Week Seven (Halfway There!)

Is there an environmental policy problem currently being addressed at the state level which you
think could be better solved by federal-level regulation? Conversely, is the federal government trying
to solve an environmental policy problem better addressed by the states? Identify and describe an
environmental policy problem which you think is being addressed by the wrong level of
government. Explain why you think the problem could be better regulated by a different level, laying
out the pros and cons of switching to a different regulatory approach. Cite class readings and other
sources (e.g., news articles that help you describe the policy problem) as necessary. Your narrative
should be 6–9 paragraphs.


The battle between states-rights and the long arm of the federal government has been going on for decades.  It has its origins in the writings of the 10th amendment which states that "all powers not specified to the Federal Government are given to the States".  Whenever the federal government announces a new set of legislation, the argument and battle for states rights begins again.  Of course, I don't necessarily think that this is a battle that should not take place.  Preserving the system of checks and balances is a critical part of what helps keep this nation strong.  However, at times, there arises a set of issues that are so essential to the well being of all, that the best solution is a national law.  Environmental policies are a perfect example of this necessity.

Critics can argue this debate a thousand and one different ways, and I have no intention of adding to this debate.  One can look at countries with vastly powerful centralized governments, like China, and note that their environmental situation is the same as, if not actually worse than, ours.  However proponents of big government can point at China and cite the massive leaps and bounds of progress that they have been making.  China is the worlds leader in investments in alternative energy.  It outspends the United States on solar power spending almost 100 to 1, and because of its strong central authority, China was able to go ahead and build one the world's largest hydro power dams, the Three Gorges Dam - a 20$ Billion+ dollar project, making it, to the best of my understanding, the largest alternative energy project in the world.

Here is my argument:  While allowing states to make their own laws can be beneficial in certain situations for certain states, it will also put others in a very bad position, as each state must balance its economic and industrial as well as social duties often before considering their duties to the environment.  The problem that I'm focusing on is insignificant rules and weak floors in the instance of environmental disasters as well as interstate problems.  If one state comes across with weak laws, all surrounding states have the potential to be adversely effected.

Lets look at one particular environmental problem that is growing to become a potentially huge and devastating environmental as well as economic disaster.  This is a problem that is relatively untouched by mainstream and media environmentalists:  Water.  Water shortages, to be precise.

On February 22nd, the NYTimes published an article online that highlighted the dangerously thin snowpeaks in the mountains this year.  What does this entail exactly and why does this matter with environmental policy?
"Lakes are half full and mountain snows are thin, omens of another summer of drought and wildfire. Complicating matters, many of the worst-hit states have even less water on hand than a year ago, raising the specter of shortages and rationing that could inflict another year of losses on struggling farms.

Reservoir levels have fallen sharply in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. The soil is drier than normal. And while a few recent snowstorms have cheered skiers, the snowpack is so thin in parts of Colorado that the government has declared an “extreme drought” around the ski havens of Vail and Aspen."

This is a problem because not only does the prospect of water shortages threaten the well being of the physical environment, in the sense of wildfires and droughts, this also will effect the livelyhoods of millions of Americans who will be forced to cope with water shortages and crop failures.  This then in turn will lead to higher costs of water and food, and an increased cost to the standard of living in a time where, for many people, money is already tight as it is.  

While state politicians are racing and struggling to come up with emergency funds in case of disaster, politicians in Washington - the one place where relief could flow from most freely - have only proposed 20$ million of potential disaster funds for the many states that would be affected.  In other words, Washington doesn't seem all that concerned  and indeed with their current political battles that are being fought.  However, its more of a case that Washington politicians don't know that this is going on behind their backs.  

In Colorado alone, last year wildfires caused over 500$ million in damages, and droughts caused tens of millions in crop failures.  This is a heavy burden for a state to shoulder and only slows economic growth.  The federal government has the funds and it has the manpower to enact and enforce sweeping legislation that would solve this potential disaster before it surfaces.  It has the power to lessen the burden of state economies that are still trying to get off their knees.  

