Weekly 12

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/01/MNF316N0CV.DTL

Almost 2,000 restaurants, 2080 large apartment complexes, and 50,000 single family homes are making San Francisco a greener place to live. Each participant places compost (old food, grass clippings, etc.) in a green bin for garbage trucks to pick up daily. The compost is then taken to farmers who use it for fertilizer for their crops. In one year, 105,000 tons of waste turns into 20,000 tons of compost for over 10,000 acres of farming. This measure has substantially decreased waste and farming production costs. The crops that are grown return to feed the bay area—thus, the food comes full circle. The compost also stores carbon, which prevents it from destroying the atmosphere. San Francisco also sells the compost (at a low cost) which creates an additional source of revenue for the City.

This policy was enacted at a City level but its affects reach a regional and state level (some of the farms were not in San Francisco) As a City measure, San Francisco wants to eliminate ¾ of waste from making it to landfills by 2010: food constitutes 1/3 of that waste. Other cities and counties around San Francisco, seeing the obvious logic and efficiency in the project, are following suit: largely to abide by a California state law that requires all cities to substantially decrease waste going to landfills. Thus all three regions are affected, but again, it is the City that is officially enacting the sustainable measure.

Waste Management is largely a City duty for good reason. The state is far too large, and demands vary too much, for an effective waste management system to exist at a state level. Furthermore, although this policy really affects the regional level, as Wheeler pointed out “…this is the weakest level in terms of government institutions and public understanding.” Thus, citizens or cities as a whole might not abide by a regional sustainable act. Regions simply do not have as much political power as individual cities.

However, both of these governments can do a lot to help the cities. Laws can be passed at these levels (and perhaps some funding and support can be accrued) to aid local governments. As Wheeler pointed out in chapter 9, states wield an incredible amount of power that can influence the enactment of sustainable measures. Cities are already responding to the state law of reducing waste going to landfills. Thus, it is reasonable to assume, that cities will also respond if states mandate that each city pick up compost items from willing participants daily—especially if some form of incentives were involved. Regions can further facilitate the process—like spreading information about the program and getting more farmers outside of San Francisco involved, and perhaps more participants as well.

Again, as this measure largely affects a regional area, it would be ideal if it could be enacted at this level. And in time, it might be. The downside of a city implemented plan is that many cities do not have farms in or around their communities—thus the city cannot as effectively pick up waste and distribute compost as a region could. However, this is really a bottom-up measure (individual citizens did this on their own before the City picked it up) and as more people become involved and passionate about this form of sustainable living, it may very well allow regional governments to become more involved and influential.

Weekly 11- International and National Sustainability

ARTICLE 1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30155400/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11china.html?_r=1&ref=world

To control a population that seemed to be splurging out of control, and in an attempt to “modernize,” Chinese leaders instituted a one child policy beginning in 1970’s. They were afraid that resources, particularly land, would not be able to support a large growth of people. The policy, though effective in reducing population (from what it would have been if the policy was not implemented, an estimated reduction in 400 million births) has a serious backlash. Males are coveted more than females in mainstream Chinese culture, especially in rural areas. Sons, unlike daughters, carry on the family name and have an obligation to take care their parents in old age. Furthermore, sons are more valuable in a rural setting because of the manual labor required. Many female fetuses are either aborted, or are subjected to infanticide once born. A preference for sons over daughters had led to a large gender gap, around 32 million excess males in the reproductive age group according to the 2005 Census report.

I label this as a “national planning” issue. Wheeler mentioned that national planning comes from four sources: national constitutions, and legislative, court and executive bodies. This issue comes from an executive source, as Wheeler claims, “executive branch agencies implant and enforce policy, and carry out substantial planning activities in their own right” (Wheeler 2004, pg 115). However, this article outlines a potion of a national sustainability issue that Wheeler has thus far failed to address: all the affects of sustainability policies —including the backlashes. It’s not all rainbows and cleaner air. It also entails a substantial, borderline communistic increase in national government jurisdiction (and hence several losses of personal freedoms), as well as critical unexpected policy outcomes, such as the one depicted above, reverberating on a nation-wide scale. I truly believe that true, and long-lasting sustainable polices come from the bottom-up, and not the top-down. A measure Wheeler touched on in Chapter 4, but in further reading has seemed to favor direct federal government intervention as, “lower levels of government do not have the perspective, resources, jurisdiction, or political will to effectively bring about change” (Wheeler, 2004, pg 122). Though the above quote is partially true, it leaves the most important stakeholders out of the policy-making realm—everyday people: subjecting them to the elitist views of the elected and bureaucrats.

