Political ecology has certainly immediately caught my attention. I often feel under informed in class compared to the multitude of burgoning enviromental scientists that sit around the room. However, it is always so fascinating to hear their stories and contributions to the conversations and it appears that during class this week they have picked up on this topic too.
Most memorable to me about the reading is the first chapter when Robbins reveals the four thesis of political ecology. It immediately connected me to my class this semester on African history. Learning of Africa pre white conquest was like finding a new continent. I had always maintained that "pristine" theory and to realize the continent had a diverse and successful pre-history I felt both embarrassed and enlightened. The continent struggles so greatly as a result of European conquest and all of the major changes to help the people and environment have been handed down through large world organizations with no link to the how's and why's of community and history that Robbins states. I can't wait to use my African history class to connect with this fascinating topic that brings my love of history directly to environmental policy.
(hope this is short enough. sorry about before! :) )
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Policy Control
The more I read Kraft the more I like his clean and simple analysis of huge problems. Chapter 7 about analyzing environmental policy made me realize my ignorance about the ideas I support. His talk about the many forms of analysis such as the GAO, National Academy of Sciences, and Congressional Committee hearings on the EPA left me scrambling to remember what I've heard on the news and where it's actually come from. I never thought about a Congressional hearing or investigation being "limited" and of "varying quality." Of course that makes sense now that I think of it because Congressional groups are comprised of many political interests and lobby influences that would limit or manipulate the data. Of course it is also Congress that is the source of policy changes due to the same fact regarding their differing opinions based mainly on political factors and less on environmental needs. These realizations concern me the most because Congress is the nation's trusted and established body to regulate important matters of public environmental policy yet they are basing such decisions on committee reports that are insufficient and often biased. There is no regulation on their quality of information used.
I liked the amount of time Kraft spent discussing how to improve the creation and implementation of public policy regarding the environment. I am a big believer that the ultimate deciding factor in big business and following policy is whether it can fit within their budgets. Kraft's discussion of costs and benefits was really interesting. Quoting Portney who stated, "In other words, wise regulations are those that pass a kind of common sense benefit-cost test," made me think deeply about how policy changes may do that and what fail before ever being in place. He continued to quote Portney, "The tendency of legislators to draft 'lowest acheivable emissions' does not take into account such marginal costs." His statement implies that lawmaker, the public and staunch environmentalists agree that there must be some "acceptable" limit to pollution in the country in order to maintain a certain cost-benefit that allows an environmental policy to be feesable. That argument to me seems like one of the most intelligent I have explored in this semester. I don't know how I feel about accepting the idea of "limited pollution levels" instead of the ideals of a perfectly clean water supply or Chesapeake Bay. I have to ask myself if that is truly possible and is "almost clean" as good as "completely clean?" So often business and environmentalists put politicians in the midst of "one or the other" both wanting purity in their requests. Maybe it isn't necessarily just the politicians pushing through impossible environmental policy as much as it is the lobbying factions forcing a mediocre compromise. I am interested now to read more from this Portney guy and find out more of what his benefit-cost test is and what other examples he has to show whether success or failure.
This chapter intrigued me like nothing else we have read. I am often discouraged by the constant discussion circulating in the environmentalist's corner about how the government..the public..the "establishment" is always out to ruin or sabotage or not care about their causes. I think that is part of the role of the reformer. Rather than dwelling on the past, while totally important ( I am a history major :) ) this chapter brought environmental policy into a light of potentials for change and examples of success. It challenged the going norms surrounding my ideas of being an environmentalist. It made me think that maybe you could be active and make change without being a staunch idealist. I could go on an on about my impressions of environmental justice and market incentives, but instead I'll save your time and save some ideas for class.
I liked the amount of time Kraft spent discussing how to improve the creation and implementation of public policy regarding the environment. I am a big believer that the ultimate deciding factor in big business and following policy is whether it can fit within their budgets. Kraft's discussion of costs and benefits was really interesting. Quoting Portney who stated, "In other words, wise regulations are those that pass a kind of common sense benefit-cost test," made me think deeply about how policy changes may do that and what fail before ever being in place. He continued to quote Portney, "The tendency of legislators to draft 'lowest acheivable emissions' does not take into account such marginal costs." His statement implies that lawmaker, the public and staunch environmentalists agree that there must be some "acceptable" limit to pollution in the country in order to maintain a certain cost-benefit that allows an environmental policy to be feesable. That argument to me seems like one of the most intelligent I have explored in this semester. I don't know how I feel about accepting the idea of "limited pollution levels" instead of the ideals of a perfectly clean water supply or Chesapeake Bay. I have to ask myself if that is truly possible and is "almost clean" as good as "completely clean?" So often business and environmentalists put politicians in the midst of "one or the other" both wanting purity in their requests. Maybe it isn't necessarily just the politicians pushing through impossible environmental policy as much as it is the lobbying factions forcing a mediocre compromise. I am interested now to read more from this Portney guy and find out more of what his benefit-cost test is and what other examples he has to show whether success or failure.
This chapter intrigued me like nothing else we have read. I am often discouraged by the constant discussion circulating in the environmentalist's corner about how the government..the public..the "establishment" is always out to ruin or sabotage or not care about their causes. I think that is part of the role of the reformer. Rather than dwelling on the past, while totally important ( I am a history major :) ) this chapter brought environmental policy into a light of potentials for change and examples of success. It challenged the going norms surrounding my ideas of being an environmentalist. It made me think that maybe you could be active and make change without being a staunch idealist. I could go on an on about my impressions of environmental justice and market incentives, but instead I'll save your time and save some ideas for class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
