Environmental Politics and Policy Exam 2

Presidential Powers and Responsibilities

-"Contextual" Powers: shaping the context of policy-making and administrative direction (agenda-setting, propose legislation and budgets, nominate and appoint cabinet members and other officials, etc.) -"Unilateral" Powers: legislative veto, executive orders, directives, proclamations, monitor and control regulatory activities -"Faithfully executive the laws..." (with wide discretion)

The Land Ethic-Aldo Leopold (1949)

-"In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plan member of citizen of it" -"...quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically rights, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise -"...remodeling the Alhambra with a steam shovel..."

Ethics Based on "What Matters":

-Anthropocentrism (people/human beings matter) -Biocentrism (all living things matter) -Eco-centrism (all things matter)

"Frustrated Reformers"

-Carter, Clinton, and Obama -all had major environmental agendas but got sidelines by other things

Solutions?

-Hardin: "Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon" (government control) -Ostrom et al.: Historical evidence shows resource users can successfully build institutions for sustainable management... (and Hardin assumes rational, self-interested actors who don't communication in a one-ff decision)

4 Worldviews

-Market Liberals -Institutionalists -Bioenvironmentalists -Social Greens

"Opportunistic Leaders"

-Nixon "Environmental Decade" -Bush I "Environmental President"

Tools the Legislative Branch Can Use

-Override a Veto -Pass a Bill -Treaty Ratification (yes or no) -Budget -Filibuster -Committees

"Rollback Advocates"

-Reagan -Bush II -Trump (?)

How do we put issues on the Agenda?

-Senators/Representatives -Focusing Events -Lobbyists -Multiple Stream Model*

The Executive/Administrative Branch

-The President: Head of State, responsible for implementing and enacting laws passed by Congress -Vice President: backup -White House Staff -Cabinet -Federal Agencies -Executive Branch employs around 2.5 million people (not including the military)

Tools the Executive Branch Can Use

-Veto -Pocket Veto -Enforcement (through bureaucracy) -Executive Orders -Agenda Setting -OMB (Office of Management and Budget)

Institutionalists

-belief in the value of economic growth, globalization, trade, foreign investment, technology, and the nation of sustainable development -lack of global cooperation as a key source of environmental degradation -institutions need to internalize the principles of sustainable development

Market Liberals

-economic growth and high per capita are essential for human welfare and the maintenance of sustainable development -economic growth creates higher incomes -globalization is a positive force -main drivers of environmental degradation, according to market liberals, are a lack of economic growth, poverty, distortions and failures of the market, and bad policies

Judicial Review of Agency Action

-ensure minimal levels of fairness in government administration -variable scope of review -agency decisions involve: a. interpreting law in question (little deference) b. collecting facts about problems (substantial deference) c. applies law to facts through discretionary power (deference to a point-"Hard Look" doctrine)

Presidential Constraints

-limited by congressionally-passed statutes -Congress sets the budget for administrative agencies -Congress can override a veto with 2/3 votes in each house -Senate can refuse to confirm nominations and deny treaty ratification -judicial oversight -roles of states in environmental programs -civil service protections

Social Greens

-radical social and economic theories -argue capitalism, and its global spread via neocolonial relations between rich and poor countries, not only leads to an unequal distribution of global income, power, and environmental problems, but is a threat to human survival -population-control policies are a threat to the self-determination of women and the poor

Functions of the Legislative Branch

-represent population, economy, or social groups -legislate (debate, amend, formulate, and enact laws) -set limits -political socialization -creating values and attitudes -have oversight (control of bureaucracy, enforce accountability, and provide stability)

United States Supreme Court

-shapes policy through the selection of cases, limits placed on other government branches and states -outcomes are influences by justices' values, ideological backgrounds, and policy preference -a major strategy used by stakeholders to change policy

Bioenvironmentalists

-stress the biological limits of the earth to support life -humans as a species now consume far too much of the earth's resources -population growth is a key source of stress on the earth's limits -globalization enhances economic growth -need to curb economic and population growth

How do we get anything passed?

