Today's Environmental Issues: Democrats and Republicans 1440847096, 9781440847097

Citation preview

Today’s Environmental Issues

Recent Titles in the Across the Aisle Series Today’s Social Issues: Democrats and Republicans Timothy W. Kneeland Today’s Economic Issues: Democrats and Republicans Nancy S. Lind, Erik T. Rankin, and Gardenia Harris Today’s Foreign Policy Issues: Democrats and Republicans Trevor Rubenzer

Today’s Environmental Issues Democrats and Republicans

TERI J. WALKER

Across the Aisle

Copyright © 2018 by ABC-CLIO, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2017042700 ISBN: 978-1-4408-4709-7 (print) 978-1-4408-4710-3 (ebook) 22 21 20 19 18  1 2 3 4 5 This book is also available as an eBook. ABC-CLIO An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 www.abc-clio.com This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents Preface: Partisan Environmental Priorities Introduction

Climate Change

vii xix

1

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

21

Emissions Trading

31

Endangered Species

40

Environmental Justice

52

Freshwater Use and Pollution

61

Fuel and Energy Efficiency Standards

74

Genetically Modified Foods

87

Grazing

99

Hazardous Waste Disposal

112

Hydraulic Fracturing (“Fracking”)

124

Hydroelectric Energy

135

Indoor Air Pollution

147

Logging on Public Lands

155

Marine Pollution and Protection

170

Mining

182

Motorized Recreation on Public Lands

190

National Parks

201

Noise Pollution

212

Nuclear Waste Disposal

227

Oil and Natural Gas Drilling

237

Outdoor Air Pollution

248

vi

C on te n ts

Ozone Depletion

258

Pesticides

267

Public Lands

280

Solar Energy

289

Sustainability

300

Transportation

310

Wetlands

323

Wilderness Conservation

334

Wind Energy

344

Glossary

355

Selected Bibliography

361

Index 363 About the Contributors

379

Preface: Partisan Environmental Priorities

Issue Overview

Environmental politics do not take place on just the policy level; a more rudimentary level is at play in how policy-makers present the importance and types of environmental issues to their constituents. Contemporary Republican and Democrat lawmakers prioritize different facets of environmental policy and use different terms and phrases to relate their priorities. Empirically examining the way policymakers refer to issues of concern provides insight into their own frame of reference when they’re supporting or opposing legislation. As online communications technology has advanced, nearly all members of Congress make use of electronic newsletters (e-newsletters) to connect with constituents). Direct Congress-to-constituent communications offer a nonmediated look at what issues legislators think are of interest to their constituents, and the newsletters can be pooled collectively to identify partisan trends on a variety of policy topics.1 This form of media is accessible to all members, is used by over 95 percent of current legislators, and provides a virtually blank slate on which legislators can write about whatever issues they please. This final benefit of freedom in focus makes e-newsletters an ideal place to search for competing priorities between parties. Partisan Priorities

While members of Congress are likely to hold policy opinions on each of the topics presented in this book, they do not dedicate the same amount of time and focus to each pressing environmental issue. As an introduction to some of the other topics of this series to be covered in depth, I first present the relative frequencies of each of the topics for Democrats and Republicans. Table 1 shows the top 10 most communicated environmental topics for Republicans and Democrats, as well as 1 The

data containing every message sent by federal U.S legislators to constituents come from DCinbox. DCinbox is a project started in 2009 that collects every official e-newsletter sent by representatives and senators. These are taxpayer-funded communications that are permitted by the House and Senate as a way for members of Congress to connect with their constituents in order to relay the work of each individual congressperson. The database contains more than 80,000 e-newsletters and is available for interested readers at https:// dcinbox.herokuapp.com/.

viii

Pr e fa ce

Table 1.  Environmental Topics Most Attended to by U.S. Legislators in Constituent Communications by Party (2009–2016) Republican Topic Environment Gas Coal Oil Mining Conservation Natural Gas Drilling Emissions National Parks

Percentage of E-Newsletters

Democrat Topic

13 9 6 5 3 2 2 2 2 1

Environment Gas Oil Coal Conservation Climate Change National Parks Mining Pollution Solar

Percentage of E-Newsletters 10 8 5 5 4 3 2 2 2 2

the relative occurrences of each topic as a percentage of all e-newsletters sent from members of each party. Table 1 shows some similarities and some notable differences between the communicated priorities of the parties. Both Democrats and Republicans focus a good share of their e-newsletters on general environmental issues. Both parties focus on the traditional fuel sources of gas, oil, and coal. Both parties also consider the topics of conservation, mining, and national parks. There are three top 10 topics that are different between the parties: natural gas, drilling, and emissions make the list for Republicans, while climate change, pollution, and solar make the list for Democrats. The top 10 list in Table 1 says nothing about the policy prescriptions of each party, but it does indicate that there are some centralizing issues that members of both parties are motivated to discuss with constituents. Members of the Republican Party are far more likely than Democrats to mention “private property” and “property rights.” Other topics and terms that Republicans employ with particular frequency include ozone, nuclear waste, natural gas, hydraulic (as in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking), and grazing. Democrats cannot claim an opposing-issue ownership of the same magnitude as Republicans. There is no environmental topic that Democrats discuss at a rate that far exceeds that of Republicans, but the topics of emissions, genetically modified organisms, foods and crops, and green energy are attended to more by Democrats than by Republicans. In order to have a better sense of what each party thinks ought to be done on the environmental issues of the day, first I created a database of every paragraph in constituent communications that includes environmental words associated with an identifiable topic. Next, I processed the texts by the party of the author. Then I identified the 10 words that co-occur most frequently with each of the starting environmental words—to get a top-level but deeper understanding of the differences between the parties and how they approach different topics. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.

