Reading 4
Environmental Policy
Questions and activities for this essay:
- Make a list of 10 sensitive environmental sites and issues in and around your community. Contemplate the role of government in protecting these areas.
- Consider the issue of the protection or restoration of the Florida Everglades . What political, economic, and social forces would act to limit any environmental initiative?
- How might you, if you were a policy maker, attempt to reconcile differences of opinion among the various actors for and against the environmental initiative?
- Go on the Internet and study the history of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. What were the actions taken by the federal and state governments? By Exxon? By local citizens? What is the result today of the oil spill on the local community and ecosystem?
To Act or Not to Act?
Actors involved in environmental policy face complex problems and difficult decisions. Often, no clear answer is apparent. For instance, how does one – whether a public official in Brazil or U.S. foreign policy maker – approach the dilemma of stopping deforestation in the Amazon?
The Brazilian rancher is dependent upon "slash and burn" techniques to clear the dense vegetation of the rainforest so his cattle can graze. But, the process is unnecessarily destructive. Because the nutrients needed for plants to flourish are derived from the rich foliage and animal life of the forest itself, once cleared of trees, the soil rapidly loses its ability to sustain life. So, the Amazonian rancher or farmer is forced to "slash and burn" another piece of land to replace the depleted one. And the cycle continues. It may not be feasible simply to ask the Brazilian government or the ranchers-farmers to stop. The ranchers and farmers need to make a living in a relatively poor economy and Brazil, strapped with massive international debts, has been doing what most nations have done: use available natural resources to create jobs and revenues.
Should the indigenous residents of Alaska be permitted to hunt an endangered species of whale? Preventing them from doing something their forbearers did long before there ever was a United States of America would jeopardize a cultural heritage dependent on the rituals, food, and products surrounding the hunting and killing of the whale. Moreover, economic opportunity is limited in some regions of Alaska . Yet, allowing the hunt to continue threatens the very existence of the whale species and might undermine efforts to prevent other nations from "harvesting" the whale for commercial or research purposes. If the hunting continues, the whales will disappear and the debate will eventually become academic, and the indigenous people of Alaska will be faced with tough decisions one way or another.
Should a stiff fine be imposed on a Louisiana factory that is polluting the air and water of nearby residents? What if that factory is the main employer in a community and the resulting fines and regulations might harm its ability to compete? A few hundred acre tract of land in Arizona has been identified by developers for a mixed-use development project, promising to bring jobs, homes, and a boost to the local economy and tax base. But, the land is home to an endangered species. Should the development project be permitted to go forward? With consideration of the habitat?
The Valdez Factor
Those involved in the environmental policy process routinely face such difficult decisions. A host of external political, economic, and social factors exert pressure on the decision-making process and must be considered in any action undertaken. One of the most well know environmental disasters – the Exxon Valdez oil spill – reflects the challenge of making and carrying out environmental policies.
The United States is and has been oil dependent. The country's dependency on oil, including international sources of oil, factored into the oil embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and resulting energy crises of the 1970s, and strained relations in the Middle East, where much of the oil the United States uses is produced. The "geopolitics" of oil has always been a force behind U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East . It impacted the history leading to, and possibly even the decision behind, America 's decision in 1990 and 1991 by the first president George Bush to liberate Kuwait from Iraq , as it was likely a factor to be considered when his son, the second president George Bush, invaded Iraq in 2003.
The use of oil as an energy source also pollutes the air and water with foul toxins. But, it is a relatively abundant, accessible, and cheap source of energy. The automobile industry and many other production processes are wedded to the use of oil as fuel to the extent that a significant investment is needed to replace oil with alternative and new energy sources.
Accordingly, when vast amounts of oil were discovered in Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay in the 1960s, policy makers were eager to promote production of this important domestic source of energy. Yet, Alaska is known for its scenic beauty; it is the "last frontier," teaming with wildlife, fish, waterfowl, clean rivers and waters, and rugged, untouched forests and mountains. The process of drilling for, transporting, and producing oil often degrades the surrounding environment and environmentalists warned about the potential harmful side effects of production there. There was also the question of whether oil from Prudhoe Bay should be used for the benefit of the energy needs of the "lower 48" states.
The state, however, was eager to cash in on the profits generated from oil and offered leases on oil drilling in the bay. In turn, considerable revenues were generated, providing funds to aid the state build schools and cut the tax rate for its residents. The oil industry has become the largest employer in the state, and the United States now generates roughly one-quarter of its domestic oil from Alaska . At the same time, Alaska has become dependent on oil revenues, the single largest source of revenues for the state, bypassing even tourism.
Policy makers were also faced with the problem of how to get oil from Prudhoe Bay to markets in the "lower 48." Should oil tankers be used? Or some other transportation source? The decision made was to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which runs hundreds of miles to the Port of Valdez on Prince William Sound on the southern Alaskan coast. This was done, in spite of concerns over safety, resulting from a leak, terrorism, or a Cold War attack from the then-enemy, the Soviet Union.
Policy makers assured the public of the safety of the pipeline, but ignored the corresponding question of the safety of the tankers and shipping system that would still be required if the oil was to reach markets south of the Port of Valdez. For instance, in an effort to minimize costs, oil tankers were not required to have double-hull design or adopt aggressive safety precautions.
