Foremost, the article about the McKenzie Watershed Council shows how a number of stakeholders can come together, and how they can tackle issues in a socially optimal way. It shows how cooperative decision making can help the community reach results that everyone can agree on, it lessens tension, and provides a forum for discussion. The McKenzie river is important as it provides potable water for the city of Eugene, it also provides hydroelectricity, and it serves as the habitat for fish and wildlife. Some interesting facts noted in the article include the highway having the designation "Wild and Scenic" by the federal government. There are a total of six dams on the river having a negative impact on fish. Most notable about the article, it stated a number of accomplishments such as habitat restoration, this combining voluntary funds from both private organizations such as EWEB and public organizations such as ODFW. Expanding further on the subject of environmental decision making, here is a link to a scholarly article which breaks down the process, and how it is important to involve the various interests.
http://www.gdrc.org/decision/nr98ab01.pdf
http://www.gdrc.org/decision/nr98ab01.pdf
The Raymond article touches on how the environmental non-profit sector receives very little in both donations and grants when compared with non-profits as a whole. It does show how environmental regulations have greatly reduced pollution. The Kyoto Protocol did a great job of this as it brought together governments to provide universal restrictions on pollution. The article noted on carbon credit trading, this has been deemed the best way to regulate, and this as it regulates the market as a whole rather than just individual firms. Economists argue that this provides socially optimal solutions as it allows for the free market to play into the regulations. Firm A for example could have higher marginal costs and benefits in mitigation (75:25) and firm B could have lower marginal costs and higher marginal benefits in mitigation (25:75). The two firms can trade credits to find the socially optimal solution as one firm needs less credits and the other more. It places an actual price on polluting and allows for the government to reduce this over time. However, there are a few small issues such as grandfathering, as the initial credits are allocated for free but new firms would have to purchase them. The first link outlines the importance of the Kyoto Protocol, this as it actually commits governments to mitigating pollution; it shows an example of how supranational organization and multilateralism have emerged in the 21st century. Secondly, I looked up an article on carbon trading, it outlines the economic argument for why economists have advocated for this approach.
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/~dliverma/articles/Hepburn%20carbon%20trading%20ARER.pdf
One last area surrounding the environment involves environmental justice. I prefer the term environmental justice since it does not directly specify race as a factor of discrimination. Rather, it refers to all groups located in areas high in pollution, and it places more blame on the free-market. Policies that locate industrial areas near low income communities are not racist; it just seems that primarily minorities reside in these places and that other areas of equality should be addressed. We already have welfare, non-profits, and affirmative action (reverse discrimination); it seems that these are working to correct the problem of inequality. Recently, the federal government has began to regulate these firms through federal agencies and programs. For example, the EPA was established in 1970. George H.W. Bush established the office of environmental equality in 1992. Clinton then issued executive order 12898 which directed federal agencies to develop strategies to help them identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The video mentioned how the primarily black community failed to make a case of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It seems that if they could make this case it would fall under strict scrutiny in the court system. However, the courts found that these people were just poor and this only fell under a rational basis for review. It seems that it is wrong for these communities to suffer from pollution. The polluting companies should face greater regulation and should face penalties for their pollution.
I feel like the government is overprotective of business and that our laws are designed to protect these entities. It seems that non-profits help to address problems of equality allowing for the poor to have a greater chance to succeed. Additionally, legal groups could assist in fighting the problems surrounding the environment. A number of public interest attorneys came to my public law class to speak and one thing that they all shared in common was the fact that they were up against large well-funded firms and did not have the same amount of resources available. I feel like the role of regulation falls on the government and that continued help from groups such as non-profits will help steer policy in the right direction. The video below outlines the basic problem of environmental injustice, it shows a text book example of how a primarily black neighborhood has experienced a number of problems including adverse health risks; it makes the moral argument that it is simply wrong for the poor to suffer while others profit at their expense.
I feel like the government is overprotective of business and that our laws are designed to protect these entities. It seems that non-profits help to address problems of equality allowing for the poor to have a greater chance to succeed. Additionally, legal groups could assist in fighting the problems surrounding the environment. A number of public interest attorneys came to my public law class to speak and one thing that they all shared in common was the fact that they were up against large well-funded firms and did not have the same amount of resources available. I feel like the role of regulation falls on the government and that continued help from groups such as non-profits will help steer policy in the right direction. The video below outlines the basic problem of environmental injustice, it shows a text book example of how a primarily black neighborhood has experienced a number of problems including adverse health risks; it makes the moral argument that it is simply wrong for the poor to suffer while others profit at their expense.
I agree with you that the Kyoto Protocol is a step in the right direction for environmental protection. It's really hard to monitor and enforce treaty comliance and I feel like there needs to be a more effective mechanism for regulation within the treaty. The problem is that many states aren't willing to submit their soveriegnty in exchange for environmental regulation. I guess this is the problem with most environmental treaties is that it's hard to enforce compliance. Also, it would be great if the United States signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, but I think that would require restructuring the treaty, by requiring China or India a timeline for compliance. Perhaps if it were more like the Montreal Protocol on the reduction of CFCs it would be more successful.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_protocol
I agree that it is wrong that many firms place environmentally damaging industries in poor, minority neighborhoods. I suppose one solution to this is allowing a more equitable say in the matter for those people. The solution can be giving poor people more of a voice in the matters. There needs to be more effective legal tools for these people who do not have as much of a voice in environmental justice.
I wasn't truly aware of the terms "environmental justice" or "environmental racism" until I came to college. According to the EPA:
ReplyDelete"Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." (EPA.gov)
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
It is saddening to say that low-income persons are generally more exposed to pollution by living in more contaminated areas. When you first mentioned the "term environmental justice," I immediately thought of the film Erin Brockovich and the devistating effects Hinkley, California residents experienced due to the deceit and irresponsibility exhibited by PG&E. While I disagree with your statement that the government has given leeway to private secotr companies, extreme cases like Hinkley remind us that the government does have a place in regulating business, but only to a certain extent.
I agree that environmental nonprofits can potentially play a huge role in influencing governmental policies regarding regulation of industry, especially concerning cases of environmental injustice. It was interesting that the group in the video was turned down by the Supreme Court simply because their case was no longer fit into the definition of racial discrimination. Regardless of whether or not what the residents of Camden are enduring is a textbook definition of racial discrimination, it is wrong and unjust. Camden has the 8th highest cancer rate in the nation, yet the United State's justice system has failed to give citizens the protection and rights they deserve. Without the work of community organizations and environmental nonprofits it is entirely possible that people, such as those is Camden, would be further subjected to the pollution and hazards of industries located on their streets and around their children's playgrounds.
ReplyDeleteI found an article on what citizen's of Camden are doing about their situation if you want to check it out: http://worldcitizen.net/green/2010/01/20/environmental-justice-initiative-in-camden-n-j/