P r efa c e

Table 2.  Most Commonly Associated Words by Party over Issue Areas of Environmental Topics (2009–2016) Term

Shared Terms

Air pollution EPA, clean, energy

Republican Terms

Rule, cross-state, power, plants, CSAPR Animal Humane, food Safety, protection, law, society, fighting Brownfield Grants Program, sites, development, economic, EPA, funding Carbon tax Emissions, energy Gas, resolution, cap, economy, increase, American Clean energy American, jobs, create Conservation, gas, independence, development, nuclear Climate Energy, global, Obama, administration, change president American, EPA, regulations Coal Energy, jobs, power, Industry, war, EPA, plant,* ash regulations Conservation Water, program, land, Efforts, natural wildlife, energy, fund Drilling Offshore, oil, energy, Moratorium, president, gas, gulf administration, jobs Drinking Safe, clean, million, EPA, protection, water public people, access Efficiency Fuel, energy, car* Light, bulb standard Emissions Carbon, EPA, gas, Plants, regulations energy, greenhouse, power, reduce Endangered Wildlife List,* ESA, wolf,* species management

Democratic Terms Health, environmental, emissions, diesel, public Welfare, plant, species, veterinary cleanup, assessment, CFDA, guidelines, cooperative, agreements, technical British Columbia, climate, revenue, business, change Economy, technology, manufacturing, future Address, clean, health, impacts, action Miners, clean, gas Resources, management, support Coast, spill, deepwater, natural Funding, lead, environmental, programs Vehicles, announced, appliances, increase, tax Air, clean

Conservation, water, fish, public, islands, service, habitat Environment Protection, agency, Jobs, regulations, Health, public, water, energy economic, create program, department Fossil fuel Energy, oil Gas, coal, power, Dependence, clean, reduce, development, production climate, jobs Fracking Gas, oil, natural, Fracturing, production, Water, chemicals, public, hydraulic EPA, process offshore, environment Freshwater Lake* World, Everglades, River, water, local, climate, carp, largest, natural, estuary, issue, Lucie resources, supply, carp Gas Prices, energy, natural, Production, jobs, Emissions, development, oil, greenhouse American, president companies, tax (Continued)

ix

x

Pr e fa ce

Table 2.  (Continued) Term

Shared Terms

Republican Terms

Democratic Terms

Genetically modified

Food,* GMO

Salmon, fish, administration, drug, FDA

Geothermal

Energy, wind, solar

Labeling, crops, organisms, products, safe Oil, coal, sources, nuclear, power, gas

Global warming Grazing

Program, renewable, resources, assistance, development, clean Obama, president, water, Clean, economy, emissions, regulations, agenda reduce, carbon BLM, permits Farmers, conservation

Climate, energy, change Land,* public, livestock, emergency, ranchers, haying Green energy Jobs* President, wind, Obama, program, loan, offshore Greenhouse Gas,* EPA, emissions, Regulat,* agency energy, clean Hazardous EPA Coal, ash sites, waste regulations, Superfund, cleanup, excessive Hydraulic Fracturing, energy, Regulations, American, gas, oil, natural production, jobs Logging Jobs Forest,* roads, service, industry, management Mining Coal, jobs, energy, Association, surface, industry EPA, regulations National park Service, public, Land, committee, resources, natural funding, veterans Coal, American Natural gas Energy, oil, production, resources, jobs, pipeline Nuclear Energy, plant* Clean, gas, coal, Iran, power natural Nuclear waste Yucca Mountain, repository, energy, site, Nevada, commission, cleanup Oil Gas, energy, spill, Production, American, gulf natural, jobs, pipeline Pesticide EPA Water, duplicative, clean, regulatory, court, farmers, FIFRA Pollution Air, clean, energy, Control, oil environmental, water, EPA Private Rights, protection, Water, owners, protect, property land, local domain

Renewable, economy, tax, million, create, businesses Reduce, climate, change Environmental, program, grant, training, management, development, health Fracking, water, chemicals, public Trucks, rule, heavy, huge, highway Steel, companies, iron, range, water Study, historic, system Development, clean

Safety, NRC, Davis-Besse, FirstEnergy Dump, power, lakes, proposed, build, development, Huron Companies, drilling, tax, prices, coast Agriculture,* environmental, research, health, protection, committee Carbon, reduce, power

