Unformatted text preview: Professor Kelemen Professor Kelemen Environmental Politics
Overview of major policies part 2 Outline Outline …where we left off Moderation under Bush I …where we left off Federal government had moved decisively into field of environmental protection in early 1970s addressing issues such as:
Air pollution Water Pollution Toxic waste Species Protection/ nature conservation Reagan Backlash 1980s Backlash 1980s Backlash Criticism of impact of enviro regulation on economy increases in late 1970s (clean air act) Reagan Backlash Public rejects Reagan agenda and Congress fights back after 1982 Budget cuts to EPA (20% of staff, 1/3 of budget) Controversial appointments (Watt and Gorsuch) Regulatory oversight (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Taskfor on Regulatory Relief) Executive Order 12291 Reagan’s 2 term Reagan’s 2
nd Greater moderation after Watt and Gorsuch Scandals Appoints more proenvironment figures, William Ruckelshaus and later Lee Thomas, to head EPA US supports Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances Moderation under Bush I Moderation under Bush I Bush I campaigns as ‘environmental president’, promises ‘no net loss of wetlands’ But internal divisions: William K. Reilly vs. John Sununu and Dan ‘Potatoe’ Quayle 1989 – Growing awareness of ‘Greenhouse effect’ and Ozone Depletion 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 1990 – Earth Day – 20 years later GIANFRANCO GORGONI 1991 Bush administration gives up on environmentalists/ turns against them/ calls them extremists 19911994: From hope to 19911994: From hope to disappointment Bush threatens not to attend 1992 Rio Summit unless climate treaty is nonbinding, then refuses to sign Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 Election He has good reason to, as they showed him little support after 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments Bush says environmentalists hurting economy Clinton selects Al ‘Earth in the Balance’ Gore and campaigns on environmental issues Bush mocks Gore as ‘Ozone Man’ and says, ““This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme we’ll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American.” The Clinton Years The Clinton Years Early missteps and weakness by Clinton: Grazing Fees and BTU tax Weak proposals on climate change 1994 Gingrich Revolution: Republican victory in Congressional election ends possibility of major environmental initiatives Contract with America (Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act pushes costbenefit analysis/risk assessment.) also push for limits on ‘unfunded mandates’ Congress starts using ‘appropriations riders’ Restrictions on how money can be spent. Used to stop enforcement by EPA and others (e.g. EPA prohibited from enforcing limits on toxic emissions from oil and gas refineries) The Clinton Years (cont.) The Clinton Years (cont.) Renewed zeal toward end of second term: eight million acres of land as new national monuments, and millions more underwater, as part of new protective areas. Tightened regulations on arsenic in water, air pollution, and diesel emissions 60 million acres of forests set aside Why didn’t Gore do more? Question: Question: Which individual has done the most to undermine progress on US environmental policy in recent years? Ralph Nader Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida. Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida. Appointments: Whitman to EPA = moderate, but resigned after feeling sidelined Gale Norton at interior = disciple of Watt Abraham at energy = against higher fuelefficiency Bush attempts to cut EPA budget but is rebuffed by Congress 2001: Bush II: The worst Bush II: The worst environmental President ever? Reversed promise to regulate CO2 emissions and withdrew US from Kyoto Protocol Blocked Clinton executive order to protect 60 million acres from logging & other proposed regulations such as new standards for arsenic in drinking water Cheney Energy Plan proposed opening up ANWR to oil drilling. Cheney belittles energy conservation. Bush II: the worst environmental Bush II: the worst environmental president ever? (continued) 2002 ‘Clear Skies’ proposal Would it have reduced pollution? Governing via executive order: new source review under clean air act Congress works on ‘Climate Stewardship Act’ from 2003, but fails to pass Healthy Forests Initiative (Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003) 2007 EPA blocks California and 17 other states from enforcing standards for vehicle emissions of CO2 and other pollutants With Washington inactive, states take on the lead Eventually even Supreme Court turns against Bush Opens public lands to logging. Restricts public involvement Mass. Vs. EPA Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases By LINDA GREENHOUSE, April 3, 2007, NYT WASHINGTON, April 2 — In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heattrapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal. The 5to4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heattrapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now was “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do. Beyond the specific context for this case — socalled “tailpipe emissions” from cars and trucks, which account for about onefourth of the country’s total emissions of heat trapping gases — the decision is likely to have a broader impact on the debate over government efforts to address global warming. …. