Week 5 - Contingent Valuation

It is important to note that contingent valuation should be used on issues that are more local in nature and do not need to rely on science for policy decision making. Some issues that would benefit from both cost-benefit analysis and contingent valuation are recreational opportunities in rivers or streams, biodiversity restoration and appraisal of brownfields. Contingent valuation can be used to understand the view of the public on each of the issues at hand. For example, the public may see recreational opportunities in their local river very differently from those who are proposing the recreation. They may also be able to bring a new vision of the area to the project. Biodiversity restoration can also have advantages when using contingent valuation. The public may be able to bring light to the loss of biodiversity at the local level.

Contingent Valuation should not be used with issues in which extreme scientific research is needed. One example is the issue regarding damage control of industrial pollution in lakes or streams. For this particular issue, science must be involved to accurately access the extremity of the problem and its’ possible health implications. The public’s view, although important, could not accurately understand the public health implications of the pollution. Contingent Valuation in this case could do more harm than good. An example broader in scope is global warming. Again, in this example, science takes precedence in the decision making platform. Because the cause and effects of global warming are not well defined, it would be difficult for the public to create their own opinions in the issue. In both of these examples, we must rely on science to bear the weight and reliance of the environmental issue.

Week 4 - Knowledge is Power

I believe that as public managers or environmental planners, it is our duty to inform the public of the science to environmental issues at hand. It has been confirmed that including the public in the decision making process can, when being presented as a holistic approach, create an outcome more suitable to the public. In turn involving the public can create relationships between the project, project leaders, and the public. The format of information needs to be accessible to all classes to eliminate the possibility of exclusion. Thus, it can not be only web, media, or telephone based. A public meeting prior to the starting date of the environmental process should be available. In addition, handouts should be given to the affected community and even affected region, for initial educational value of the project. These should include where to find additional information on the subject.

When educating the public on the environmental issue, additional alternatives may be able to be found through public involvement. As the public grows more attached to the issue, they will be more likely to give insight into what matters to the public locally and regionally. In turn, a collective solution could be derived to maintain a relationship between all parties. Giving the public knowledge, is also giving them authority. This frightens many planners and managers. However, we need to look at environmental issues through holistic approaches, not just a one time attempt to mitigate implications on the environment. Educating the public can only bring us closer to the goal of creating a place where environmental, social, and economic realms can be seen as not as conflicting interest but as complementary interests.

Week 3 - Op Ed

Most environmental critics have been tough on President Obama’s administration and its collaboration between environmental and economic policies. In reality, the administration has done an admirable job of contributing to environmental awareness and stewardship while also using environmental reform to support economic gains for the United States citizens. It is known that the “U.S. government is able to produce significant environmental gains through public policies” (Vix, 28). To really understand just how much Obama has contributed in the short time, the past 40 years of environmental policy making must be understood. This article illustrates, in a short version, the past administrations and different presidential approaches to environmental awareness, support, and efficacy.

“Until about 1970 the federal government played a sharply limited role in environmental policy making – public land management being a major exception”(Vix, 11). The 1st Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970. With Earth Day came the widespread concern for quality of life and environmental protection. The President during this “environmental decade” of the 1970s was Nixon. It was during this time period that a number of federal environmental policies and legislation were put into force. The 1st of 19 pieces of environmental legislation passed during 1970’s was the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which forced environmental awareness to be evaluated in each decision making process. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established by Nixon in 1970 to attempt to revitalize environmental degradation and to steer Americans to make environmentally conscious decisions.

President Carter’s administration, the environmental mentality remained. Environmental agencies existing and new began to further their environmental support. Through Jimmy Carter’s reign the importance of environmental concerns in America was heavily reiterated. It was within President Carter’s term that America’s first national energy policy was created to address a concern for the U.S. dependence of foreign oil. The energy policy established a national petroleum reserve.

Ronald Reagan was next to take office. His presidency began in a time of high inflation and unemployment. He switched focuses from environment to economics and is coincidentally most famous for his “Reaganomics”. During this period environmental action lacked tremendously. In fact, to reduce government spending, almost all of the 1970’s environmental policies were reevaluated. The EPA’s budget was radically reduced and they were asked to rewrite rules and procedures to be more favorable to businesses practices. On the other hand, there was some environmental good that came out of the Reagan administration. Environmental forces in the nation such as grass root and national groups formed and gained support to create additional environmental activism.

Environmental action in the Administration was in dire need from the drought that Reagan Administration had created. George Bush Sr. took a stronger approach to environmental policy than Reagan. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were a sign of the start of what turned out to be a moderate attempt for increased environmental advocacy. However, with the Bush administration taking a more “Reagan” approach to environmental policies, his term qualified as moderate environmentalism at best.

Hope for environmental activism came again during the Clinton Administration. President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, a key leader in environmental awareness, were eager to implement new environmental policies based primarily on science. Clinton and Gore tried to find ways that the environment could support economy instead of oppose it. However, most of their ideas were not taken well by congress which had a good number of conservative environmental appointees. In the end, most of Clinton’s notable environmental progress was through preservation acts.

George W. Bush was less concerned with conservation and protection. Similar to Reagan, Bush Jr. was interested in the economic impacts of environmental regulation. Environmental action during his reign was done through the states and local governments. California, a progressive environmental state, passed regulations for greenhouse gas emissions in 2004. Unfortunately, the EPA later stopped California and other states from enforcing environmental regulations for pollutants. Among other things the Bush administration continued to weaken already established regulations and reduced budgets for environmental agencies. Much of this was due to the conservative environmental appointees. A glimpse of hope was apparent as Vice President Dick Cheney was asked to write a national energy plan. Sadly, most of the outcome was industry induced with little focus on science. Through findings, it has been learned that the Bush administration had edited many documents to bend the recommendations into alignment with his new environmental policies. The economic downward spiral in the U.S. made the gap between environmental agendas and economic agendas even further dispersed.

President Obama came into office when America had been hurt the most. With servicemen still overseas, the economy at a low point, and environmental degradation showing a sure sign on global warming, Obama took a chance and promised much to the American people. He was aware of the battle ahead, but was willing to face it head on. He began by fighting for bipartisan support has gained just that. The Congress has been collaborative on environmental policies and the new era of “bipartisanship” is beginning to shown light on a brighter future for Americans.

Unlike Reagan, Obama found a connection between the environment and economics. Obama gave the state and local governments back the power to regulate emissions while also setting an aggressive goal for automakers. His approach was to mandate the auto companies in the U.S. to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles with hopes to find jobs for so many Americans who had been displaced. Understanding that economic concerns are real, his stimulus package created a number of green jobs, putting Americans to work as well as educating the public on environmental awareness. With the economy showing signs of upward progress, America began to regain hope. Incentives for the buying locally, as well as the use of green products, homes, and jobs, have put a higher demand on green thinking. Over the last 4 years, the use of solar and wind power in the United States has increased 12%. His collaboration with environmentalist and scientist is admirable as well as his focus on both economy and the environment. Some compare Obama to the period of Nixon and Carter. Yet, the threats to the environment today are much more alarming than those of the 70s. Thus, new policies, leadership, and innovative thought should be acknowledged.

I ask the critics: In a time of war and despair, did Obama not find peace and hope? Perhaps Obama’s term will not be felt until after he has gone but it will be felt. His fight during his term was hard and relentless. Picking Americans up from the bottoms and showing them a future. Perhaps the improvements were not great considering how far we had fallen. Yet, the positive effects of the Obama Administration on environmental gains are inevitable.

Source: Vig, N. and M. Kraft, Eds . (2005). Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21`st Century, CQ Press.