Environmental Policy

Class 12: Env Policy Making: Institutions and Politics CofC Fall 2010 Environmental Policy

EnvPolicyMaking:Processes Part I: Chapter 2

Primary Actors in US Enviro Policy-Making • Government Actors • President and Congress: powerful incentives to take on enviro policy issues; key variable is salience of issue (extent public cares about it) • Administrators: critical role b/c they implement laws passed by Congress. Based on science/economics, can modify policy goals (e.g. Forest Service, EPA, or BLM) • Judiciary: Fed Cts review agency decision; expanded purview with ‘standing’ in 70s • State & Local Officials: Imp b/c of Federalism, but often focused on econ impacts b/c of need to attract/retain industry (public op is important too) • Non-State Actors • Advocacy Orgs (NGOs): all governance levels: global to local; build broad coalitions • Experts: wide variety (lawyers, scientists, economists); not neutral; make value judgments like everyone else • Media: critical component; cover all aspects (inform, persuade, dictate); policy-makers and media have mutually reinforcing relationship (influence each other).

Enviro Policy-Making Process • Agenda Setting: getting problem on subject list • Formation & Alternatives: possible solutions to prob • Decision-Making: choosing among alternatives to address prob • Implementation & Legitimation: translating decision into concrete action • Evaluation: assessing those actions for their constituency with a policy’s goals.

Agenda Setting • “Framing” (or “spinning”): language used and symbols evoked in these debates can make the difference between acceptance and rejection • Ex/ policy actors may avoid population "control" policies as coercive while they embrace voluntary family planning as consistent with cultural values of individual choice • Ex/ Some of the harshest criticism of such issue framing has been directed at large coal/oil companies for their persistent attempts to convince the public and policymakers that global GCC is not really a problem and no government action is needed • Politics stream: the political climate or national mood as revealed in public opinion surveys, election results (particularly a change in presidential administrations), and the activities and strength of competing interest groups .

Policy Formation • Multiplicity of Actors Even under the best of circumstances, the various actors involved in environmental policymaking are rarely equal in their political resources or influence (so, politics is critical to understanding policy) • extent of influence by technical experts such as environmental scientists and engineers in policy formulation (some give significant weight) • Technical experts vs. informed citizenry (threat to democracy?) • “Comprehensive environmental policy analysis would seem a prerequisite for policy formulation . Yet, as is common in the U .S . policy-making process and illustrated by the work of the Bush energy task force, such analysis faces substantial intellectual, institutional, and political barriers”The result is that US policy formulation typically proceeds incrementally, slowly and in small steps .

Policy Legitimation • Legitimation: giving legal force to decisions, or authorizing or justifying policy action, such as through a majority vote in a legislature or a formal bureaucratic or judicial decision. • It also includes the legitimacy of action taken (i .e., whether it is viewed as a proper exercise of governmental authority) and its broad acceptability to certain publics . • Usually occurs through consistency with constitutional or statutory specifications, or it is compatible with U .S. political culture and values, and it has demonstrable popular support. • Public participation (at all levels: local to nat’l) is a significant part of policymaking and particularly important for the policy legitimation • Risks: Without legitimation, run risks of policy failure of ineffectiveness • Ex/ Nuclear Policy Act of 1980 (underestimated public willingness to find repositories for waste & trust in Dept of Energy); Endangered Species Act

Policy Evaluation • After implementation, policy is evaluated, including: • Extent achieving their goals and objectives . • Other standards: e.g. the extent of public involvement, fairness or equity in environmental enforcement actions, or efficiency in the use of resources. • Formal evaluations are surprisingly rare and not easy to do • Environmental policies may be evaluated in several different ways, but the most common is to ask whether they produce the expected outcomes . • Ex/ does the Clean Air Act result in cleaner air? Does the Endangered Species Act save threatened and endangered species and habitats?

Policy Change • Revision may involve establishing new policy goals, granting different authority to an agency, spending more money on the program, using new approaches (such as market-based incentives), or setting new priorities for implementation. • Termination itself is a rare form of policy change • Environmentalists (& others) have suggested taking exactly this action for some natural resource policies that they view as wasteful and harmful to the environment. • Ex/ some western land and water use policies that are nonetheless stoutly defended by politically powerful constituencies that benefit from their continuation-such as ranchers, farmers, miners, and logging interests.

