental issues on the Federal agenda (Vig, 82). The majority of the Bush Administration was focused on national security, the war in Iraq, operations in Afghanistan, and the declining economy. Although President Bush attempted to cut the budget for environmental agencies, Congress would not allow this to occur and the EPA’s budget actually increased during his first term.
At the beginning of 2009, the Obama Administration was faced with an economic depression and a large increase in unemployment. Within the first few weeks of taking office, President Obama focused on developing new energy and improving environmental matters. Unfortunately, the emphasis on environmental matters would lose focus during President Obama’s first term. First, the economy continued to decline that led to record percentage of unemployment. Second, the President was faced with the task of ending the war in Iraq and continuing efforts in Afghanistan. Third, the increased threat of international nuclear weapons development became a focus of the Obama Administration. The focal point on these areas led to a change in agenda during President Obama’s first term. This led to budget cuts on developing new energy and on environmental policy issues, in order to focus on other agenda items.
Domestic and International Events
Since 1970 we have experienced wartime, terrorist attacks, and most recently an economic depression. These types of events have had a dramatic impact on the Federal agenda. This has led to budget cuts and asset reallocation to different areas of emphasis and has left environmental policy at a disadvantage. Although there is public support for pushing environmental matters, there are other items placed above this policy issue on the Federal agenda.
Availability of Information
Since the late 1990’s, the spread of the Internet and mass media has had a tremendous impact on environmental issues (Vig, 95). First, information traveled quickly and was available to mass audiences. Second, the media focused on environmental issues like “global warming”. Finally, the political positions of our public servants were readily accessible. This development changed the method in which the average person had access to information. This has led to a more informed public and the ability to make more knowledgeable voting decisions.
Over the past few decades, the United States has experienced various forms of agenda setting on environmental issues. The spread of the Internet and the media’s focus on environmental policy has brought awareness to the public. Domestic and international issues have hindered some of the progress in environmental policy setting at the Federal level. Over the past six months, the economic outlook has been on an upswing and the unemployment rate is at its lowest in three years. President Obama has reemphasized environmental policy issues as being at the top of his agenda during his second term.
Reference:
Vig, N. and M. Kraft, Eds . (2005). Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21st Century, CQ Press.
In the early 1970’s environmental issues became a major political agenda in the United States (Vig, 1). Over the past few decades, public concern on environment issues has increased. However, environmental issues have not remained consistently at the top of the federal agenda. There are three areas that have had an influence on environmental policy since the 1970’s:
- The Office of the President
- Domestic and International Events
- Availability of Information
The Office of the President
The Office of the President has the power to make appointments of cabinet members, propose budgets, and oversee regulatory processes (Vig, 101). Additionally, the President has a major role in setting the Federal agenda (Vig, 101). The U.S. has had eight different presidents since 1970. Under each administration, the emphasis on environmental policy has varied.
During the Nixon Administration the focus was on environmental protection. Major strides were made in “air and water pollution control, pesticide regulation, endangered species protection, control of hazardous and toxic wastes, ocean and coastline protection,” etc (Vig, 13).
Under the Carter Administration, the focus was on environmental conservation. National wilderness and national park system protection expanded during this time (Vig, 13).
Energy independence was a top item of concern during the Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations (Vig, 14). There was little political or public support during this era on pursuing energy independence, therefore the item did not make its way onto the Federal agenda.
Under President Reagan, environmental policy progression was slowed. There was a period of economic decline during this time. President Reagan passed legislation to reduce income tax and cut spending for environmental and social programs (Vig, 104). Through the budgetary cuts, the Reagan Administration was able to cut personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was cut (Vig, 105). Additional, Reagan appointed officials who would support his anti-environmental stance (Vig, 105). The public concern over environmental issues grew during this time. During Reagan’s presidency, the U.S. was faced with the cold war and some tough economic times.
During the George H. W. Bush Administration, President Bush attempted to distance himself from the Reagan Administration’s stance on environmental policy. He appointed environmental leaders to positions in his administration (Vig, 106). Additionally, he passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. President Bush did not make strides on international environmental policy by threatening to boycott the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Vig, 107). He also refused to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity. During the Bush Administration, we were faced with the first Gulf War and a small decline in the economy.