This is a clear and cut example as to why the Federal Government should be able to impose nationwide environmental protection and legislation.  There are some issues that are bigger than states, that effect millions of people.  The job of the federal government is to look after the citizens of the United States, and I believe this is a prime opportunity for the government to do just that.


Sources:  
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4090/why-the-federal-government-not-states-should-regulate-the-environment

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/in-drought-stricken-heartland-snow-is-no-savior.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&smid=fb-share

Week 4: A Frame of Reference

The Sun and the Winds are free.  As a species inhabiting the Earth, we have used energy sources for tens of thousands of years, some renewable, and some not.  As we have grown and progressed as a race, so have our energy needs - branching out past a point of sustainability.  

However, we have begun to delve into the alternatives.  We have found ways to begin curbing our addiction to our destructive habits of over consumption.  We have found ways that can begin to give the world time to return what has been destroyed, and recreate that which was taken by man.  Of course I am talking about Alternative Energy.  But not just alternative energy, I am talking about the topic that is in and of itself the greater issue:  Energy economy.  I want to address the current system that exists, and I want to bring attention to one particular means of beginning to solve that problem, which lies in Solar Energy.   

Before we can talk about the solution we need to address a frame of reference that sheds light on the problem itself.  I want to talk about a documentary that really changed my outlook on the world and really hit home the message that Industry and Energy and the Environment are inseparably connected.  Edward Burtynsky: Manufactured landscapes is a documentary about a photographer's trip to China and his investigation into a world of industry, trash, consumption, energy, and everything in between.  Edward Burtynsky tries to remain as objective as possible.  His goal in the documentary is simply to portray the reality of the world as it is - and lets the viewer make their own decisions.  However, he had this to say about environmentalists, "I think the environmental movement has failed in that it’s used the stick too much; it’s used the apocalyptic tone too much; it hasn't sold the positive aspects of being environmentally concerned and trying to pull us out.”  While I think it's a completely fair tactic for environmentalists to use - because it's a real threat, he does make a point.  Environmentalists can't simply say "live better or the world as we know it will end", that's not a good way to motivate people to change their lives.   People don't often respond to negative reinforcement. 

    What Burtynsky offers is an alternative.  His message doesn't carry the tone of an agenda, it doesn't initially scare 'non-believers' off.  He shows them, 'hey, this is what our world does to support your lifestyle'.  He shows pictures and footage of literal mountains and small hills of coal that are waiting to be burned at coal plants.  He shows footage of people whose entire life hood is digging through trash heaps of computer waste to look for gold to melt down and resell.  He shows shipwreckers, people who dismantle old ships for a meager living.  He shows the children taking apart these ships, wading waist deep in oil, disposing of the byproduct of a globalized culture. 


This is our first frame.  This is our starting point.  Burtynsky shows us the grim reality behind a world that we take for granted every day, that we don't even pause to think about.  This is a world that employs hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people, and their industry fuels millions more jobs and markets around the world.  Any aspiring environmentalists needs to understand the world in which we live, and how it works, before we can attempt to create significant change. 

Our second frame dives into the implementation of a solution, not a perfect solution, but perhaps the glimmer of light that you see at the end of a tunnel.  To this we turn to Alternative Energy; solar energy in particular.  On the other side of the world from China and Burtynsky's research, a company in the United States created a major breakthrough in the world of sustainable energy.  A small company created the world's most efficient commercial solar panel ever.  The website Treehugger.com wrote an article on the company NatCore, a company that created a solar panel that is 99.7% efficient.  Why is this important and why am I mentioning this article as a frame of reference?“  One of the ways this matters, said Chuck Provini, the company’s CEO, “is that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the electricity you get on a sunny day vs. a cloudy day. Diffused light won’t matter that much.”  In the world of solar energy, this is huge.  This is two steps forward onto creating a technology that can afford to compete with coal and natural gas. 

You see, the problem with alternative energy is that for the most part, it's just not efficient enough.  And if it is, it's too expensive.  NatCore has just made enormous progress in solving that first problem, and where there is opportunity there is industry.  Such a transition will not be overnight, nor will it happen over the course of a year.  For change to happen, it will have to slowly happen everywhere, branching out from one place and quickly spreading.  Burtynsky's frame of reference not only showed us reality, but he showed us that fossil fuels provide the foundation for millions of people's lives around the world.  Taking that away will cause untold backlashes and unforeseen consequences.  But if we can use NatCore's technology to one day replace mountains of coal with a sea of solar panels, fueling an industry of alternative energy rather than conventional means, then the world will be that much better off. 

