13. I would approach the public in any and all issues within an inclusive strategy. Although there may be some limited scientific understanding, there can always be a way to translate the significanc of an issue. The key would be to be revealing and poignant, and by no means be untruhful nor misleading. Easy to say, obviously, but there should be a a measure to at least create awareness whether the public supports or negates the issue, and or policy. The choices must inlcude their values, it does not necessarily need to convey the policy decision, but at least it should provide a perpective of what the public knows, feels, and understands about the issue. Which in turn helps position the decisons that lay ahead. A perspective that aids health issues, and teens related issues, is public service announcements and youth awareness campaigns. This increase in visual, written, and word of mouth awareness creates value and support, and or negates it, but it puts forth the issues in striking, relevant, and powefully conveyed messages.
14 & 15.
Contingent valuation provides a necessary scope of public inclusion. I really feel that this approach is very inclusive of the public. I feel it could be effective, but how many of us truly like to fill out surveys? Other fields and issues try to survey people and get their opinions and perspectives, it creates privacy issues and it can be time consuming, and creates excess paper work. Don't get me wrong, I want to be informed and want to give my values, especially within environmental concerns that would harm our society, globally and locally. I feel that locally would be the best fit scenario, on a national scale it seems like it would be another census? So within communities, cities, towns, local air, water, and polltuion concerns could bear great perspective from the local poeple attaining to the issue. And really provide their concern and how they feel it should be addressed within that community they participate in. Then, as local water, air, and environmental issues garner effect and are being resolved the the contingent model could be increasedin breadth, until ultimately it captures the largest venue it can, incrementally it will be effective.
Where it seems troublesome would be on private firm actions, like within the cap/trade system. A public individual is and can be affeted by the emmissions from a private firm, but he/she has no legal authority to decide the scope and policy maneuvering the firm can make and does within its emmission standards. Although public value could be effective in raising awareness and concern that could help the firm evaluate its actions, it would merit little effect on the steps the firm is willing to take, economically, to reduce or buy permits to pollute.
anyways just my two cents in answering these questions for assignment 3.
Fabian
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Assignment #2 part 1 Article analysis
In recent months and over the past year we have become accustomed to reports from the auto industry, from economic and environmental perspectives. In respect to environmental policy there has been a pressing issue to create new regulatory measures for emission and fuel economy standards. In the New York Times, in the article, Obama Directs Regulators to Tighten Auto Rules, written by John M. Broder, published January 26th 2009, there is as perspective of environmental policy from the Obama Administration we use to measure previous and current trends within emission and fuel economy standards.
What we can dissect immediately from this early stance on an environmental issue, from the Obama Administration, is that environmental policy will be at the front of the agenda in this presidency. Most notably, this strong stance on increasing and creating much more efficient and high standards aligns with the administration of Bill Clinton. President Clinton's administration set within their environmental agenda to increase corporate average fuel economy for cars, support mass transit, and support renewable energy (Vig, 2010, pp. 82). Also Obama has set a pattern, much like Bill Clinton, that has seen him directly reversing the previous administrations policies, as stated by Michael E. Kraft and Norman J. Vig in the book Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Michael E. Kraft and Norman J. Vig, “ Clinton reversed many of the Reagan- and Bush era executive actions that were widely criticized by environmentalists, and he favored increased spending on environmental programs, alternative energy and conservation research, and international population policy,” (pp. 15) Most notably Obama set within his environmental agenda, specifically, and as presented by Norman J. Vig, “To double automobile fuel economy within eighteen years and to put one million plug in hybrid cars on the road by 2015,” (pp. 91). Obama's policy was to set a higher standard across the board that would help reduce greenhouse gases immediately. He set the timetable for auto makers to make the necessary changes to automobiles that would create changes for cars hitting the road by 2011 (Broder, 2009). This also aligns with the ability to begin to get cleaner cars on the road within his timeline of 18 years. At the center of this policy setting is the indirect, direct order from President Obama to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department, according to John Broder, in the New York Times, “But the centerpiece of Monday’s announcement was Mr. Obama’s directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to begin work immediately on granting California a waiver under the Clean Air Act to allow the state, a longtime leader in air quality matters, to set standards for automobile emissions that are stricter than the national rules,” (Broder, 2009). This makes the point as where the Obama Administration has a direct opposition to the previous George W. Bush's agenda. In 2007 the Environmental Protection Agency, under Supreme Court decision, was justified to regulate greenhouse gases (Vig, 2010, pp. 90). Yet the Bush Administration denied California the ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars, and proposals for the EPA to start to develop regulatory procedures (pp. 90). The Bush administration, according to Norman J. Vig, “Bush refused to acknowledge the growing scientific consensus on global warming and opposed all efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions,” (pp. 90). Another clear difference between Bush and Obama is the emphasis placed on funding for environmental policies, for 2010 the budget would fund the EPA by 48% more than the Bush administration in 2009 (pp. 92).