Different types of sustainability have, in some measure, been reached because of the One Child Policy. No doubt decreasing family size has had a positive environmental effect—fewer cars are on the road, less food is produced, and hence less soil and water pollution, and resources are extracted and utilized to a smaller extent. This environmentally benefits both the existing Chinese population and the inhabitants of the world. But what’s the cost?

Numerous people are affected by this sustainability agenda; first and foremost the Chinese, especially the family units. Several reports have surfaced about the affects of this policy: for example, not only does one child have two parents to encourage and guide them, but two sets of devoted grandparents as well—this has led to the term “Little Emperors” for Chinese (probably upper-class) children because of the vast amounts of attention and money they receive from family members (the richer the parents are the more they can afford tutors for their child, and hence that child will earn more money because he/she was afforded more opportunities—thus violating Wheeler’s most beloved notion of sustainability-- equity) Further, all six people (parents and grandparents) are dependent on the child to do well. Thus, a lot of pressure is placed on small children to succeed in school, which has led to increase rates in anxiety and suicide. Also, because there are excess males, as the article pointed out, scholars fear there will be an accompanying increase in crime as men, without the influences or even prospects of female companionship, will turn to devious measures to divert their attention. Other nations are affected as well. Some scholars believe that not only will crime increase because of excess males, but the Chinese culture is in danger of becoming more militaristic on an international level. All of this, on top of the fact little girls are subjected to infanticide and abortion.

No doubt Wheeler strongly disagrees (except about abortion) with these adverse affects; however, how can they be averted? Policy backlashes are inevitable, and even the most well-intentioned plans can go awry. National sustainable measures may seem good on the outset, but always question the cost. Is sustainability, as a group of experts define it, worth it?

ARTICLE 2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30093861/

Fishermen off of the coast of the Philippines have caught a rare shark, only one of forty known to exist in the wild. The captured megamouth shark weighed approximately 1,100 lbs and was 13 feet long. The shark was accidently caught by fishermen’s net and dragged to shore. The World Wildlife Fund begged the fishermen not to butcher and eat the shark—shark meat is a local delicacy. However, the WWF’s plead was ignored. The shark was caught in deep waters—an ecosystem that is filled with other endangered species, such as the whale shark, and is thus in need of international protection.

Because endangered species, especially those captured in international waters, are important to all inhabitants of this world, this issue is labeled as “international planning.” Several groups are affected by this policy; first, the entire world and future generations of the world. All species are part of a delicate ecosystem, and the elimination of one can carry significant consequences. Also, local residents are affected as well; many coastal communities are reliant on the abundance of their surrounding ecosystem to provide a living for themselves, and food for their families. Further, the fishermen were directly affected (as well as stores that sold the shark meat) as ignoring the pleas of the WWF more than likely increased, at least temporarily, their economic well-being.

Wheeler (2004) stated that “consciousness of global interdependence is one of the hallmarks of recent ecological thought and efforts for sustainable development” (pg 102). And indeed, so it seems. Our world is becoming increasingly interconnected, and the environmental actions of one nation can substantially affect those of another. The elimination of the megamouth shark, or other endangered species, can have profound effects on the world as the whole—not only are megamouth sharks found off of the coast of the Philippines, but have been observed in areas off of Hawaii and other Pacific Islands. Annihilating this species could cause an explosive growth in shrimp (their prey) and this in turn could winnow out other species (as they compete for food sources), and thus give rise to other problems. Global markets, especially those relying on the current balance of the ecosystem, could be near destroyed; leaving some local fishermen and their families in poverty.

Another point demonstrated in this article is the power of international institutions. Wheeler (2004) claimed that international institutions are gaining power. I fail to believe this, unless international sustainability issues also promote, or are connected to, a national agenda. As Wheeler himself claims, international institutions are often in conflict with one another, and dominant western cultures are reluctant to give power to international bodies. This case is illustrated in this article—the WWF can plead as much as they please, but they simply have no enforcing ability. International bodies have to rely on national support to give them legitimacy. Thus, though necessary, it may be impossible to rely on international institutions to decide environmental policy unless individual countries, for their own reasons, support their decisions.

