Final Exam Questions
Under a democratic system, thinking can be adapted to new and ever-changing realities. There are "design advantages", Gore states that lead to fair and just decisions supported by a majority of the people. Democracy also features, and favors, an academically enlightened atmosphere in which false promises and lies can be exposed. In totalitarian nations, falsehoods are perpetuated causing considerable disruption of valid lawmaking and subsequent action. The environment suffers when unilateral decisions are made, with totalitarian approval, by industrialists whose goals include profit, power and productivity at any cost. This was the case, for example, in Italy and Germany under Fascist regimes. The Ruhr Valley in Germany and suburban areas around Milan and Turin in Italy were badly polluted by uncontrolled industrial expansion during the pre-war and war years. Some progress, naturally, has been made since then under non-Fascist governments.
Gore promotes the notion that the empowerment of individual citizens is the best way to save the environment. Because this is a strong argument, industrial executives do not subscribe to Gore’s thinking. There has always been a debate of an ideological nature, even within democratic systems. But this is probably the best way to ensure an equitable solution for both industrialists and environmentalists. The distorting factors in American Democracy - - such as powerful lobbies and special interest groups - - can be offset, Gore explains, through education of the masses and overriding mechanisms, such as elections, referendums and opinion polls, all of which are built into the intrinsic structure of the democratic system. With trust in this system, there is hope to "save the environment".
2.
The strategic goals outlined by Vice President Gore within the context of his Global Marshall Plan include a set of priorities to address the increasingly destabilizing trends on the planet. First and foremost among his strategies is the control of world population. Without some limits on the now booming population of many countries, there will be only limited hope for improving the quality of life and living standards on all continents in the foreseeable future. Impoverishment, illiteracy and exploitation will persist. Destruction of social order and the breakdown of national stability can be a result of overpopulation (310).Gore suggests that the United States continue to finance the global population control program and to provide birth control devices for women, everywhere, who would be willing to use them. Education and literacy programs would assist in making people around the world aware of the impending population crisis, he mentions (317).
Secondly, the development and transfer of technology are important policies to implement in an attempt to rescue and salvage the endangered environment. Environmentally friendly technologies could do much to improve living conditions and to guarantee that ‘nature’ will still be available for future generations. The United States, according to Gore, could launch a Strategic Environment Initiative (SEI), and help provide government and private sector financing for projects likely to promote the goals of environmentalists (320). U.S. Industrial policy will also have to be overhauled and reprioritized, he asserts (336).
The third fundamental principle that needs to be applied under the Global Marshall Plan involves changing the ‘economic rules’. An emphasis needs to be placed on sustainability of the environment through sensible programs that include features friendly to earth’s needs. By requiring the World Bank to sponsor projects that are less destructive, and by promoting economic policies that re-route traditional ‘market-economy’ thinking, there may be some progress made, Gore postulates. He feels that international trading patterns could be reoriented to include many environmentally friendly transactions. The U.S. role would consist of several concrete steps, such as limiting ozone-destroying products, planting trees, and readjusting mileage requirements for automobiles (350).
Fourthly, Gore suggests negotiating a series of new international treaties and establishing a mechanism to enforce them rigidly. These would be environmental treaties, of course, and would cover chemical production, now controlled to some degree by the Montreal Protocol, and measures to ensure ‘biodiversity’, through internationally governed industrial limitations and policy frameworks. The United Sates would be responsible for providing leadership in this area, Gore confirms, but hopefully not leadership of the type President Bush was known for – reneging on his own agreements, as in the case of Antarctica (354).
Fifthly, a new methodology for gathering, judging and analyzing information must be devised. New ways of viewing and perceiving must be incorporated into the analytical process, he argues. Instead of focusing billions on Venus and Mars, maybe we should look more closely at what destructive forces we have unleashed on our own planet. Gore raises, in this segment of his argument, the Mission to Planet Earth concept promoted by Sally Ride. Earth should be the center of attention, not quite so much the moons of Mars.
