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.

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