Our second frame of reference provided us with an alternative to what we currently have.  But there is a missing piece.  We need to be able to connect the two because as it is, they are not necessarily directly related.  This third frame of reference needs to deal with economics.  Costs, risks and analysis.  Cold hard numbers that support and justify a transition that we know needs to happen, but not how.  The answer lies in the World Future Council, an organization that seeks to answer those very questions.  

The WFC published a document called The Monetary Cost of the Non-Use of Renewable Energies.  When dealing with an industry, the obvious questions are costs, markets, and profits.  But they don't take into account the cost of Not doing something.  It's not necessarily straightforward thinking.  Their study concluded that the annual future usage loss (the loss of money in the future by not using alternative energy) from current oil, gas, and coal consumption ranges between 3.2 and 3.4 Trillion *with a T* USD per year.  

3.2 Trillion dollars per year is a very big frame of reference to work with.  Those are the kinds of numbers that many governments cant even handle, yet these are conservative estimates.  How did the WFC arrive at these numbers?  One of the factors considers first the environmental damages of using fossil fuels, as well as costs incurred by the Lack of fossil fuels available in the future.  In layman's terms, as there becomes less of X, the price of X increases, and this is one of the things the WFC took into account in their study using projected models and existing data trends on the global average and US value of these fossil fuel commodities.  The emphasis here is on the difference in cost between alternative energy (like solar power) and fossil fuels.  One has a high initial cost but carries a low maintenance cost.  The other, fossil fuels, has a lower initial cost, and carries an increasingly more expensive upkeep cost as time increases, eventually becoming economically unsustainable.  

Following this pattern, along with other models, the WFC came to the conclusion that not switching to alternative energies is costing the economy roughly 8-9 billion dollars per day in terms of future costs as well as environmental damages and the value lost in natural resources that cannot be replaced and will not be available in the future.  This is a very powerful economic frame of reference, and no matter which side you stand on the issue of alternative energy, is something that needs to be considered.  

As I said in the beginning of this blog post, the Sun and the Wind are free.  The earth is not.  I have tried to address the problem of fossil fuel use as well as highlighting proposed solutions that address the current status quo, the future of alternative energy, and the economics that link the two.  Compiled together, I think these three articles and perspectives create a unique frame of reference with which to view not just an important issue, but also the bigger picture.  


Links:

Edward Burtynsky:  Manufactured Landscapes
http://www.ted.com/talks/edward_burtynsky_on_manufactured_landscapes.html


NatCore's Black Silicon Solar Cell
http://www.treehugger.com/solar-technology/black-solar-cell-absorbs-997-all-light.html

World Future Council Study
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Climate_and_Energy/Cost_of_non_use_of_RE.pdf


Additional Links: (not used in blog post but relevant)
Edward Burtynsky Transcript
http://dotsub.com/view/1436b537-6f4a-4311-8780-f500127621e3/viewTranscript/eng
US Gov Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change at a Reasonable Cost
http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/fs_climate_costs_980731.html

Week 3: Government and Action and UC

The University of Cincinnati has a variety of environmental initiatives, many of which are described
at http://www.uc.edu/af/pdc/sustainability/campus_initiatives.html. In class we have talked/are
talking about the three general types of environmental policy instruments. Describe one UC
environmental program that uses government regulation as its primary instrument, one that uses
market-based approaches, and one that uses law as its primary instrument. In this write up,
“government” regulation can encompass policy made by the university. Similarly, university policy
can be considered “law.” If you cannot find a UC environmental program that fits one of the
instrument types, you may instead select a policy measure pursued by Cincinnati’s city government.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of each approach with specific reference to the
UC/Cincinnati programs you are describing. For example, writing that government-based
approaches may not be cost effective is insufficient. If you are discussing UC’s new Trayless Dining
policy, you should discuss whether or not this regulatory approach appears to be cost-effective for
the university. Cite class readings about environmental policy instrument choice and other sources as
necessary. Your narrative should be 6–9 paragraphs.