The Clinton Administration made many environmental campaign promises. President Clinton’s appointments to environmental positions gained support of the environmental community (Vig, 108). During his first term, his environmental agenda did not gain much support from Congress, as President Clinton failed to gain support of environmentalists on key areas (Vig, 109). President Clinton used his presidential powers of budgeting and regulatory oversight to toughen environmental protection (Vig, 110). Additionally, the Clinton Administration strengthened the EPA, took measures to protect public lands, and to protect endangered species (Vig, 110).
The George W. Bush Administration initially focused on environmental issues at the beginning of his first term. However, shortly after he took office the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurred. This shifted the agenda and minimized environmental issues on the Federal agenda (Vig, 82). The majority of the Bush Administration was focused on national security, the war in Iraq, operations in Afghanistan, and the declining economy. Although President Bush attempted to cut the budget for environmental agencies, Congress would not allow this to occur and the EPA’s budget actually increased during his first term.
At the beginning of 2009, the Obama Administration was faced with an economic depression and a large increase in unemployment. Within the first few weeks of taking office, President Obama focused on developing new energy and improving environmental matters. Unfortunately, the emphasis on environmental matters would lose focus during President Obama’s first term. First, the economy continued to decline that led to record percentage of unemployment. Second, the President was faced with the task of ending the war in Iraq and continuing efforts in Afghanistan. Third, the increased threat of international nuclear weapons development became a focus of the Obama Administration. The focal point on these areas led to a change in agenda during President Obama’s first term. This led to budget cuts on developing new energy and on environmental policy issues, in order to focus on other agenda items.
Domestic and International Events
Since 1970 we have experienced wartime, terrorist attacks, and most recently an economic depression. These types of events have had a dramatic impact on the Federal agenda. This has led to budget cuts and asset reallocation to different areas of emphasis and has left environmental policy at a disadvantage. Although there is public support for pushing environmental matters, there are other items placed above this policy issue on the Federal agenda.
Availability of Information
Since the late 1990’s, the spread of the Internet and mass media has had a tremendous impact on environmental issues (Vig, 95). First, information traveled quickly and was available to mass audiences. Second, the media focused on environmental issues like “global warming”. Finally, the political positions of our public servants were readily accessible. This development changed the method in which the average person had access to information. This has led to a more informed public and the ability to make more knowledgeable voting decisions.
Over the past few decades, the United States has experienced various forms of agenda setting on environmental issues. The spread of the Internet and the media’s focus on environmental policy has brought awareness to the public. Domestic and international issues have hindered some of the progress in environmental policy setting at the Federal level. Over the past six months, the economic outlook has been on an upswing and the unemployment rate is at its lowest in three years. President Obama has reemphasized environmental policy issues as being at the top of his agenda during his second term.
Reference:
Vig, N. and M. Kraft, Eds . (2005). Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21st Century, CQ Press.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Weekly Assignment #2
Since President Obama was inaugurated, there has been a buzz in the media that “change is coming.” This theme seems to be prevalent as President Obama is making headway on environmental policy. During his campaign, President Obama promised that he would push for clean air standards and it appears that he is upholding this pledge. President Obama signed orders that would boost fuel economy and cut car exhaust. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was ordered to review the Bush Administration’s decision on California’s car emission standards. Last spring California attempted to pass car emission standards that would be more stringent than the current federal laws. The Bush Administration halted California from proceeding on implementing stricter standards. Furthermore, President Obama hinted that there would be federal assistance to carmakers to build cleaner cars. Being in office for a few weeks, it would appear that environmental policy is a top agenda item for the Obama Administration. 
Link to Article
Link to Article
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Weekly Assignment #1
Hello PAF 546 classmates! This is my first class at ASU in the MPA program. I'm new to Arizona and am originally from San Diego, CA. I'm extremely interested in environmental issues and am excited to learn about environmental policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)