1. Garbage Can Model 2. Incremental Change 3. Collaborative Decision-Making

3 Big Actors

1. Non-governmental actors (stakeholders, citizens, experts, etc.) 2. Governmental actors (Congress, world leaders, etc.) 3. Global Actors (intergovernmental organizations, multinational corporations, etc.) *to have a plan flow nicely through the policy cycle, all 3 of these actors need to be involved

Anthropocentric Ethics

1. only humans have intrinsic value 2. it is based on human benefits (utilitarian) 3. it's human domination over nature

Why isn't environmental legislation passed a lot?

1. problems with efficiency 2. have to be re-elected 3. polarization (among parties, branches, and states) 4. pollution of the year

How Courts Influence Policy

1. standing 2. ripeness 3. standard of review 4. legal interpretation 5. choice of remedy

Multiple Stream Model (John Kingdon)

3 Streams: 1. Problem Stream-when there is a problem recognized as important (usually through a focusing event) 2. Proposal Stream-you have to have someone that puts forward ideas 3. Political Stream-political factors that are going to influence the issue *if all 3 streams come together, it is likely the issue will be put on the agenda

Horizontal Separation of Power

3 different branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) each wielding a particular type of powers which is distinguished and exclusive to one another (this is not in parliamentary systems)

Native Peoples

370 million indigenous people spanning 70 countries = diverse -disposed of many of their lands and center of conflict for access to resources -value local knowledge

Utility Air Group v. EPA

After the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that determined that air pollution was subject to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation under the Clean Air Act, the EPA set out a series of standards governing greenhouse gas emissions. One of these benchmarks set emission standards for vehicles, while another one required stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain constructing and operating permits from the EPA. The petitioners, who include various state and industry groups, challenged these rules on the grounds that they were based on an improper construction of the Clean Air Act and are arbitrary and capricious because they are based on an inadequate scientific record. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the challenges. Question Did the EPA permissibly determine that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act also triggered permit requirements for stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions? No. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the 9-0 member majority. The Court held that, while the Massachusetts decision found that the Clean Air Act's general definition of "air pollutant" included greenhouse gas emissions, it does not require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to include greenhouse gas emissions every time the Act uses the term "air pollutant." Instead, the EPA retains its ability to interpret the term in a context-appropriate way depending on where the term was being used. Because the inclusion of greenhouse gases as an "air pollutant" under the permitting scheme would compel the EPA to regulate tens of thousands of additional pollution emitters, it would not be reasonable for the EPA to interpret this specific instance of "air pollution" to include greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, even if the EPA were able to interpret this instance of "air pollution" to include greenhouse gases, the EPA lacks the authority to modify the threshold limits Congress dictated. Though the EPA overstepped its authority in trying to regulate greenhouse gases under this section of the Clean Air Act, the Court held that the EPA's decision was within the boundaries of the EPA's discretion. standing to sue

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities

Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995), is a U.S. Supreme Court case, decided by a 6-3 vote, in which the plaintiffs challenged the Department of Interior's (DOI) interpretation of the word 'harm' in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Endangered Species Act requires that no person "take" an endangered or threatened species. The Act defines take as "harass, harm, pursue," "wound," or "kill." The Secretary of the Interior further characterizes "harm" as including "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife." Several persons within forestry industries sued the Secretary, asserting that Congress did not intend for the regulation to include changes in habitat. The District Court found for the Secretary of the Interior. The Court of Appeals reversed on the basis of noscitur a sociis, which means that the meaning of words is determined by the words around it. Thus, "harm" could only include actions applying direct force to the animal. Question Does the definition of "harm" as an expansion of the word "take" in the Endangered Species Act include habitat modification that kills or injures wildlife? Yes. In a 6-3 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that habitat modification is a legitimate application of the word "harm." First, the Court found that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in assuming that the words in the definition of "take" only apply to actions involving direct contact with endangered animals. Then, based on the Act itself, the Court determined that the ordinary meaning of harm would in fact include changes in habitat that hurt the endangered animals. Also, the Court held that the intent of the Act to give broad protection to endangered species must include even actions that may have minimal or unforeseeable effects.