The United States would be responsible for processing information in an environmental sense and, ideally, would lead the world in doing so. Well established interest-groups would have to be overturned and this is what makes Gore’s Proposal Five so difficult to implement. But it can, in spite of anticipated opposition, be accomplished, he notes (360), through education and recognition of "propaganda for what it is."
3.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, later somewhat amended by new clauses in 1978 and by the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997, is an enormous piece of legislation with a multiplicity of features. It contains at least 17 sections prominently labeled, each of which are detailed.This Internet chart, taken from the well known Wolf Haven Site located at http://www.wolfhaven.com/wolves/esa1973.asp?Frame=1, shows the Act’s sub-headings and reveals the scope and breadth of the Act’s parameters.
Under this legislation, there are both listing and protection clauses. Not only does the Endangered Species Act refer to supporting legislation already in effect, but it strengthens existing policies by adding new conditions of its own. For example, the process of listing a species is extremely complex, requiring at least 16 stages. There are provisions to purchase land, water rights and other ecologically protective entitlements in order to ensure the safety of endangered species on the list. Because it was considered an expensive piece of legislation to enforce, amendments were later enacted to allow case-by-case examination of costs involved. The Secretary of the Interior decides, along with other members of what has become known as "The God Committee", which exceptions are acceptable, i.e. which endangered species must or must not be protected and under what conditions.
There are also provisions in the Endangered Species Act that require cooperation with other countries, especially with respect to fishing regulations, migratory birds and certain hunting provisions. What is fascinating about this Act is the number of times it has been amended, depending on public attitudes towards environmental issues at any given time. Because of its weakening under prior Presidential Administrations, the Act was resurrected through Recovery provisions in 1997, as conservationists and environmentalists became more concerned about salvaging its original intent.
There are prohibitions on the destruction of biomass, such as plants and vegetation, required for sustenance of endangered species and entire ecosystems are often covered in areas where these animals live. Additionally, inter-level cooperation among government agencies is mandated by this Act and specific clauses (Section 6) ensure federal and state jurisdictional enforcement authority. However, the delicate balance between a state’s prerogatives and the federal government’s role is a sensitive issue that shifts with public opinion and prevailing attitudes.
The Act provides protection for those plants and animals identified in accordance with the terms of Section 4, but, as implied above, there has been some erosion of these provisions since the Act’s initial drafting. Efforts are periodically mounted to improve the effectiveness of the protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act with varying results and uneven enforcement of its provisions.
Interestingly, the National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for protecting about 10% of the species covered under this Act and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protects the vast majority of species, 90%. None of these plants or animals on the list can be imported or exported and they may not be removed from federal lands. Section 7 of the Act ensures that no government action may further endanger these species and vigorously protects endangered species habitat areas from interference or destruction.
[Source: http://www.edf.org/programs/Ecosystems/SafeHarbor/enviro.html]
4.
The role of the federal government in the early stages of promoting nuclearenergy involved convincing electric utilities of the advantage of using non fossil fuels, and using – in particular—nuclear power that was cheap, available and could be publicized as ‘non-controversial’. The federal government even went a step further; they subsidized the development of mining and processing nuclear fuels. Additionally, the federal government paid electrical utilities to conduct research on the most cost-effective way to create nuclear plants for use by their customers, whether residential of industrial.
As early as 1954, the Atomic Energy Act allowed private companies to own nuclear facilities. But it took many years before the first test-reactors had been developed. Part of the federal government’s program, under the Eisenhower Administration, was to encourage and expedite progress on this type of research. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, many atomic-related pieces of regulatory registration were enacted to provide insurance average in case of accidents (Price-Anderson Act, 1957) and the Air Quality Act (1967) to urge electric utilities to turn to nuclear power, which was much cleaner. The federal government was behind these efforts. During these years, the policy process was influenced heavily by interest-groups, all of which were vying for control and primacy. They wished to maximize their own profits and priorities. Eventually, certain compromises were made in the interest of the public.
It was not until the 1980s that some serious thought was given to storage of nuclear waste - - which is the primary environmental issue at stake even today.