In 1989, the supertanker Valdex, operated by Exxon, received oil piped into the terminal in the Port of Valdez . The supertanker was nearly brand new and employed the latest designs. It loaded 52 million gallons of crude and departed for California . The commanding officer of the ship was one Joseph Hazelwood, a longtime veteran of the tanker business. However, Captain Hazelwood had multiple drunk-driving arrests and had even lost his driver's license. Although he was not permitted to operate an automobile, he was licensed to operate multimillion dollar, multimillion gallon oil tankers.
While in port to load the oil, it appears that both the crew and their captain had been drinking alcohol. Captain Hazelwood, who would later be found to be legally drunk, abandoned his command post and went to his cabin to sleep, leaving the ship in the hands of an inexperienced junior officer. While navigating a path away from icebergs, the ship plowed into rocks on the Bligh Reef of Busby Island, tearing several gaping holes in its bottom hull. The resulting spill released millions of gallons of oil into the ocean causing an oil slick several miles wide and several miles long that would ultimately equal the size of the state of Rhode Island.
The resulting death toll of wildlife and marine life, destruction of pristine beaches and sensitive shorelines, and economic impact on salmon hatcheries, commercial and recreational fishing, and tourism was nothing short of catastrophic. Senior officials in the administration of George Bush responded slowly and hesitantly, reporting incorrectly that efforts to correct the problem were progressing satisfactorily and there would be no need for further federal involvement. The result was that the installation of emergency federal procedures and control of the operation were bypassed, leaving Exxon largely on their own and in charge of controlling the spill.
Contingency plans had been developed for cleaning up an oil spill. These called for the use of such techniques and technologies as chemical dispersants and oil-containment booms and skimmers. But, previous warning that the plans were inadequate for a potential disaster of this magnitude – and previous warnings of a disaster under the conditions present during the wreck themselves – had been ignored by the President and his administration, and previous administrations. The federal government and state of Alaska reluctantly approved the contingency plans.
The actual response by Exxon and the Bush administration was inadequate. It was delayed and took too long to implement, missing the window of opportunity called for in the contingency plan for action. The procedures called for in the plan, the estimates by the administration, and early reports from the Bush administration all proved to be overly optimistic regarding how much oil was spilled and how the spill could be contained and recovered. They seemed to be out of touch with the reality at the scene, and even ignored calls from the public in the area and media reports of the disaster.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill provides a powerful and tragic example of the complexity and challenge of designing environmental policies. Sadly, history repeated itself. Bush's son – George W. Bush – and his administration failed to heed warnings of the vulnerability of the levees and city of New Orleans to a strong hurricane. In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina struck the Crescent City , the human and ecological damage was truly catastrophic. In an turn of events eerily similar to the Valdez oil spill, our leaders failed to prepare for the disaster and then respond once the disaster struck, even though reports at the scene both described the carnage and begged for assistance.
Are these examples that can instruct? The country continues to be oil dependent and promote additional drilling in Alaska 's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
Government's Role in Environmental Protection
Generally, environmental policy is crafted from the vantage point of two orientations toward environmental activity. One is the "command and control" perspective that relies on government regulation. The other is a market-based perspective which seeks to solve the issue through the free market and/or the stewardship of businesses. Each approach has its critics and shortcomings, but it is generally recognized within the environmental movement and among environmental scientists that businesses cannot be left to police themselves, and uncontrolled pursuit of profits will not adequately protect natural resources.
There are limits to market-based approaches, but there are also limits to government effectiveness. And such diverse concerns as efficiency, costs to taxpayers, and political support for the initiative must be weighed. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush also encouraged the use of cost-benefit analysis in designing environmental regulations. Here, the cost of the environment-based control versus its subsequent benefit to society must be factored into the decision process, as does the cost of the control on businesses.
There are, after all, costs that must be borne by businesses, consumers, and society resulting from actions to protect the environment. Efforts to assign and compare the costs and benefits of such actions are difficult. The merits of this approach are in part dependent on assigning a fair cost to such things as a human or animal life, the value of a scenic vista, or the benefit derived from hearing a rare song bird or viewing the breach of a humpback whale.
Environmental policy is also crafted with input from environmental science. An understanding of the scientific and ecological sources of the problem produces enlightened policy. At the same time, we must avoid a complete reliance on scientific solutions and technology. Controversies arise over the misuse of scientific data and many policy makers are not versed in the technicalities of the science presented to them. We are only now beginning to know the way environmental systems work and conflicting reports exist over the causes and severity of most environmental problems.
Government does play a major role in protecting the environment and resolving environmental problems. A regulatory approach exists in a variety of formats and to varying degrees whereby government establishes either incentives or punishments to influence the actions of businesses and individuals with respect to the environment. Individuals, interest groups, and industries attempt to influence the proper governmental response. The auto industry, for example, would certainly appear to have a vested interest in reducing its regulatory burden, while an environmental group might want cleaner operating cars with more stringent fuel standards. Environmental regulatory decisions are political.
The public interest theory of regulations holds that such actions are in response to compelling and board social movements and societal interests. Government acts on behalf of the public. It is government that determines the levels of risk, costs and benefits of the regulation, how best to regulate environmental concerns, which agency is charge with regulating, and the particular reward such as a tax break or punishment such as a fine to produce the desired behavior. These regulations are imposed by governments at all levels, from municipalities to states to the federal government.
Indeed, a myriad of environmental problems – and just as many questions about whether we need to act, who should act, how they should act, and the like – confront us.