Weekly 10-- Sustainability

Definition

The definition of sustainability that I liked best was given by the Brundtland Commission, “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Wheeler, 2004, pg. 24). As Wheeler (2004) stated, the majority of other definitions contain phrases that are hard to define, such as what “carry capacity” means or what the word “needs” asserts. Thus, the wrong definition in the political realm could lead to years of fruitless debates which will result in nothing being accomplished. Please note that I am not suggesting that definition of sustainability should be void of debate. Debate is what makes a democracy. But the definition should be void, as much as possible, of a term that scientist, politicians, and interest groups, could grabble about for years. I fully realize that the definition of my choice has such a potential, but I strongly believe that if it was enacted at a local/grassroots level, the problems inherent in it would disappear.

Environmental policies, I believe, are strongest and more engaging when enacted at a local level. Admittedly, many environmental problems are national or even global in nature—but because of the politics, or lack thereof of these realms, it is harder to achieve sustainability goals. The world needs to start somewhere, and the best place to start is within each of our communities. As the power of these local organizations grow, they can branch out to encompass much larger and more troubling environmental issues. The power of local environment issues is that everyone cares (or should) about what happens to their immediate surroundings. Citizens are passionate about what they can immediately see. The above definition of sustainability ensures that policy-makers, and the citizens that vote them into office, continually think about the future. What will our children and grandchildren need in our community? Clean air, supplies of water, sustainability patterns of development, trees? All of us can agree (with the exception of a few knuckleheads) that we want to give this type of Earth to our children.

Another reason why I like this definition is because it leaves room for our tastes and preferences, the economy, and our extraction of earth’s resources to change. Granted they will not change much, but using what Wheeler defined as “technology optimism” I believe that our extraction rates of resources will alter accordingly as well as what resources we prefer to extract.

Difficulties

There are three huge problems with making sustainability a policy goal: its long term nature, its global implications, and the redistribution of resources. First, sustainability is very much a long run effort. Policy-makers, because they have limited terms and limited term limits, are not looking to be popular thirty years from now; they want to be popular now. Growth boundaries tend to not be very popular (especially with landowners who are not included in the zoning), as well as limiting house sizes, redistributing resources, limiting traffic, and so forth. The citizens who are the loudest will be the very ones opposing these types of policies. No politician wants to be caught in the cross-fire.

Also, sustainability is largely a global problem: ocean degradation, air pollution, species endangerment, global warming, nuclear waste disposal, and so forth. The problem is no institution or country is powerful enough to enforce other nations to obey environmental codes. And even if these codes could be enforced, who is going to make them? National governments are very territorial over their own jurisdictions—many of them do not like other nations or international institutions enforcing laws on their land.

Lastly, and what I have the biggest problem with, is the massive, pseudo-global redistribution of resources that many people’s definition of sustainability (including Wheeler and Goodland) calls for. In order for the world to be truly sustainable, the rich would have to stop being rich, in order to make the poor stop being poor. Thus, it will call for a massive increase in federal government jurisdiction- this will of course decrease freedoms and liberties, as well as entrepreneurship, and innovation. If the inventive cannot keep the fruits of their labor (whether or not people think they are deserved) they might be enticed to not develop at all. An increased government has the propensity to squash innovation and replace it with inefficient and ultimately ineffective systems. Indeed, massive government oversight of redistribution of resources may, because of unforeseen effects which always occur in policy-making, hurt the very people it set out to protect.

In truth, in order for sustainability to really take hold, it will have to come from the bottom-up. It will not fare well as a top-down policy. The citizens will have to enact it.