One of the University of Cincinnati's best qualities lie in its student body.  Our student body is informed.  Our student body is passionate.  Our student body is active.  When it comes to environmentalism and green initiative, students at the University of Cincinnati cut no corners in bringing our concerns and initiatives to the ears of the administration.

This topic is a perfect opportunity to talk about a group that I am a part of that saw a problem, took an initiative, and arguably influenced school policy.  I am a member of LEAP which stands for Leaders for Environmental Awareness and Protection.  Back in the spring of 2012, LEAP supported a group called UC Beyond Coal in an effort to not only raise awareness about the carbon footprint that UC was creating, but also the potential that our campus had to create a bigger, more positive effect on the environment around us by reducing that carbon footprint.

The University of Cincinnati burns coal.  Many people would assume this to be common sense - and it is - but at the same time, there were hundreds of students and faculty that did not know this.  The Central Utility Plant, located on 3000 Glendora Avenue, is home to "two Solar Titan combustion turbines, a Dresser-Rand steam turbine, five York chillers, two Trane chillers, two ERI heat recovery steam generators and two Nebraska boilers" (UC Facilities Page).  This plant provides power to not only the main campus, but also to six nearby hospitals.  The University also runs a second power plant on the East Campus.  This smaller power plant houses two boilers and two coal burners which were used for the sole purpose of providing power to the campus.

Now in 2012, UC invested a rather large sum of money, a few million dollars to be more precise, in converting their East Campus coal burners to run on as they described, 80% renewable materials (wood chips) and 20% coal.  This sounds great, but we all soon discovered, the plant wasn't exactly operating at the levels that it was saying it was

At this point members of LEAP, many of whom were already directly involved with UC Beyond Coal, joined the group in a public protest and began gathering signatures, about 3000 of them, and we dropped them off at the then president of UC Greg Williams' office.  Our goal was for the University to close both of its coal plants and to instead opt for a more cleaner initiative.

Now what does this story have to do with government intervention and regulation?  During this time, the University had another organization to worry about in regards to its carbon footprint:  The EPA.  According to new laws and EPA regulations, the University of Cincinnati was required to cut its carbon footprint as well as fossil fuel emissions by 2015, when these new provisions were to go into effect.  The new rules themselves came in the form of the EPA MACT act, the Maximum Achievable Control Technology act.  In order to comply with these regulations the University, only a few short weeks before the Beyond Coal movement had marched into President Williams' office, had announced that it would in fact shut down the first of the two coal burners by 2015.  Riding on the wave of this good news, UC Beyond Coal's demands to Williams was for the University to make a pledge to close down the second boiler by no later than 2019.

In this scenario, the EPA introduced new regulations that forced the University to reconsider and revise its carbon footprint and usage of coal.  The EPA used mandatory measures, enforced by the promise of monetary penalties in the case of non compliance, to help push the University to divest in coal.  The major player here was the government, but there was another player as well working towards the same goal:  the students.  And sometimes, that can help make all the difference.

Here's a link to the Press release made by members of UC Beyond Coal!
http://www.wearepowershift.org/blogs/uc-beyond-coal-members-enter-office-president-and-make-big-ask

and here are their facebook groups!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/leapUC/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/124588454298465/

Week 2 Post!

Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Why or why not? To answer this question, you must explain what you believe it means to be an environmentalist. How does an environmentalist think and act? If you are not an environmentalist, do you have explicit reasons for rejecting the label? If so, enumerate the reasons and explain them. If not, speculate on why you have never thought about whether you are/are not an environmentalist.
After you discuss your personal orientation toward environmentalism, think about the concept more broadly. What factors do you think encourage or discourage people in today’s society from?


