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.

CV Analysis- When to Use, When Not to Use

In short, I believe CV evaluations can be used for environmental problems that are localized in nature and minute in comparison. The “not in my backyard” mentality is very motivating to people. The majority of people in the community are aware of these situations, are affected by them, and thus to some degree (faulty survey are not) are able to assign monetary value to situations:

1) Local Park Clean-up: Parks are used typically utilized solely by the community that surrounds them. Because of government budget cuts or poor maintenance, some parks are not maintained, endangering the environment and wildlife. For example, my parents took part in a CV study when I was young. A park across the street, Sandborn Park, was left in a state of ruin. The grass, trees, and shrubs were not cared for, and the bacteria festering in the man-made pond was killing geese, ducks, and completely eliminated fish. My parents, being well-acquainted with the park and thus frequently seeing its state of disarray, were able to assign a monetary value to its clean-up.

2) Local Air Shed Clean up: through various methods, people have told their governments they are tired of the amount of pollution in their city. Nobody likes to breath in thick, disgusting air. Furthermore, seeing a cloud of gunk hanging over the buildings does not beautify a city. Through various market incentives, or direct regulations, governments are beginning to respond to the demands of the people. Again, because these citizens are constantly exposed to the affects of pollution, and by the fact they live in a democracy and thus exercise some power through the vote, they are able to properly ascertain a monetary value to air pollution. Although, admittedly, this problem is not minute, it is comparatively easier to deal with than the problems listed below.

Precautionary environmental polices or those that are on a national, or global scale and are very large in complex in nature, are harder for average citizens to assign monetary values. Not everyone is directly exposed (or even knows about) serious environmental problems that may affect us all, thus they cannot, and perhaps should not be able to quantify environmental values.

1) Global Warming- the full affects of global warming are not currently felt. For many people, global warming represents a theory pushed on them by marketing strategies and certain political and research elites. Climatologists even disagree about a) whether or not global warming is even a threat (I read that some were more afraid of a global cooling) b) The degree to which manmade green house gases actually affect global warming and c) what people can do about it. Thus, because experts are themselves cannot assign a value to global warming, it is hard for citizens, with much less knowledge about the phenomenon, to do so. Furthermore, people tend to have a short time-horizon. Thus, they may not place much value on an environmental problem that will not fully occur until long after they are dead. In short, using CV analysis on global warming it is a precautionary principle, its full affects are not yet felt, and it is an international problem.

2) Droughts in Northern Africa- what used to be a fertile land, is now an extension of the Sahara. Rapid deforestation and excessive grazing have subjected the land to desertification. People and wildlife alike have died. It would be more suitable to conduct CV analysis on the people who have been affected by this profound loss of environment; however, that too would be difficult. How do you put a monetary value on the home of you and your ancestors? How could you quantify the loss of something so extensive? It would be especially hard to conduct a CV analysis or somebody in the United States as it would be more difficult for them to quantify the damage since they are not directly affected by it.

Week 4 General Question

I would like to segregate my comment in two sections:

Private Sector- I believe that privately-owned organizations’ managers and environmental planners should try to engage the public, regardless of their knowledge of science. As the articles demonstrated time and time again, environmental policy is largely not the result of effective scientific measures; but rather the success of it rests in ethics and culture. Thus, scientific facts may not, or perhaps should not, create sustainable environmental policy. Also, engaging the public consumes a lot of resources- mainly money and time. The cost of civic participation is perhaps not as expensive in the private sector as in the public sector, for two reasons. First, a private corporation is better able to mobilize citizens because it was created by the people, for the people. Thus, by its definition, it attracts and maintains more specific civic interests than the government. Furthermore, through sponsorships or income, private organization are better at raising revenue and will thus have the means and established networks to engage public opinion.

Public Sector- because all taxpayers’ money is forced to go into environmental planning, I believe it should remain objective as possible. That is, PUBLIC institutions should rely on science and not special interests- it simply wouldn’t be fair otherwise. Furthermore, the costs of the government to mobilize people is too costly, another burden taxpayers should not have to pay. The consequence of doing so may result in ineffective environmental policy (but, honestly, so can private interests); however, with my plan, passionate private institutions would mobilize people, and in turn, mobilize government through legislation to pick up where government-owned institutions lack. In short, we are all forced to pay tax money, and yes, some of the benefits of environmental policy are diffuse so all citizens should be charged for this positive externality; however, the matter remains that not all environmental policy is effective and necessary, so taxpayers should not pay the slack. Furthermore, public institutions are not nearly as adaptable as private. Thus, I believe ineffective environmental policy has been made because of the flaws inherent in a public system. Private institutions are more able to adapt, gauge, and mobilize. This demonstrates the need to separate the roles of the private and public environmental institutions.

Assignment #3: My Op-Ed

The road to create effective environmental policy has been long and difficult for advocates. From prehistoric kings regulating poaching and development within their jurisdiction, to the present day international cooperation to help stabilize climate change, environmental activism has more often than not been at odds with mankind’s need to expand and use resources, and as such, is a highly controversial issue.