State Environmental Agency

Although I am with the state government (and I truly believe this should be a citizen-led effort), I would immediately reach out to local governments to help me create a citizen-based environmental framework. Citizens would be the root, the end-all-be-all of this program. Wheeler (2004) mentioned that planners could enact citizen involvement with every step of their planning. This, of course, would be time-consuming but ultimately many citizens would feel like it was worth the effort. Surveys, focus groups, and urban design “charettes” could illicit citizen involvement. I would include experts in this framework as well, but only to advise the citizens, not to create policy. I would further use experts to identify potential products and run analysis once a project has been implemented. I would include experts, citizens, and policy-makers of all perspectives. Wheeler argues that objectivity in sustainability planning is not rational (Wheeler, 2004). But I believe it is vital in order to institute a health, and strong democracy

Everything related to sustainability on a large county or city level would be put on the ballot, in an unbiased and easily readable manner. I would perhaps send out volunteers to inform citizens, of all socio-economic levels, of the implications of certain sustainability policies in an impartial manner. Again, citizen involvement and action would be the root of this program. All other branches of this framework are in place to serve the citizens. I believe that people will choose the best environmental policies, whether it be ecological, social, or economic, for their community. Naturally, their opinions will conflict, but having citizens come together at the drawing board will increase commitment to sustainability, help erode social lines, and overall create a stronger community.

Short Term v Long Term

The best way to achieve any long term goal is to break it up into smaller, more manageable parts. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. That said, I believe that the long-term nature of sustainability is the easiest of the difficulties I just mentioned to conquer. Every policy or development procedure has milestones; you just have to look for them. For example, it might be to construct smaller house sizes in a certain neighborhood, or start citizen groups that inform other citizens about sustainability measures (membership in the group can be set milestones each year), or decrease the waste in dump fields by a certain percent each year, increase public transportation by three buses a year, and so forth. All of these efforts combined, and amplified over time, will create a much more sustainable and livable community.

Another milestone which might be of interest (I got this idea while reading the Wheeler chapters) is to increase overall civic involvement in the community. Wheeler believes that one of the root problems of sustainability is that people have lost their sense of community. So, the city could create more civic recreation programs, or give subsidies to artists to settle in downtown areas, or musicians to perform in the city square every weekend. All of these efforts would make citizens more proud to be part of their unique, vibrant community and in turn increase their desire to make it more sustainable.

Week 10- S. 237

Overview

Since I had to choose another topic, here is an overview of my new policy:

My new topic is Senate bill 237, or The Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act, otherwise known as the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2009, which is an extension of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. It prohibits aquatic species from being imported into the Great Lakes without first going through a screening and approval system imposed by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Clearance is also required for species purposefully introduced by other federal agencies unless “the benefits outweigh the harm”. It also strictly forbids certain species of carp from entering the area. The Task Force will manage pathways that pose significant threats for the induction of new species: allowing for early detection and possible prevention. An Emergency Rapid Response Fund will also be created to provide state and federal rapid response teams with funds to quickly identify and perhaps exterminate threats posed by newly inducted organisms into the Great Lakes System. Furthermore, the bill establishes a National Invasive Species council to, “(1) lead and coordinate efforts to minimize the negative effects caused by, and to reduce the threat of further invasions of, invasive species; (2) develop a National Invasive Species Management Plan; and (3) establish an Invasive Species Advisory Committee.”

The Act reaches beyond invasive species and also amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the EPA to provide funding for wastewater innovation for municipalities and publically-owned treatment plants, to provide grants to the Great Lakes National Program Office to reduce mercury contents in the Lakes, and lastly to require the President to include Great Lakes research in his/her annual budget. A system will also be established that detects and can possibly predict changes in the ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes environment that impact the US economy and ecology.

Values

More than 140 species have become permanent residents in or around the Great Lakes. The majority of them, approximately 87 in number, were accidently introduced into the system by cargo ships-- sailing all across the world and bringing back unanticipated cargo. Ships that are not carrying cargo fill their holding tanks with millions of gallons of foreign water. When the ship reaches port, the ballast water pours out of the holding, releasing not only micro-organisms and sediments, but also various species of fish and crab. Most of these species are non-threatening. Some of them, on the other hand, are killing other species in the area—permanently changing the nature of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Once these species are in the environment, it is near impossible to eradicate them.