Policy Entrepreneurs Policy entrepreneurs: indivs willing to invest their political resources in linking a problem-solution by forging alliances to build a majority coalition. Must discover “unfulfilled needs” and linking them to solutions…and “ride the wave” once the window of opportunity opens. Key is to “soften up” policy ideas with experts and public

Interest Group Politics • Organized interests that affect public policy • Have an increasing role in shaping policy • Access is granted in our political system for lobbying as a central component • Business/Corps are the most fundamental interest group—and most effective • 70% of all interest groups addressing Climate change were business interests (and over $70m spent) in ‘08 • Has a “special relationship with government” because the overall economy health is key to politics • Environmentalism as a “special interest” • Enlarging access • Have re-balanced interest group politics—more influence • But becoming increasing based on donor’s $$ • Narrower issues • Ideology of Enviro: “pluralism is still bounded by general values, attitudes and beliefs” that shapes worldviews in engaging political action

Rosenbaum’s Typology of Environmental Politics • Ideological Mainstream • Pragmatic reformers (Sierra Club, Nat’l Wildlife Fed) • Stress incrementalism • Deep Ecologists—lifestyle transformation • All forms of life have equal claim on existence • Biocentric vs. Anthropocentric • Radical Environmentalism • Active political activism through direct action toward environmental ends • NOTE: Our Typology (institutionalist, mktlibs, bioenviros, social greens) is probably a better construction of approaches to environmental issues or worldviews

Environmental Attitudes • Deprioritize “environment” now, but in future, many Americans see it as a priority • Jamieson, “An American Paradox” • Nichols Institute’s findings—MOST VOTERS: • Believe significant progress has been made on EP • Perceive enviro as “long term issues that did not warrant the same priority as more ‘immediate concerns such as jobs and health care.” • Assume that enviro policies would have a negative economic impacts such as lost jobs and higher taxes. • By 2009, Gallap Poll indicated that for the 1st time in 25yrs, a majority favored protecting econ growth over the environment.

Science in Policy • Distinguishing factor b/w EP and other policy issues  immensely important • Scientific data become “weapons” and science becomes a “bastion against critics” • Everyone has values. Enviro issues place scientists into the political fray, in which “impartiality and objectivity, the highest highly esteemed scientific virtues, are severely tested and sometimes fail.” (p68) • Often, policy makers are faced with decision b/w scientifically risky decision and politically risky one.

Enviromental Policy • Essentially, enviro degradation is a 21st C problem resolved according to 18th C rules….[such as] Fundamental instit checks/balances, interest group liberalism, federalism.” (p71) • Explosive growth of federal enviro legislation and the distinct role of science in EP making, add new elements to the fed policy cycle.

Env Policy Making:Institutions and Politics Part II: Chapter 3

Vids • Conservative: Bush Declares War on Environment • Obama: Reversing Previous Policy

Presidential Powers • Greatest Power is as: Chief Executive (Manager) • Make cabinet appts; appt fed judges; agency & program budgets; oversee regulatory process; issue exec orders; propose and veto legislation; propose politic priorities & initiatives; power of fed budget; authority to negotiate Int’l agreements and treaties for Congressional approval. • Influence over every step of the policy process • Agenda Setting: Swaying Public opinion, public debate • Policy Formation: devoting presidential staff & resources to issues; mobilizing experts; consulting • Legitimate Policy: supporting legis in Congress, and can block legis through veto. • Policy Implementation • Assess and Evaluate existing policies and reforms • Office of Presidency (institution) • EOP: Exec Office of the President (e.g. OMB—Mgmt and Budget; NRC—Nuclear Reg Committee) • NEPA (Nat’l Enviro Policy Act 1969): provides Commission to advise President

2 Waves of Presidential Leadership on Environment • 1970-72: Pres Nixon declared “Environmental Decade • Signed NEPA,CAA, ESA, and created the US EPA by exec order • The 80s: Reagan and HW Bush • Reagan (early 80s) roll back much of the enviro legislation and curtailed much of the enviro funding. • Late 1980s: HW Bush declared himself the “environmental President”  but came after Reagan, probably the most “hostile” US Pres to the enviro • HW Supported passage of CAA of 1990 • Obama—3rd wave? • What’s his track record? • Truly an “environmentalist”?

Classifying Modern Presidents • Opportunistic Leaders: Nixon and HW Bush • In office during public surges in environmental awareness demanding action, although neither had strong record on environmental policy  both adopted Roosevelt’s “conservationist” mantel • Frustrated Underachievers: Carter and Clinton • Large environmental agendas and support from enviro agencies/NGOs but got little done • Both forced by competing priorities & little public support • Rollback Advocates: Reagan and W. Bush • Anti-regulatory forces in the the Rep party, that sought to rollback or weaken existing enviro policy. • Reagan actually “launched a crusade against what he called ‘unnecessary social regulation that impeded economic growth’ ”

Reagan • During period of econ decline, Reagan sought to rollback environmental regs that he saw standing in the way of economic progress. • “Administrative Presidency”—an attempt to change federal policy to maximize control of policy implementation within exec branch • His appts (hostile to environment) backfired as public was not supportive. • Although he weakened enviroregs and policy, his policies also galvanized and strengthened enivo orgs and participation in enviro groups.