In the United States, sans consideration for Theodore Roosevelt’s active pro-environmentalism in the early 20th century, environmental activism became especially prevalent in the 1960’s. Attached to the civil rights movement, the progressive notion of protecting the environment came to the forefront. The feeling crescendoed until the 1970’s, when the public demanded that President Nixon take a more formative role in shaping environmental policy. Though a conservative in politics, Nixon took a stance akin to Theodore Roosevelt’s concerning the environment (Vig & Kraft, 2006). Declaring the 70’s an “environmental decade” he created the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA) and signed the National Environmental Policy Act, The Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

The entrance of Reagan brought about great environmental change. Reagan believed environmental policy is directly at odds with economic growth, and noting the serious economic downturn in the early 1980’s, stimulating the economy was Reagan’s top priority. Reagan, however, found it hard to push many anti-environmental acts through the same Congress that supported the green-friendly laws of the 1970’s. Thus, Reagan enhanced the power of the executive branch to take further control over government spending. According to Vig, he used four avenues: appointed conservatives to environmental posts, enacted strict policy coordination, substantially decreased budgets of environmental agencies, and enhanced the executive oversight of polices. As part of his conservative agenda, Reagan slashed income taxes, and with the ensuing sharp decrease in government revenue, slashed funding to environmental programs as well. He also attempted to destroy the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and constantly pestered the EPA to rewrite rules and procedures to be more favorable to businesses, specifically the mining, logging, oil and gas industries, to encourage economic development. Overall, Reagan’s dismissal of environmental needs created a public backlash as interests groups and green activists coalesced to raise public awareness. The next conservative to take office found a very different state of affairs.

George Bush Sr. had very much the Nixon mentality concerning the environment. Bush began very aggressively to pass pro-environmental laws early in his presidency, such as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and reestablished the CEQ. Unfortunately, what began as a promising president for environmentalists, quickly turned disappointing as Bush boycotted the UN’s Earth Summit because of mandatory carbon dioxide reductions, and refused to sign the Convention of Biological Diversity.

Environmentalists’ hopes were renewed when Clinton, and his environment-friendly Vice President Gore, took office. Both candidates made incredible pro-environmental promises during their campaign. And Clinton had every intention of delivering. He started by appointing very strong pro-green people to executive office staff positions. He also signed the Convention of Biological Diversity, raised grazing fees, and tried to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions. Unfortunately, these measures were blocked in Congress, and much like the Democratic predecessor before him, Clinton was unable to pass environmentally-friendly legislation through a bipartisan Congress. At the end of his second term, Clinton learned that the most effective way to get Congress to act is by stimulating the public. Using this method, and enhancing executive powers as Reagan did, Clinton was able to pass laws to protect more lands and endangered species, increase the funding of environmental agencies, tighten standards of pollution, and decrease diesel fuel admissions.

Bush Jr., as soon as he entered office, reversed much of the environmental progress Clinton made. Like Reagan, Bush was a pro-business conservative, and used the same methods to decrease the amount of environmental legislation passed by appointing conservative people to influential posts, reducing budgets for environmental agencies, and passing laws which sounded environmentally friendly, but were in fact much more destructive than the laws they were supposed to supersede. Overall, much akin to the result of Reagan’s policies, the public was more activated than ever to make a change in environmental policy.

Obama, much to the relief of environmentalists, has thus far begun to enact his campaign promises. His stimulus package, which is in the Senate, pledges billions of dollars to renewable energy research and green construction. This, he vows, will create more jobs in a crumbling economy and ultimately led America to a better future. Like Nixon and Bush Sr., Obama entered the White House during a climax of public concern over the environment. The “green movement” is incredibly prevalent in today’s society. Unlike Nixon and Bush Sr., however, Obama, and more importantly the public, is more passionate about meeting ever greater green goals.

I predict the Obama administration will largely be remembered because of their green legislation pending the economic status. The disintegrating economy and the lower gas prices will shift the public focus- and perhaps this is a good thing, for now. Ultimately, I agree with the Reagan and Bush view that environmental progress negatively impacts the economy. Granted, jobs will be created to achieve energy goals through Obama’s stimulus plan (an estimated three million); however, it will not be enough to compensate the jobs lost because of the lack of production. Emission and production requirements force the cost of a product to increase, thus suppliers produce less. As production decreases and jobs are lost, people cannot afford the luxury of green living. Thankfully, the economy, as history has shown us, goes through cycles, and if the recession ends during the Obama years, I predict more effort and focus will go into creating a new environmentally-friendly source of energy, and hence a substantial decrease in fuel emissions, an increase in nation-wide green living and house construction, and a renewed awareness of climate change. For now it’s all about the economy. Perhaps the two can coincide as Obama suggests; if the stimuls fails, however, substantially less focus will be given to environmental policies.

**It should be noted that although presidents have considerable power over environmental policy, Congress and the judicial branch do as well. Congress can largely enable (such as with Nixon, Bush Sr., and apparently Obama) or prevent (such as with Carter, Clinton) a President from passing pro-environmental legislation. Furthermore, the courts have an awesome ability to influence environmental law by regulating who can come to court, how the law is interpreted, and the penalties enacted for perpetrators. Because of space constraints, I did not focus on these two branches of the government.

Vig, Norman J., & Kraft, Michael E. (Eds.) (2006). Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century. Washington DC: CQ Press