The values at play in this bill are two-fold: the desire to preserve what we have for future generations and the desire to use resources. To begin, since the early 1800’s the environment of the Great Lakes has changed fundamentally. Plants and fauna that were never seen before now line the costs, certain species of fish are extinct, and other species have taken their place. There is a strong instinct for parents and grandparents to protect the home that gave them so much joy and pleasure and pass it on to their progeny in the same, unharmed condition. Thus, this bill has gained momentum as locals rally to defend their home against potential threats. The second value, to use resources, is becoming more powerful. New species significantly disrupt business practices along the Great Lakes. For example, zebra mussels were introduced in the early 1960’s and in just a year there were 35,000 zebra mussels per square yard. In an Ohio Sea Grant Study, it was estimated that companies pay on average $350,000 to $400,000 annually to remove these mussels from their intake pipes. That’s a huge expense. Furthermore, zebra mussels are hurting the tourism of the region as their shells clutter beaches and they cover historic shipwrecks found in the bottom of the Great Lakes. Also, as more fish are introduced into the area, other fishes are dying from fish diseases. This is hurting, and poses significant threat to the multi-billion dollar fishing industry.

As the environment continues to alter (that is, if the Great Lakes were left to the invasion, and the future invasion, of non-native species) numerous businesses will be affected—fisheries, boating, water energy companies, and perhaps even retailers along the coast.

The Politics

Cohen states that in order to really understand a policy, we must first understand how and why it got on the agenda cycle. This bill was proposed by Senator Carl Levin, of Michigan. There are four co-sponsors, one from Michigan, two from Ohio, and the other from Pennsylvania. Obviously, all senators, except perhaps the later, are trying to create policies that will satisfy their constituents at home. The bill was introduced January 14, 2009 and to date has not been amended or voted on in either House or Senate. There are aspects of the bill that are bound to gain support— such as the initial premise of the bill, to try to eradicate invasive species. The ends everyone can agree with, the methods are much more controversial: because to achieve the ends, at least as proposed by the bill, it will take immense federal oversight, and not to mention extraordinary costs.

A lot of parties have stakes in this issue: among them are the EPA, the taxpayers, the President, Congress (who approves not only this bill, but the President’s budget proposals every year thereafter), residents of the Great Lakes region, the United States Army (who controls canal nets around Chicago), potential appointees to the proposed institutions, environmentalists, international shipping companies, and businesses that rely on the Great Lakes. From the initial research, it appears that nobody really desires the environment of the Great Lakes to alter, but to keep it from doing so it will cost a lot of money. As stated by the bill, new institutions will have to be established-- new grants, new studies, new technologies, and eradication measures will all be implemented to keep the environment of the Great Lakes unaltered—this requires an insane amount of money. Naturally, shipping companies will have to bear some costs: perhaps all boats will be checked for any type of new species or bacteria. This could cost time and money.

And money is always political. Always.

Science and Technology

Science is not the problem in this situation, it’s the only solution. It is correct to claim that because of technology, the ecosystem in the Great Lakes was placed in danger—since the early 1800’s cargo ships sailed in and out of the region. As technology increases, so does international and domestic trade, as well as boats, which are now significantly faster and more numerous than their predecessors. One solution would be to entirely eliminate trade, but terminating trade routes out of the Great Lakes region would substantially hurt the economy of not only that area, but of the entire United States.

Technology is not only the problem; it is also the only solution according to this bill. It will take technology to ascertain and even predict when and how invasive species have entered the Great Lakes ecosystem. Furthermore, it will take technology to help eradicate these species from the environment while leaving other species unscathed. In truth, there is no other method to detect and deal with invasive species without technology.

Policy Design

The bill calls for complete federal oversight, with state and municipal help, of the Great Lakes ecosystem. It also calls for complete federal funding. Thus, the decision-making authority of the Great Lakes environment will be held by a few key people: among them are the chair of the EPA, any EPA directors delegated to this task, and the National Invasive Species Council. Businesses that could be potentially threatened have not yet spoken up. Surely, the passage of this Act will decrease costs for some businesses, but substantially increase costs for others. As the bill progresses in Congress, no doubt lobbying efforts will increase.

