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