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.