The bill is largely a lucky guess that the new grants and the new technology will solve the issue of invasive species. For example, as pointed out before, 35,000 zebra mussels occupy one square yard. Take all of the square yards in the Great Lakes and it adds up to a lot of organisms to kill. Furthermore, while exterminating invasive animals, environmentalists would have to ensure that the other species are untouched, and the rest of the ecosystem remains largely unchanged. That’s a high order. Thus, this bill is a big step in the right direction, but it is largely up to chance and future technological improvements to save the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Management Framework

The organizational capacity to implement this bill does not currently exist. That is why the bill includes the expansion of the EPA, the establishment of several Councils, and the creation of funds to cover any cost or management needs of the policy implementation. There are certain cargo nets that are being watched by the Army, and other environmental groups. These systems, however, are not enough to detect all of foreign species that are introduced into the environment: they are certainly not sophisticated enough to know how to eradicate these organisms. There are other systems and policies that are working on eradicating other invasive species—primarily those on land. However, those systems and the Great Lakes initiative are different in two ways: first, most of the animals on land are initially introduced into an environment (rather legally and illegally) and second, it is easier to track land animals than it is to account for organisms in the Great Lakes.

This bill proposes a giant leap of faith in the direction of environmental protection. To realize this goal, the political power of the President, and select members of Congress will be needed. This bill will also need the vocalized support of environmentalists and locals to not only pass the bill, but to continually support its funding and findings.

Week 9

That’s a loaded question, and insanely difficult to answer. I believe that current developing countries have the right to exploit their own forests. That doesn’t mean I think they should. Deforestation is a quick fix to serious economic problems. It will never sustain a country and a people in the long-run. Sub-Sahara Africa experienced this as cattle over-grazed and trees were chopped down: massive desertification occurred that has left the land unusable and the people destitute. The same is true, unfortunately, for the country of Haiti. Unfortunately, many countries know these consequences and yet continue to engage in destructive behavior, but then again, many have done the reverse. China, for all intents and purposes, was labeled as a “developing country” before the turn of the century. Like others in its class, China experienced massive deforestation; however, in the early 1990’s, China reversed this behavior. Trees were planted in mass around the country. Further, the government enforced strict mandates that prohibited using wood. I went to China in 2007 and was amazed by the greenness of the country. This is not to negate the fact that China certainly has other environmental problems: but it does demonstrate that countries will take steps to maximize their well-being, and some of those steps are toward environmental protectionism.

In short, countries will act in their own self-interest, and I do not believe it is the prerogative of other countries, or weak international institutions, to stop them. Further, I am not too sure how these countries would stop them: trade embargos, threats, tariffs, boycotts and the like only serve to destroy the economy and thus speed up the process of environmental harm. I realize a lot of species and precious forests reside in other countries in the world—but because of lack of force, we cannot mandate other countries to take care of their environmental reserves—we can only gently encourage them and perhaps provide incentives.

Climate change is another very difficult topic. Developed nations should not force environmental standards on under-developed nations that they themselves are not willing to uphold. Some authors believe industrialized countries are making great progress with environmental policies, others believe the opposite—as evidenced by the two chapters in Vig. Further, different countries have different climates, different cultures, and thus different methods on how to reach optimal environmental standards. Thus, what type of policies would developed nations require under-developed nations to adhere to when they themselves are not in agreement? And if they are, perhaps these new standards are too high for under-developed nations to reach. By definition, they do not have the economy industrialized nations do, and thus they do not have the technology, spare revenue, and motivation to clean their environment.

Overall, as I pointed out with the first section, I don’t think other countries have the power to force a country to abide by certain environmental standards (well, in a way they do if they enforce harsh economic penalties, but as discussed, that does more harm than good). As a result, though global in context, environmental policies cannot be mandated on an international stage. Thus, developed nations have no right to mandate that developing countries reduce emissions. Again, they might try to persuade developing countries to enact certain environmental standards, but that is the extent of their power.

In truth, equity is not the point here- the point is for each nation to first, get motivated about protecting the environment, and then second, enact domestic policies to ensure this happens. I’m not too sure how you would measure equity, and if you could, what good it would do. Equity is an ideal that falls on deaf ears when a turbulent economy is present. Thus, it is the moral obligation (note, I do not believe it should be a legal mandate) that developed countries should lead by example when it comes to environmental policy. Further, they should willingly share technology, experts, and perhaps products with developing nations to reduce global environmental harm. That is the expectation developing nations should have of developed nations- to lead by example and share breakthrough technology and talent.

Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act

The bill I choose is HR 669, entitled “Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act.” The goal of the bill is to limit, or strictly prohibit, foreign wildlife being introduced into domestic habitats. The warrant is that transferring foreign-born animals to the United States increases environmental harm, aids in the destruction of native species, injures the economy, and perhaps imposes risks to human health. Currently the United States does not have a system to check if newly-introduced species have caused in harm in other countries, are potentially invasive to domestic habitats, and if they carry any wildlife disease that could wipe out other species.

Under the Lacey Act, the federal government takes about four years to ban a species: note, this is after the species has already been introduced into the habitat, has done considerable damage. Bill 669 commissions the Secretary of the Interior to work with scientists, experts and the public to assess any potential risks of the species.

The preposition of this bill is highly logical. For example, Burmese pythons were introduced into the Everglades: with no known predators in that region, the species has grown in population to over 30,000 unchecked. As the number of pythons in the Everglades has grown, they have severely damaged the size of many other species native to the Everglades—including crocodiles. Further, in 2003 the Gambian rat was legally imported into the United States. Unfortunately, it carried a highly contagious disease, monkeypox, which was contracted and spread by humans.

Environmental Justice: The Goshute tribe

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11778108?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/scullvalley/skullvalley.htm

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Goshute-Tribe-Nuc-Waste.htm

The Goshute tribe, or the Desert People, lives on a reservation which extends from the Salt Lake Valley basin in Utah to the Steptoe range in Nevada. What used to be a plentiful tribe of 20,000 people is now reduced to 500. The majority of them live in Skull Valley, which has been Utah’s hazardous waste dumping ground for some time. To the south of Skull Valley is a nerve gas storage facility, to the north is a magnesium plant, to the west is a bombing range and hazardous waste incinerator, and to the east is a stockpile of chemical weapons.

All of this passed largely unnoticed until Energy Solutions, a Utah-based company, received an interesting proposal from the government of Italy. For over three billion dollars, Italy will give Utah its nuclear waste to store. Where is the planned site for dumping? Underneath Skull Valley. If constructed, the site would hold as much as 40,000 tons of nuclear waste. After the proposal was announced to the populace, there was a uproar among Utah residents who did not want such an environmental nightmare in their state; they were terrified this would start a trend among other nations. As the activists became more and more involved, the past environmental transgressions against the Goshute tribe and its current plight came into the spotlight.

Koinsky in his article argued that as the percentage of poverty of the people inflicted increases, the amount of government environmental enforcement decreases. This has certainly been the case with the Goshute tribe. The Magnesium plant, for example, has had several serious health and environmental problems: problems which have been given little attention by the government or activist groups.

Such blatant selection, time and time again, of a piece of land owned by a Native American tribe for hazardous waste dumping is a case of environmental justice. No statistical analysis or data digging is needed. Obviously, the people because of their poverty have been targeted to be the dumping ground for Utah, the United States, and apparently the world. Ringquist argued that discrimination is hard to ascertain. Not in this case: it may not be racial discrimination, but it is socioeconomic discrimination. Utah, Nevada, and other places in the United States have miles upon miles of barren land. So why are the placing the waste in Skull Valley? The answer is simple: politicians and businesses are taking advantage of the tribe because of its poverty. Some Goshutes argue that the tribe desperately needs the money for schools, infrastructure and to provide the basic needs for their families. Thus, they welcome the waste as a means to make money. The other faction of the tribe believes the waste will destroy ancient burial ground and eliminate the tribal culture. Not to mention the health effects that could occur if there was a leakage.

Currently, the Utah legislature is debating, and has been for some time, whether or not they should allow Energy Solutions to buy foreign nuclear waste and bury it in the Utah desert. Websites, newspapers, and other media sources have been devoting advocating or denouncing this plan for quite some time, including Utah's two senators. The plan was accepted in March 2005. But it is being held up in the Legislature and in the Courts. Just this week, Energy Solutions offered to split the $3 billion price tag with Utah- to make the deal more favorable. Nobody quite knows which way this deal will go. With Utah struggling with its economy, it appears the state will end up burying part, if not all, of Italy’s waste. Looking through the news articles for the last couple of weeks, one thing is for certain: nobody is talking about the Goshutes anymore.