I praise the Obama administration for attempting to set a highs standard of policy for environmental issues. I like the reduction in emission and higher standard for fuel economy. It seems the avenue that effects the climate daily, even hourly, as vehicles continually operate and pollute the air, thus reducing the pollutants and creating better standards of operation for our vehicles can make quick and significant, positive, impacts on he environment. I also like that Obama is taking a direct approach to challenge and reverse the policies set and ignored by George W. Bush. The only negative I can see from this perspective that he sets out to have 1 million cars by 2025, but he may not be able to see this through because their will have been at least a possible 2 new administrations within that timeframe shaping policy. He should be even more assertive and set even higher goals to get some of this scenarios realized. I know that is easier said than done, but if he shoots higher, the may fall closer to his projected goals, and realistic outcomes could result. Nonetheless, we seem to be headed in the right direct, by setting better fuel standards and emission levels, it will help. Incrementally, by directing the EPA and Transportation department, and auto makers to get things moving by at least 2011, we will begin to see changes soon enough.
References:
Broder, John M.(2009, January 26). Obama Directs Regulators to Tighten Auto Rules. The New York Times. retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/us/politics/27calif.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=obama%20environmental%20policy&st=Search
Vig, Norman J. (2010).Presidential Powers and Environmental Policy. In Vig, Norman J. & Kraft, Michael E. (Ed.), Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century pp. (75-98). Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
What we can dissect immediately from this early stance on an environmental issue, from the Obama Administration, is that environmental policy will be at the front of the agenda in this presidency. Most notably, this strong stance on increasing and creating much more efficient and high standards aligns with the administration of Bill Clinton. President Clinton's administration set within their environmental agenda to increase corporate average fuel economy for cars, support mass transit, and support renewable energy (Vig, 2010, pp. 82). Also Obama has set a pattern, much like Bill Clinton, that has seen him directly reversing the previous administrations policies, as stated by Michael E. Kraft and Norman J. Vig in the book Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Michael E. Kraft and Norman J. Vig, “ Clinton reversed many of the Reagan- and Bush era executive actions that were widely criticized by environmentalists, and he favored increased spending on environmental programs, alternative energy and conservation research, and international population policy,” (pp. 15) Most notably Obama set within his environmental agenda, specifically, and as presented by Norman J. Vig, “To double automobile fuel economy within eighteen years and to put one million plug in hybrid cars on the road by 2015,” (pp. 91). Obama's policy was to set a higher standard across the board that would help reduce greenhouse gases immediately. He set the timetable for auto makers to make the necessary changes to automobiles that would create changes for cars hitting the road by 2011 (Broder, 2009). This also aligns with the ability to begin to get cleaner cars on the road within his timeline of 18 years. At the center of this policy setting is the indirect, direct order from President Obama to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department, according to John Broder, in the New York Times, “But the centerpiece of Monday’s announcement was Mr. Obama’s directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to begin work immediately on granting California a waiver under the Clean Air Act to allow the state, a longtime leader in air quality matters, to set standards for automobile emissions that are stricter than the national rules,” (Broder, 2009). This makes the point as where the Obama Administration has a direct opposition to the previous George W. Bush's agenda. In 2007 the Environmental Protection Agency, under Supreme Court decision, was justified to regulate greenhouse gases (Vig, 2010, pp. 90). Yet the Bush Administration denied California the ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars, and proposals for the EPA to start to develop regulatory procedures (pp. 90). The Bush administration, according to Norman J. Vig, “Bush refused to acknowledge the growing scientific consensus on global warming and opposed all efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions,” (pp. 90). Another clear difference between Bush and Obama is the emphasis placed on funding for environmental policies, for 2010 the budget would fund the EPA by 48% more than the Bush administration in 2009 (pp. 92).
I praise the Obama administration for attempting to set a highs standard of policy for environmental issues. I like the reduction in emission and higher standard for fuel economy. It seems the avenue that effects the climate daily, even hourly, as vehicles continually operate and pollute the air, thus reducing the pollutants and creating better standards of operation for our vehicles can make quick and significant, positive, impacts on he environment. I also like that Obama is taking a direct approach to challenge and reverse the policies set and ignored by George W. Bush. The only negative I can see from this perspective that he sets out to have 1 million cars by 2025, but he may not be able to see this through because their will have been at least a possible 2 new administrations within that timeframe shaping policy. He should be even more assertive and set even higher goals to get some of this scenarios realized. I know that is easier said than done, but if he shoots higher, the may fall closer to his projected goals, and realistic outcomes could result. Nonetheless, we seem to be headed in the right direct, by setting better fuel standards and emission levels, it will help. Incrementally, by directing the EPA and Transportation department, and auto makers to get things moving by at least 2011, we will begin to see changes soon enough.
References:
Broder, John M.(2009, January 26). Obama Directs Regulators to Tighten Auto Rules. The New York Times. retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/us/politics/27calif.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=obama%20environmental%20policy&st=Search
Vig, Norman J. (2010).Presidential Powers and Environmental Policy. In Vig, Norman J. & Kraft, Michael E. (Ed.), Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century pp. (75-98). Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)