With regard to another aspect of nuclear power, the federal government tried to calm fears of accidents and conducted studies that showed "diluted" (i.e. relatively harmless) results. In reality, cancer is produced about 25 years later, long after low levels of exposure, which could occur at the time of even a minor reactor accident. Therefore, by camouflaging the scientific realities of nuclear power, the federal government - - in spite of protests at Seabrook (New Hampshire), Bodega Bay (California) and other controversial atomic plant locations - - was able to convince the general public that this technology was safe. Of course, there were a number of conscientious NRC (formerly AEC) scientists who tried to protect the public.
Curiously, only the 3-Mile Island accident gained public notoriety in 1979, even though other incidents at Hanford (e.g. escape of 500,000 curies of radiation from WWII canisters; see Boyden, 1992 and Rosenbaum 1998) and elsewhere occurred essentially without major publicity.
Understandably, the government remained flexible in its attitudes and policies toward nuclear power in order to reflect the trends of the day. Private electrical utilities also adapted to new attitudes and in the 1990s, according to Rosenbaum (266), they continued to promote it as the most environmentally safe form of energy, well ahead of fossil fuels. Their position was further bolstered by the technological success that the French had had in "nuclearizing’ their entire nation’s electric power supply.
Naturally, there are polemical discussions about this matter today, and environmentalists are convinced that there are damaging effects still occurring at our nation’s nuclear power plants. The policy process is influenced at all levels due to the noticeable split in thinking: energy executives vs. environmentalists.
During all of this discussion, over a period of three decades, the policy process displayed the various permutations of key interest- groups that influenced agenda-setting and formulation. Later, modification of initial policy resulted in realignment of values and priorities; but, even today, these modifications have not been adequate to address all of the environmentalists’ concerns.
5.
There have been a large number of federal agencies involved in the management of nuclear waste from the earliest days of World War II, through to the present era. The true magnitude, according to Rosenbaum, of the radioactive contamination problem did not emerge until two or three decades after WWII. Containers were designed to last only 20-30 years and have been corroding rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s, Rosenbaum points out. The crisis created by the reality of water and vegetation contamination has alarmed environmentalists and citizens’ groups. Pressure has been placed on the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Energy (DOE) and on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to begin massive clean-up and containment programs particularly at the Hanford Repository and in Colorado, near Denver, at Rocky Flats.The agenda-setting phase of the policy process involved a large number of vocal environmentalist groups, concerned citizens and even many military and government employees who recognized the potential dangers of allowing nuclear wastes to seep into surrounding watershed, riparian areas and, making its way into the human food chain, even drinking water. Finally, in the mid-1980s, as seepage and contamination spread into large waterways such as the Columbia River, Congress finally acted, moving the policy process into the formulation stage.
With passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) in 1982, the public began to recognize the concern that the government demonstrated about the toxicity and danger of these wastes, some of which were liquid, and seeping dramatically into groundwater, and others of which were solid, but drifting beyond their original 1940s and 50s containers.
Shortly after passage of the NWPA, controversy arose. The policy-process, in mid-formulation stage, was being assailed by diverse segments of the population. This was because certain locations had been pre-selected for storage sites without taking into consideration the reactions of the citizenry in those locales. Ultimately, all new repository sites were rejected by local protesters, except Nevada, which was designated the "nation’s most eligible waste bin" (Rosenbaum, 275). This was the state of affairs in 1987.
Policy has evolved in the last 13 years, but controversy is still very close to the surface. In Carlsbad, New Mexico, for example, there is a Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) that, in conjunction with the Rocky Flats facility, is designed to store nuclear waste. Delays occurred in delivery of the waste, however, as it became increasingly clear that safety was an issue. Major controversy has arisen and has affected the policy process, striking at the heart of decision-making in Washington on this issue. Rosenbaum contends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which replaced the AEC in 1974, is ultimately in a delicate position, having to make life and death decisions on vital issues (277-278).