Revisiting the Commons-Ostrom et al. (1999)

Common pool resources (CPR)-common goods -"More solutions exist than proposed by Hardin, and both socialized and privatized resource management have their associated failures." -"CPR problems can be addressed through institutional arrangements that 1) restrict access AND 2) create incentives for responsible use 6 Themes: 1. Scaling-Up Problem: having larger number of participants in a CPR increases the difficulty of organizing, agreeing on rules, and enforcing rules 2. Cultural Diversity Challenge: hope that the diversity of ways in which people have organized locally around CPRs will not be quickly lost, and that diverse new ways will continue to evolve at the local level 3. Complications of Interlinked CPRs: we all share one another's common interests, but in more complex ways than the uses of a forest or grassland 4. Accelerating Rates of Change: population growth, economic development, capital and labor mobility, and technological change push us past environmental thresholds before we know it 5. Requirement of Unanimous Agreement as a Collective-Choice Rule: the basic collective-choice rule for global resource management is voluntary assent to negotiated treaties 6. We have only one globe with which to experiment: we have less leeway for mistakes at the local level, while on the global scale there is no place to move

American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut et al.

Eight states, New York City and three land conservation groups filed suit against four electric power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority, five entities that they claimed were the largest sources of greenhouse gases. The lawsuit alleged that the utility companies, which operate facilities in 21 states, are a public nuisance because their carbon-dioxide emissions contribute to global warming. American Electric Power Co. and the other utilities argued that the courts should not get involved in the issue. The companies contended that only the Environmental Protection Agency can set emissions standards. A federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York initially threw out the case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said it could continue. The states in the lawsuit are: California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The Open Space Institute, the Open Space Conservancy and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire also are plaintiffs. The other utilities are Cinergy Co., Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia, and Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota. Question (1) Can states and private parties seek to curb emissions on utilities for their alleged contribution to global climate change? (2) Can a cause of action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions be implied under federal common law? No. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court order in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "The Clean Air Act and the EPA action the Act authorizes displace any federal common-law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants." Justice Samuel Alito concurred in part and in the judgment, writing: "I agree with the Court's displacement analysis on the assumption (which I make for the sake of argument because no party contends otherwise) that the interpretation of the Clean Air Act adopted by the majority in Massachusetts v. EPA is correct." Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not take part in consideration of the case. standing to sue

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

Massachusetts and several other states petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming from new motor vehicles. Massachusetts argued that EPA was required to regulate these "greenhouse gases" by the Clean Air Act - which states that Congress must regulate "any air pollutant" that can "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." EPA denied the petition, claiming that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Even if it did, EPA argued, the Agency had discretion to defer a decision until more research could be done on "the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it." Massachusetts appealed the denial of the petition to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a divided panel ruled in favor of EPA. Question 1) May the EPA decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act? 2) Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? No and yes. By a 5-4 vote the Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and ruled in favor of Massachusetts. The opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens held that Massachusetts, due to its "stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests" as a state, had standing to sue the EPA over potential damage caused to its territory by global warming. The Court rejected the EPA's argument that the Clean Air Act was not meant to refer to carbon emissions in the section giving the EPA authority to regulate "air pollution agent[s]". standing to sue

Ohio Forestry Association, Inc. v. Sierra Club

Pursuant to the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the United States Forest Service developed a Land and Resource Management Plan for Ohio's Wayne National Forest. The Plan sets logging goals, selects the areas suited to timber production, and determines which probable methods of timber harvest are appropriate, but it does not itself authorize the cutting of any trees. Ultimately, the Sierra Club filed suit, alleging that erroneous analysis leads the Plan wrongly to favor logging and clearcutting. The District Court granted the Forest Service summary judgment, finding that the Forest Service had acted lawfully in making the various challenged determinations. In reversing, the Court of Appeals, finding both that the Sierra Club had standing to bring suit, and that since the suit was "ripe for review," there was no need to wait "until a site-specific action occurs," held that the Plan improperly favored clearcutting and therefore violated the NFMA. Question Does the United States Forest Service's Land and Resource Management Plan for Ohio's Wayne National Forest present a controversy that is justiciable? If so, does the Plan conform to statutory and regulatory requirements for a forest plan? No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that the controversy is not yet ripe for judicial review. Justice Breyer wore for the Court that "'withhold court consideration' at present will not cause the parties significant 'hardship.'" "[B]efore the Forest Service can permit logging, it must focus upon a particular site, propose a specific harvesting method, prepare an environmental review, permit the public an opportunity to be heard, and (if challenged) justify the proposal in court," continued Justice Breyer, "[t]he Sierra Club thus will have ample opportunity later to bring its legal challenge at a time when harm is more imminent and more certain." ripeness

