Lecture11_ShipsPassingInTheNight

Lecture11_ShipsPassingInTheNight - Professor Kelemen...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Professor Kelemen Professor Kelemen Social Policy and Politics: Lessons from Europe Spring 2011 LECTURE 11 US and European Environmental Policy: Ships Passing in the night? Essay Assignment – posted on sakai Essay Assignment – posted on sakai Select a major contemporary challenge in public policy or politics where US policy­ makers can learn valuable lessons from the experience of one or more European countries (either from the success the European country (or countries) had or the problems it (or they) encountered. Write an essay explaining what lessons US policy­makers and citizens should take from the European case(s) you select. A tale of two conferences A tale of two conferences Stockholm 1972 Conference on the Human Environment Rio 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development Background Background Late 1960s­1970s: environmental issues emerge on international agenda US is leader on Multi­lateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) 1972 Stockholm Summit, London Convention on Dumping at Sea, 1972 World Heritage Convention, 1973 CITES, 1978 MARPOL EEC member states followed (often reluctantly) US lead through 1980s 1990s: Dramatic Reversal EU emerges as leader US opposes nearly all MEAs Central Questions Central Questions What happened? Why did US and EU ‘trade places’? Why did EU replace US as environmental leader? Why has US become such a laggard? What might this mean going forward? Outline Outline Existing literature and its shortcomings Kelemen Vogel argument: A regulatory politics approach Domestic Politics in US and EU Regulatory Competition Ozone Depletion Trade in GMOs Climate Change Persistent Organic Pollutants Conclusion Existing Literature Existing Literature Differences and Wealth and ‘post­materialist values’ World Society Perspective Cost­benefit analysis US unilateralism vs. EU multilateralism Wealth and ‘post­materialist values’ Wealth and ‘post­materialist values’ Argument: wealth ‘post­materialist values’ support for environmental agreements Roberts (1996, 2004), Recchia (2002) Problem: May explain differences between developing and developed countries, not between EU and US Predicts opposite of what actually occurred (i.e. US had greater gains in wealth and post­materialist values, but became environmental laggard) World Society perspective? World Society perspective? Argument: Engagement in ‘world society’ construction of national preferences by ‘world environmental regime’ support for environmental treaties Stanford School: Meyer 1997, Frank 1999 Problem: Doesn’t help distinguish between US and EU, as both are ‘deeply embedded’ in world society Cost­Benefit Analysis Cost­Benefit Analysis Balance of abatement cost v. ecological vulnerability determines national position Sprinz and Vaahtoranta Problems: Assumes that ecological vulnerability is very clear – when it is politically constructed. Ignores fact that abatement costs may themselves be a product of earlier policy decisions Fails to explain US and EU positions on key issues: CFCs ­ US had higher abatement costs, but led US unilateralism vs. US unilateralism vs. EU multilateralism Growing US unilateralism rejection of MEAs Post­Cold War, US becomes more unilateral Position on MEAs follows a pattern: ICC, UN Convention on Rights of the Child, Anti­personnel Land Mine Treaty, CNTB EU embraces multilateralism support for MEAs EU wants to establish identity as a ‘civilian’ (Duchêne )or ‘normative’ (Manners) power Environment is useful for developing EU reputation as leader on multilateralism. Problems with the unilateralism vs. Problems with the unilateralism vs. multilateralism explanation If rejection of multilateralism alone drove US policy, US might take unilateral measures to protect enviro… but it rarely does. Exceptions: PIC regime for toxic waste, defense of turtles … but overall US has not used unilateral action to be ‘environmental leader’ Also US continues to comply with existing multilateral treaties and supported POPs treaty EU’s embrace of multilateralism / ‘normative power’ explanation ignores role of economic interest If embrace of multilateralism alone explained EU policy, EU might avoid unilateral measures… but it has not Beef Hormones, GMOs, chemical regulation, leg­hold traps Our alternative explanation: Our alternative explanation: A Regulatory Politics Approach Domestic Politics + Regulatory Competition Domestic Politics: Gov’t position reflects domestic political strength of green constituencies Regulatory Competition: Gov’t position reflects competitive interests of domestic firms Domestic influence of environmentalists stricter domestic standards political & economic incentives to support int’l treaties US Domestic Environmental Politics in the 1960s and 1970s: IDEAS: RACHEL CARSON – SILENT SPRING (1964) Triggering Events: Santa Barbara Oil Spill (1969) Cuyahoga River Fire Cuyahoga River Fire (near Cleveland Ohio) 1969 Policy Entrepreneurs: Earth Day (April 22, 1970) Dennis Hayes (Stanford Student) Gaylord Nelson (Wisconsin Senator) Domestic Politics: US in 1970s Domestic Politics: US in 1970s 1970s: Surge in public concern Partisan competition for environmental vote Battle between Nixon administration and democratic congress (Ed Muskie in Senate) to win environmental voters (68 70 & 72 elections) Landmark domestic statutes… Major Environmental Laws Major Environmental Laws General Measures NEPA Endangered Species Act Air Clean Air Act Amendments Water Clean Water Act Marine Protection Act Coastal Zone Management Act Safe Drinking Water Act Waste RCRA CERCLA and Sara (Superfund) Toxics/Pesticides FIFRA TSCA 1969 1973 1970, 1977, 1990 1972, 1977, 1987 1972 1972 1974, 1986, 1996 1976, 1984 1980, 1986 1972 1976 US international leadership US international leadership US not only passes domestic laws, it also plays leadership role in promoting international environmental protection US supports or takes lead on: 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm 1972 London Convention on Dumping at Sea 1972 World Heritage Convention 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 1978 MARPOL Protocol on Pollution from Ships Domestic Politics: US in 1980s Domestic Politics: US in 1980s 1980s: Reagan vs. Congress Some domestic and int’l action: SARA (1986), Clean Air Act (1990); Global Climate Protection Act (1987); Ocean Dumping Act (1998); Montreal Protocol 1987 % of Americans who believed that the “overall quality of their environment had worsened over the last five years” up from 34 % in 1983 to 55 % in 1990 % who regard “environmental pollution” as a “very serious threat these days to a citizen like yourself” grew from 44 % in 1984 to 62 % in 1989 Time magazine named the “Endangered Earth” as “Planet of the Year,” in place of its well­known “Man of the Year” for 1988. 