Unfortunately, as things stand currently, there are no easy solutions to the nation’s nuclear waste problem. Quantities stand at all-time high levels, although the DOE predicts that these wastes will either be contained or will lose much of their radioactivity relatively soon, diminishing the problem in the decades ahead (Rosenbaum, 283). The policy process has seemingly stalled in both the agenda-setting and formulation stages at the present time. With conflicting interests, and a politically embarrassing public outcry, it does not seem that the Post-Clintonian Administration will have an easy task in managing the nation’s nuclear garbage heap. It is especially sad that major industries have thrived financially on nuclear power, but are almost unanimously unwilling to assist in protecting the residents of Nevada, Washington, Colorado and New Mexico from the dangers they (the industrialists and power companies) have created. Whether the standard policy matrix can deal with this colossal issue in the normal manner remains to be seen.
6.
Public land use has always been a heated and controversial topic. As the Westward migration opened new territories for the United States, all land that had not been urbanized, as had Saint Louis or Saint Joseph, Missouri, for example, was essentially federal land. The gradual population influx did not justify large-scale reclassification or modification of the use of this open prairie land and, for many decades, it remained unoccupied or sparsely settled. However, in the last three decades of the 19th Century, land was sold to the public, to industrialists, to logging companies, and to miners or prospectors. Settlers received land, too, for practically nothing.In fact, over one billion acres were "disposed of" in various ways. The government used the funds generated by land sale to pay its own operating expenses and to maintain a standing army. The U.S. Constitution guaranteed, under provisions of the Fifth Amendment, many of these transactions, mostly those in which "compensation" for land sold was involved.
It was only relatively recently that the concept of multiple use was developed under the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) and similar legislation. The MUSYA was designed to complement the Organic Administrative Act but did not change the pre-existing legislation. It provided for recognition that recreation was part of the multiple-use patterns on public lands and provided a planning mechanism for various forestry management strategies. In 1960, at the time of JFK’s presidency, land that was still under federal control could be assigned several different functions or uses. These public lands often served as recreational areas, mines, hunting grounds, watershed reserves, or national forests. A single tract of land could serve all of these purposes; hence it was referred to as "multiple use". However, there were conflicts and disputes that arose over how these uses were to be tangibly implemented.
If the land ceased to produce timber, agricultural products, or minerals, its status changed in the eyes of the government. How a tract of land was categorized at that point became a matter of discussion, involving many of the stages of the policy process - - sometimes on a small scale and sometimes on a large scale. Frequently, conflict arose over whether National Forests should be used by industry or not. Various policies were developed over the years, often in accordance with the Kingdon approach - - emphasizing politics to resolve the problem. Republican administrations favored business and industry, whereas Democrats were far more environmentally conscientious.
It was really a matter of theory or ideology applied to very real, and extremely important issues. How multiple-use lands were exploited affected, and still affects, the welfare of entire eco-systems. Ruining public lands by "farming them out", under leasing agreements, to harshly motivated private developers or industrialists is no way to ensure the survivability of these resources and runs counter to the interests of the general public.
For example, here in New Mexico, Phelps-Dodge operations, in the vicinity of Silver City, adversely impact both private and public lands. The same issues involved on these multiple-use lands locally can be magnified to reflect what may be happening elsewhere in the nation. Caution and careful thought are clearly indicated in determining land use, especially when many uses are possible. The public interest is best served when the policy process matrix is applied correctly to the dilemmas caused by multiple-use tracts of land.
7.