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, said that by providing nothing more than a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate,” the environmental agency had defied the Clean Air Act’s “clear statutory command. He said a refusal to regulate could be based only on science and “reasoned justification,” adding that while the statute left the central The court also decided a second Clean Air Act case Monday, adopting a broad reading of the The court also decided a second Clean Air Act case Monday, adopting a broad reading of the environmental agency’s authority over factories and power plants that add capacity or make renovations that increase emissions of air pollutants. In doing so, the court reopened a federal enforcement effort against the Duke Energy Corporation under the Clean Air Act’s “new source review” provision. The vote in the second case, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 05848, was 9 to 0. The two decisions left environmental advocates exultant. Many said they still harbored doubts about the federal agency and predicted that the decision would help push the Democratic controlled Congress to address the issue. Even in the nine months since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the first case, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05 1120, and accelerating since the elections in November, there has been a growing interest among industry groups in working with environmental organizations on proposals for emissions limits. … If the decision sowed widespread claims of victory, it left behind a prominent loser: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who argued vigorously in a dissenting opinion that the court never should have reached the merits of the case or addressed the question of the agency’s legal obligations. His dissent, which Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. also signed, focused solely on the issue of legal standing to sue: whether the broad coalition of states, cities and environmental groups that brought the lawsuit against the environmental agency four years ago should have been accepted as plaintiffs in the first place. This was the issue on which the coalition’s lawsuit had appeared most vulnerable, given that in recent years the Supreme Court has steadily raised the barrier to standing, especially in environmental cases. Justice Scalia has long been a leader in that effort, and Chief Justice Roberts made clear that, as his statements and actions in his prejudicial career indicated, he is fully aboard Justice Scalia’s project. Chief Justice Roberts said the court should not have found that Massachusetts or any of the other plaintiffs Chief Justice Roberts said the court should not have found that Massachusetts or any of the other plaintiffs had standing. …Chief Justice Roberts complained that “today’s decision recalls the previous highwater mark of diluted standing requirements,” a 1973 decision known as the Scrap case. That was an environmental case that the Supreme Court allowed to proceed on a definition of standing so generous as to be all but unthinkable today. “Today’s decision is Scrap for a new generation,” the chief justice said, not intending the comparison as a compliment. The majority addressed the standing question by noting that it was only necessary for one of the many plaintiffs to meet the threepart definition of standing: that it had suffered a “concrete and particularized injury,” that the injury was “fairly traceable to the defendant” and that a favorable decision would be likely to “redress that injury.” Massachusetts, one of the 12 state plaintiffs, met the test, Justice Stevens said, because it had made a case that global warming was raising the sea level along its coast, presenting the state with a “risk of catastrophic harm” that “would be reduced to some extent” if the government undertook the regulation the state sought. In addition, Justice Stevens said, Massachusetts was due special deference in its claim to standing because of its status as a sovereign state. This new twist on the court’s standing doctrine may have been an essential tactic in winning the vote of Justice Kennedy, a leader in the court’s federalism revolution of recent years. Justice Stevens, a dissenter from the court’s states’ rights rulings and a master of court strategy, in effect managed to use federalism as a sword rather than a shield. Following its discussion of standing, the majority made short work of the agency’s threshold argument that the Clean Air Act simply did not authorize it to regulate heattrapping gases because carbon dioxide and the other gases were not “air pollutants” within the meaning of the law. “The statutory text forecloses E.P.A.’s reading,” Justice Stevens said, adding that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant.” The justices in the majority also indicated that they were persuaded by the existing evidence of the impact of automobile emissions on the environment. The agency itself “does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between manmade gas emissions and global warming,” Justice Stevens noted, adding that “judged by any standard, U.S. motorvehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations.” Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, signed by the other three dissenters, disputing the majority’s statutory analysis. The decision overturned a 2005 ruling by the federal appeals court here. Undermines economic growth? Ignores Cost Benefit analysis? Costs: Major Themes: Criticisms of Major Themes: Criticisms of Environmental Policy
Some estimate impact of policies approx 2.2% of GDP Health Environmental amenities Benefits Some policies pass cost/benefit test, others fail Major themes: The drive to Major themes: The drive to ‘deregulate’ or cut red tape Reagan vs. Democratic Congress Gore’s ‘reinventing government’ 104th Congress (19951997) vs. Clinton Bush II + Republican Congress (107th and 108th) Control of environmental policy divided between Executive, Legislature, Courts and state governments Power further divided amongst various federal Departments (EPA, Interior, Agriculture, Energy, State) and Congressional Committees Considerable gridlock Major Themes: Impact of US’s Major Themes: Impact of US’s fragmented political system Once policies are adopted, they tend to stick Change doesn’t come through repealing laws, but through ‘administrative strategies: Inaction in key areas: Energy Policy, Transport policy, Sprawl appointments budget cuts (Spending on pollution control down 8% from 19802004) Oversight/ political pressure on agencies Measurement challenges Air Quality: Improved, but many problematic areas remain Water Quality: Improved, but 45% of bodies of water do not meet state standards Hazardous waste: slow progress in cleaning up sites Natural Resources: Millions of acres set aside as parks and wilderness preserves, but ongoing loss of wetlands and other sensitive habitats to development Species: Over 1,200 plant and animal species protected under ESA, but threats remain Has environmental Policy Has environmental Policy worked? ...
View Full Document
- Spring '09
- Government, Clinton Bush