Whitman v. American Trucking Association

Section 109(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator to promulgate national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for each air pollutant for which "air quality criteria" have been issued under section 108. In 1997, Carol Browner, the Administrator of the EPA, revised the ozone and particulate matter NAAQS. Afterwards, her revised NAAQS were challenged in court. The District of Columbia Circuit found that section 109(b)(1), which instructs the EPA to set standards, delegated legislative power to the Administrator in contravention of the Federal Constitution because the court found that the EPA had interpreted the statute to provide no "intelligible principle" to guide the agency's exercise of authority. The court remanded the NAAQS to the EPA. The courts also held to its rule that the EPA could not consider implementation costs in setting the NAAQS. Additionally, the court rejected the EPA's position that the implementation provisions for ozone found in Part D, Subpart 2, of Title I of the CAA, were so tied to the existing ozone standard that the EPA lacked the power to revise the standard. Does section 109(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency? May the Administrator of the EPA consider the costs of implementation in setting national ambient air quality standards under section 109(b)(1)? Does the Court of Appeals have the jurisdiction to review the EPA's interpretation of Part D of Title I of the CAA, with respect to implementing the revised ozone NAAQS? No, no, and yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the CAA properly delegated legislative power to the EPA, but that the EPA could not consider implementation costs in setting primary and secondary NAAQS. Moreover, the Court held that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the EPA's interpretation of Part D of Title I of the CAA related to the implementation of the revised ozone NAAQS; however, the EPA's interpretation of Part D was unreasonable. Standard of Review

Incremental Change

a response to a short-term political condition according to events and development (Band-Aid)

Biocentric Ethics

all living things have intrinsic moral value (there are subcategories to this)

Eco-centric Ethics

all natural things and systems have intrinsic moral values i.e. nature

Legislative Branch

body of government that crafts and approves legislation or actions of the government

Idealism

cooperation, no zero-sum game, generally speaking people are good

Greenwashing

dis-information disseminated by an organization to present an environmentally responsible image

Public Good

everyone can use it and it doesn't reduce the resource

Common Good

everyone can use it but each use reduces the resource

Descriptive Statements

give a description, what is, facts

Garbage Can Model

goals are unclear and conflict, decision-making is unpredictable, and there is no well ordered structure for development

Radicalism

have to take radical action, focus on social class

Pocket Veto

if Congress adjourns within the 10 day period after giving the president the bill, the president can choose not to sign it and the bill will not become law

Global Common

it's global (ex: fish in the ocean)

Malthus (British economist)

population increases faster than resources

Opportunistic Leaders

presidents who held office at the peak of public opinion surges demanding action to strengthen environmental protection

Rollback Advocates

presidents who represented anti-regulatory forces that sought to roll back or weaken existing environmental legislation

Filibuster

prolonged speech or other action that obstructs progress in the legislative body

Tragedy of the Commons-Garret Hardin (1968)

regulate common goods or they will be exploited -"Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit-in a world that is limited." -"Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush...Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."

United States Court System

settles conflict between parties and interprets laws (dual system: federal and state/county courts) Sources of Law: -precedent -federal/state constitutions -federal/state/local statutes -administrative regulations -ratified treaties -federal/state executive orders

Buckeye Forest Council v. U.S. Forest Service

the forest plan for the Wayne National Forest was again unsuccessfully challenged by environmental advocates in 2005 in this case, which concerned the Endangered Species Act ripeness

Constructivism

the idea that we socially construct our world

Collaborate Decision-Making

the pooling of resources and information to solve problems that no one group can solve on its own

Agenda-Setting

the process that determines which issues officials pay serious attention to at any given time

Antiquities Act

what created National Monuments (signed by Theodore Roosevelt)

Prescriptive Statements

what ought to be, opinions, puts in the values

Local Common

within a country, laws to protect it

Realism

zero-sum game, power, very nation-state oriented