Do I consider myself an environmentalist?  My first reaction is to say, "I am absolutely a person who loves the environment".  This does not mean that I am completely an environmentalist.  However, any short answer demands an explanation.  What is an environmentalist exactly?  In my opinion, an environmentalist is someone who subscribes to the philosophy that the stability of nature in all regards should be held to the highest standards of importance, safety, and sustainability.  An environmentalist is someone who cares about everything from recycling to wetlands to global warming to trash in the oceans to fracking and is not afraid to stand firm on the side of nature when facing important political and economic issues.   

This sounds like a wonderful set of personal values to hold and it seems almost counter intuitive and selfish that someone might not agree 100% with these ideals.  However, the reality is that while I love the environment, I love sustainability, I love preservation, and I have a chronic obsession with baby animals (especially baby seals), I am also a political and economic realist.  Maybe it is the Political Scientist in me, but when I look at the world I see things in terms of cost and effect.  What does that mean exactly, cost and effect?  To be more precise, it means that when I look at the debate over energy use for example, I know that sustainable energy is the future and that oil and coal is terrible for the environment.  However I also know that our current technology is still very underdeveloped and we only have about 8% of our energy needs met with alternative energy like hydro power and less than 1% met with solar.  At the present campaigning against coal is, for the most part, simply illogical.  It would completely destroy the way our economy and society works and the sad fact is that Americans and the world in general just isn't ready for that to happen yet.  It's too soon.  In the future this may change, but until then, I cannot bring myself to step onto that bandwagon.  While the environment is very important, humanity is also important and we cannot always simply backtrack and transition ourselves as easily as we might like to believe. 

This leads us onto a more broad point:  Environmentalism as a whole.  In today's world, environmentalism is overwhelmingly embraced by the youth and young adults, people who fall between 20-35 years old.  As we look at the older and older age brackets, we see that people begin to become more cautious and hesitant when hearing the call to stand up for the environment. 

We can try and attribute this difference to many different factors, the most simple being age and the most complex being difference in the quality of news that distributes information to these age groups.  I would be going out on a limb but I would hypothesize that people who want The Daily Show and read Al-Jazeera would be more likely to be in favor of the environment than someone who only watched Fox News.  While this is not true for everyone, what I am trying to say is that people form different opinions based on the type of news and information they gather.  If they listen to only one news outlet that is heavily biased towards/against environmentalism, their personal opinions will be heavily impacted in whichever direction that particular news outlet decides to lean.  

Another important factor is special interest.  Even though there are many advocates for cyber activism and hackivism, someone who works as a IT security specialist for a fortune 500 company would feel much differently about the issue than a low income student who occasionally pirates music or movies off the internet.  Likewise there are a plethora of people with just as many different interests and opinions concerning the environment.  While I cannot speak for large big name MNC's like BP for example (Hey, they're people too!), a middle class farmer who finds out that he's sitting on a goldmine of shale oil will have a much different opinion to fracking than a college student or a scientist.  Social standing, location, economics, political affiliation, ethics and morality, all of these are crucial factors that are considered by everyone when the issue of the environment becomes a top priority.

We must always remember that the environment is not a toy.  It is not a cash-cow resource.  And it is not something to be taken for granted.  Ever.  However, that being said, the lifeblood of hundreds of millions of people worldwide depend on the resources that we extract from it every day.  A passionate environmentalist will always argue in favor of the environment before mankind.  However, I cannot currently call myself a passionate environmentalist.  I am a human being who loves the environment, I treasure it, I respect it, and I wish it no harm. I recognize that change is slow, progress is gradual, and destruction is sometimes permanent.   However I also acknowledge the value of human life, the value and necessity of hard work and toil and reward and the benefits that we enjoy every day because we dominate and bend the environment to our will.

It is my humble opinion that we should always seek the middle ground.  We should always consider the question, is what we're doing truly necessary?  If many people depend on us then what we are doing truly does matter.  In cases such as that we must then seek to select the Safest and least damaging route that we can, so that we can begin to repair and coexist with what we have left.


- Chris Postell

Hello everyone,

My name is Chris Postell!!
I'm 20 years old and a 3rd year Political Science Major at the University of Cincinnati.  This blog is for my Environmental Policy class and for any in-general newsworthy relevant things that I may find.

Things about me:  I love traveling, music, friends, smiles, and have a delightful addiction to League of Legends.