HW Bush • Tried to distance himself from Reagan’s failures in public on environ  return to moderation and embraced “conservation” • Mixed Record: Actually appointed environ leaders to his admin, but left Reagan’s appointees in BLM and Sec of Interior • Signed CAA 1990: Acid Rain, air pollution (80 urban areas); lower airborne toxic chems • Proposed cap and trade for acid rain (not command & control) • However, threatened to boycott Earth Summit in Rio (1992) if contained binding targets for CO2 emissions • Refused to sign CBD • Isolated US over global environmental issues

Clinton • Promises: Raise CAFE stnds; mass transit; support for renewable energy, limit CO2 emissions (1990 levels), create new solid waste reduction prog, preserve ANWR, sign CBD, reform Superfund. • Jobs v. Enviro was a “false choice” because enviro cleanup provided jobs and future US econ depended on clean (efficient) energy • Provided incentives and infrastructure for “green technologies” • Estab OEP (office of Env Policy) to coordenvirodepts and integrate enviro considerations into all depts • Failures revolved around 2 issues: • Attempt to revolutionize Western land use policies  to raise grazing fees to market levels. • BTU Tax: tax on energy content of fuels as means of promoting conservation and addressing climate change • Support for WTO and NAFTA further eroded support by enviro groups • Also, failed to implement CBD (altho signed) and CO2 limits. • Biggest failure: ratify Kyoto Protocol

W. Bush • Regulatory retreat through expansion of executive power to advance anti-regulatory pro-business agenda • “Pure Executive Style” rather than cooperation with other parts of gov’t • Appointments were largely filled with business execs and oil/gas interests. • Result was a “highly politicized form of administration in which the political interests of the president & his supporters frequently overrode scientific and technical considerations.” • Survey in 2008 showed that 889/1600 staff scientists at EPA reported they “experienced political interference with their work in last 5 yrs.” • House Oversight & Gov’t Reform Committee determined that, in collecting 27,000 pages of climate science docs, the Bush admin “manipulate[d] climate science and mislead policy makers and the public about the dangers of global warming.” • “Clear Skies” Bill, actually scaled back the regulations of the CAA was stalled in Congress, he implemented them through executive fiat. • New Source Review (expanding plant or new) had to meet more stringent pollution stnds was eliminated or scaled back in CSBmuch of which has been overruled in courts. • Leaving office: opened more lands to drilling, eased disposing of mountain-top removal wasted, lessened obligations under the Endangered Species Act

Consequences of W. • Serious consequences for enviro policy • Exec rulemaking bypassed Congress and opened itself up to judicial review immediately • Many of his policies and changes have been or will be reversed in the court system OR changed by the Obama administration • Thus the primary consequence was to delay implementation of existing laws and prevent adoption of new policies (e.g. reg of mercury from coal plants) & creation of temporary loopholes.

Early Signs from Obama • Appointed ardent environmentalists to environmental posts • Abe Lincoln’s “team or rivals” approach—debate and transparency • Goals: Create a new “Super-Energy Highway” • Global Warming a priority through cap & trade • Reinvigorated EP • 10% of electricity to come from renewables 2012 and 25% by 2020. • National building efficiency stnds—carbon neutral by 2030. • Double fuel economy within 18 yrs and 1m hybrids on road by 2015 • Uphold Roadless Area Rule • Increased EPA budget by 48% over W’s. • Question is whether Obama can take advantage of the “apparently large policy window opened by Bush’s failures” and a democratically controlled Congress. Economy will limit his options in the short term.

Lessons • Presidents have varied in their support for enviro policy since Earth Day (1970) • “So-called green presidents have often been the least successful enviro policy-makers” (p81) • BP Oil Spill, Pres has limited control over fed agencies (once appt’d key personnel), HOWEVER, it was “a political disaster for Obama” Politics (p83) • 1 mo earlier he proposed expanded offshore drilling – Why? • 1 mo later, he reversed his position – halting OSD indefinitely • Pres has influence over all aspects of the policy process, but that influence wanes as the processes get deeper

Environmental Policy