"RARE" stands for "Roadless Area Review and Evaluation". This acronym has been applied to a series of initiatives affecting the National Forest System dating back to before 1970, but which have once again come to the ‘informed’ public’s attention as recently as last year under the Clinton Administration. Prior to the two RARE initiatives, there were three essential pieces of legislation in effect protecting national forest lands from over-development and exploitation by lumber and mining operations. The oldest of these three is the Organic Administration Act (1897), then the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (1960) and the National Forest Management Act (1976). These Acts also interfaced with the Wilderness Act of 1964. Between 1970 and 1978 RARE I and II studies were conducted in places like West Virginia, and throughout the nation, to determine in what parts of National Forest lands roads would be forbidden. Out of the 192 million acres of National Forest, it was determined that 42 million would be roadless.However, the destructive potential of forest roads was noted in a report submitted by the Clinton Administration Erosion takes place, watershed is disrupted and wildlife is adversely impacted, among other problems. The President’s new RARE Notice, issued in late 1999, points out many of the environmental problems associated with road building in forested areas of public lands. He suggests halting all construction in areas designated as wilderness. In previous RARE studies, like RARE II, under President Carter, certain conclusions were reached of a similar nature, but the classification of restricted lands had not been vigorous enough in the eyes of conservationists. The East Gauley Mountain Project in West Virginia, for example, was designated as a wilderness area under RARE II and it still remains essentially roadless today, but there is mounting pressure to reclassify it. In states like West Virginia where mining is a major source of income, destruction of forestland is a major problem. President Clinton’s initiative, the "Notice", will assist in re-applying the stronger provisions of the original RARE studies and will empower the National Forest Service to manage these lands with conservation and protection in mind.
RARE classification of forest lands as protected wilderness is an integral part of public land management policy, because it deals with the central issue of whether land should be used for development/industrial purposes, or whether it must be preserved for future generations and for ecological reasons. Roads are highly invasive intrusions into the sanctity of virgin forest lands and must be regulated strenuously.
Sources: http://www.wvhighlands.org/rare2.html and http://www.cnie.org/nle/for-24.html
8.
The notorious Love Canal contamination case, situated not far from romantic Niagara Falls, was one of the most disastrous and highly publicized ecological events of the late 1970s (http://web.globalserve.net/~spinc/atomcc/lovecana.htm). In fact, it became a ‘cause celebre’ for the environmental movement. Highly toxic chemical contamination spread into residential areas and risked the health of entire families. A public outcry was swiftly forthcoming.If we apply the Kingdon model to the agenda-setting stage of the policy resulting from this disaster, we find a highly structured approach being used. Sequential logic, involving the "problem-politics-policies" paradigm discussed in class, would be applied and ultimately result, after a tug-of-war among factions at the agenda-setting stage and beyond, in legislation such as the Superfund, … which was actually enacted, amid controversy.
However, if the symbolic Stone methodology of agenda-setting is employed within the Love Canal aftermath, the parameters of the discussion assume different dynamics.
By introducing symbolism into the spectrum of sub-topics addressed in the initial stages of agenda-setting, images and thoughts can be generated that define the problem very differently. If definitions are different, then, of course, the solutions will reflect those conceptualizations brought forward in the definitions. Further, Stone’s model asserts, if symbols are used the results can be quite dramatic. By recounting stories of individual children affected by Love Canal carcinogens, for example, a combination of synecdoche and narration is used, incorporating two of Stone’s five symbolic types.
[This dramatic approach was also used as a device to arouse public opinion in favor of justifying and launching Desert Storm, when reports of Iraqi soldiers removing newborn infants from incubators and throwing them from high rise hospital windows in Kuwait City were – perhaps falsely-- narrated before Congress.]
So effective is this emotional appeal, far more subjective than the Kingdon model, that it almost invariably results in tangible action being taken. Metaphors, such as equating release of Love Canal dioxin with the Black Plague of Europe, are also effective means of arousing legislators and power-brokers to action. By drowning important details that may detract from the case being made in ambiguity, more ‘argument points’ can be scored in the minds of decision-makers. For example, there may have been some industries along Love Canal that were disposing of their waste properly, but the leakage caused by violators gained the most publicity. Arguing vaguely and in general terms, in the interest of a greater end result, is a Stone-like tactic proven very effective at the agenda-setting stage of the policy process. In this case, the Superfund could well have been justified by such means. Indeed, colossal amounts of money (billions of dollars) were allocated, under the Superfund, for nation-wide Love Canal type clean-up programs. Outside observers could not always be present at the inner-sanctum level of decision making so – in spite of The Congressional Record and Sub-Committee Transcripts – we may never really know the degree or extent of the probably combined Kingdon / Stone approaches used behind the scenes.