1988 Bush campaign: He promises to be, “Republican president in the Teddy Roosevelt tradition. A conservationist. An environmentalist.” Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 1989 Earth Day 1990 GIANFRANCO GORGONI Domestic Politics: US in 1990s Domestic Politics: US in 1990s 1990s: Bush begins with major environmental initiatives (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) 1991­1992 Turning point: State of the Union address. Bush and Earth Summit. Shift in public opinion by mid 1990s. Public is more satisfied with/less concerned about environment 1993 Clinton enviro measures rejected by Congress. 1994: New Republican Congress blocks enviro initiatives 2000­2008 G.W. Bush administration’s attack on environment Union of concerned scientists, “There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science [by the Bush Administration] is unprecedented.” Domestic Politics: EU Domestic Politics: EU 1970s: Beginning of domestic environmental legislation Reluctant cooperation with international treaties 1980s: Strengthening of Green parties. Electoral competition over environmental issues. Greater EU role in environmental regulation. But, reluctance on many int’l issues due to economic concerns (e.g. Ozone Depletion) Green Movements and Parties Petra Kelly Daniel Cohn-Bendit Joschka Fischer Domestic Politics: EU 1990s­present Domestic Politics: EU 1990s­present Environmentalists gain strength domestically Public opinion: 1999: 69 % of Europeans considered environmental protection to be “an immediate and urgent problem”. Green Parties: Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Finland Policy­making in the EU encourages strict standards EU Institutions favor environmental protection Strict countries want to force laggard countries to become stricter Domestic Politics: EU 1990s­present Domestic Politics: EU 1990s­present EU embraces ‘precautionary principle’ EU adopts world’s strictest environmental policies Energy / Climate Change policies Recycling Chemical safety GMO regulation EU takes on global leadership role Regulatory Competition Regulatory Competition 1970s – 1980s: US faces domestic pressure for regulation, supports int’l treaties to ‘internationalize’ its standards 1990s ­ present: EU faces domestic pressure for regulation, supports int’l treaties to ‘internationalize’ its standards Regulatory Competition Regulatory Competition "it is in the US competitive interest to have other nations raise environmental standards (and thus their production costs) and strengthen their enforcement of those standards.” ­ Russell Train, head of Nixon's Council on Environmental Quality (1971) Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances ­ 1986 US: Introduced domestic controls in 1970s and more were certain to come. Dupont and “Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy” support Montreal Protocol level the playing field and gain export opportunities EU: less domestic regulation in 1970s and 80s Montreal protocol would disadvantage European manufacturers, and they oppose it. US takes lead role on Treaty, Europeans eventually come along. Regulatory Competition: Regulatory Competition: Climate Change US: No significant domestic pressure for GHG reductions in 1990s­present, therefore no incentive to support treaty EU: strong domestic pressure for GHG reduction 1990s­present, therefore economic incentive to get others to sign on to Kyoto. EU emerges as major champion of Kyoto Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety ­ 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety ­ 2000 EU: Strict GMO regulations in the 1990s, so European agriculture does not embrace GM crops. EU hopes to ‘internationalize’ its precautionary principle and EU agri could gain market share if Treaty restricts US GMO exports US: Lax domestic regulation and growth of GMO agriculture Treaty restrictions on trade would hurt US agribusiness; they press gov’t to oppose treaty. Stockholm Convention on POPs 2004 Stockholm Convention on POPs 2004 US and EU: both sign. It bans things already banned in both EU and US (bans dioxin, DDT, PCBs), so no added cost. But… US blocks ratification due to fear that treaty could lead to pressure for new regulations EU leads way on treaty and calls for adding more chemicals, hoping to export its new strict chemical standards (REACH Regulation of 2006) Conclusion Conclusion Existing explanations in literature on MEAs fail to explain shifts in US and EU positions Most powerful explanation links domestic politics and regulatory competition Where are we going? Leadership from US? Leadership from US? Don’t hold your breath Little enthusiasm among democrats As for Republicans, “House Republicans fell prey to anti­ environmental extremism on February 19, passing a 2011 spending plan loaded with attacks on public health standards and conservation that have little to do with reducing the nation's debt, Republicans for Environmental Protection, a national grassroots organization of stewardship­minded Republicans, said.” http://www.rep.org/opinions/press_releases/release11­2­19.html Andrew Revkin: dot earth blog on NYT: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/republicans­for­envir Leadership from EU Leadership from EU Will continue – to some degree – for reasons we have just covered. But public attention to environmental issues has waned with economic crisis New east European member states are less supportive ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online