It certainly seems as if the multi-pronged symbolic approach advocated by Stone could prove to be more effective in arousing opinion in favor of environmental clean-up legislation at the agenda-setting stage and beyond. Not only is it far more colorful and creative, but it appeals to the human aspect of decision-makers who frequently take major action on the basis of subjective reports, flavored with emotion-packed case-histories and anecdotal evidence. That billions of dollars hinge on such an approach can only be described as ‘interesting…’
9
. The policy process, influenced by a multitude of factors even within the boundaries of the United States, becomes understandably more complex as international participants are included. So much environmental legislation depends for ultimate success on participation of foreign nations that policy process, at least when related to major initiatives, almost always involves complex tugs-of-war and power-plays. It is amazing, however, that many potential disputes have been resolved amicably even though various players’ priorities are clearly different.Agenda setting is considered the first step of the process. When international parties are included by the realities of a given situation (e.g. water rights, trans-border pollution, migratory birds, etc.), they often determine the types of scenarios that develop. Whether symbols are used, under Stone’s theoretical model, or whether Kingdon’s ‘problem-politics-policies’ model results in the final agenda, it is clear that, in the presence of international representatives, multicultural and diverse perspectives complicate the proceedings. In my opinion, the Kingdon model is more readily adaptable to an internationally oriented agenda setting process, because, under Stone’s model, symbolism and narration can distort the actual content of matters being considered.
The actual formulation stage, as in the case of the London Dumping Convention (1972) or the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1982), needs to focus on technical and political aspects of the topics under analysis. When international parties are involved, as they were in these two examples, the negotiations aimed at determination of risk factors or selection of solutions, become far more convoluted than they would have in a unilateral situation such as establishing of seasonal hunting regulations in Rhode Island. Sometimes, at the formulation stage, the issues are so momentous (global warming, ozone, et al.) that all parties are willing to negotiate, in spite of internal national pressures. Unfortunately, the United States has often been handicapped by its influential interest-groups made up of petro-chemical and industrial tycoons. However, ultimately, when life and death issues are involved, progress at the formulation stage can be made – even when national interests conflict.
With growth of the dominant human species, new developments created by our phenomenal numbers have further complicated environmental matters even if minimal benefits have resulted. Nothing, Gore indicates is simplistic any longer.
Millennia ago, man began to dominant his environment with mastery of fire, simple tools and the wheel. It seems as if man has always been destined to rule over his surroundings, and has done so without particular concern for the consequences of his decisions and actions. Major cataclysmic events occurred historically that were not directly related to man’s decision; but in recent centuries, man himself has been increasingly responsible for the destruction of earth’s previously well-balanced resource-base.
Gore traces the development of naturally occurring events and contrasts them with human developments. Because we have been dominant, we accepted earth’s cataclysms - - but have created a number of our own. Homo sapiens can be linked, even 40,000 years ago, to certain changes in environmental conditions. Our pre-industrial metal-working and the onset of expanded trading patterns contributed to many early ecological changes. Massive migrations of the human population have also caused dislocation and resultant contamination. In addition to Gore’s account of these phenomena, Stephen Boyden’s book, Biohistory: The Interplay between Human Society and the Biosphere (Parthenon Publishing Group, UNESCO, Paris, 1992), speaks eloquently of man’s role in the now-escalating destruction of his planet.
If man must be dominant, as has been the case over the millennia, what value-systems have led him to assume this posture?
Gore states, and implies throughout his Earth in the Balance, that we have predicated our dominance on unjustifiable greed, a quest for power, an aggressive "human-gatherer" mentality and on an uncontrolled impulse toward competition and elimination of rivals. These are the values that have led us to the state-of-affairs where we find ourselves at the dawn of the 21st century. How we, as the evolved, dominant species, cope with our distorted values-systems will constitute either (1) the successful path toward balance and harmony that we inwardly seek or (2) the downward spiral toward destruction of ourselves and our planet.
Because of our dominance, we must assume full responsibility for the consequences of our decisions.