Resources, authority, natural, damage

P r efa c e

Term

Shared Terms

Republican Terms

Democratic Terms

Public lands

Access, land

Management, forest, energy, service, hunting

Solar

Energy, wind, power

Oil, sources, Solyndra, nuclear, gas, coal Budget, path, Medicare, nation, million, ensure Clean, change, affordable, future, plan, sources, term Rule, united, EPA, protection, clean, proposed, navigable EPA, waters, streams, protect, oil Water, resources, forest, service Offshore, development, deepwater

Subcommittee, environmental, resources, natural, conservation, parks Jobs, renewable, clean, technology, panels, research Water, environmental, research, jobs, programs Environment, program, coalition, renewable, electricity, funding, research River, program, flood, conservation, management, resources, local Program, restoration, north, American, projects Public, acres, monument, mountains, introduced Renewable, clean, industry

Sustainability Program, fiscal, term Sustainable energy

Climate

Waters

Wetlands Wilderness Wind

Conservation, water, restore, coastal Land,* protect* Energy, power, solar, tax, production, jobs

*Denotes stem words with various endings that appear as commonly associated. Source: “DCinbox—Capturing Every Congressional Constituent E-newsletter from 2009 Onwards,” The Legislative Scholar 2, no. 1 (2017): 2–36.

Table 2 illuminates some general trends in how the parties approach different environmental topics. Instead of having to explore the party prescriptions for each issue in detail, readers can use this sort of shortcutting to gain telling insights into the views of members of the different parties. Take, for instance, the topic of drilling: Both parties associate drilling with words like offshore, oil, energy, gas, and gulf to refer to where drilling happens and what resources are being sought. But congressional Republicans also associate the words moratorium, president, administration, and jobs with drilling, because they view President Obama’s 2016 moratorium on new drilling as a hindrance to job growth. On the other hand, congressional Democrats associate the words coast, spill, deepwater, and natural with drilling, because they view deepwater drilling as a spill risk that may threaten the coasts of the United States and the natural habitats within. Overall, on issues concerning the environment, members of the Republican Party are much more likely to criticize the policies, priorities, and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) specifically and the Obama administration in general. A general theme that emerges from Democrat-authored communications is a focus on how conservation and environmental protection are critical to public health, ecosystem integrity, and a cleaner energy future for the United States.

xi

xii

Pr e fa ce

Republican Positions 2016

The prevalence of certain terms in congressional communications is mirrored in the official platforms that were offered by the parties in 2016. For example, the 2016 Republican Party platform states that climate change “is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue.” The Democratic Party platform of 2016 declares that climate change “poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our

Environment a Popular Topic for Some Lawmakers Following is a list of those legislators who dedicated the highest volume of official communications to topics related to the environment in the 111th–114th Congresses (using the top 10 most communicated environmental topics terms: environment, gas, oil, coal, conservation, waters, mining, national park, emissions, and climate change): • Representative Tim Murphy (R-PA) 815 references Top Topics: natural gas, oil, environmental protection agency Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Sponsored: 6 Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Passed: 0 • Representative Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (D-Northern Mariana Islands) 730 references Top Topics: conservation, environmental, national park Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Sponsored: 18 Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Passed: 0 • Representative then Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) 564 references Top Topics: gas, oil, conservation Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Sponsored: 13 Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Passed: 0 • Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) 535 references Top Topics: environment, greenhouse gas, clean water act Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Sponsored: 20 Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Passed: 4 • Representative Rick Nolan (D-MN) 395 references Top Topics: mining, national park, environment Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Sponsored: 4 Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Passed: 1 • Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) 387 references Top Topics: environmental protection agency Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Sponsored: 4 Number of Environmental, Energy, or Land Use Legislation Passed: 0

P r efa c e

national security, and our children’s health and futures, and that Americans deserve the jobs and security that come from becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.” Details of the platforms generally adhere to the partisan trends in topic foci found in Congress-to-constituent communications. The Republican Party of 2016 bills itself as “the party of America’s growers, producers, farmers, ranchers, foresters, miners, commercial fishermen, and all those who bring from the earth the crops, minerals, energy, and the bounties of our seas that are the lifeblood of our economy” (Republican Party Platforms 2016). The platform includes three headlining goals: abundant harvests, a new era in energy, and environmental progress. Abundant Harvests As a part of its abundant harvest plank, the GOP argues that the opinions and livelihoods of environmental stakeholders—property owners—must be factored into policies on the environment. Those who are central to agricultural and energy production and exportation are responsible for feeding and powering the U.S. economy, so the GOP insists that these perspectives are central to a prosperous future. As agriculture relates to production and trade, the platform indicates that Republicans “oppose the mandatory labeling of genetically modified food” and argue that “America’s trade negotiators will insist that our global trading partners adhere to science-based standards with regard to food and health regulations.” While foods made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are more often discussed in Democratic communications, the Republican Party takes a very clear stance in its platform. On nonagriculture land use, the platform states the following: Stewardship of the land benefits everyone, and we remain committed to conservation policies based on the preservation, not the restriction, of working lands. For this reason, ranching on public lands must be fostered, developed, and encouraged.

Furthermore, The U. S. Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, controls around 200 million acres of land with enormous natural resources, especially timber, a renewable resource providing jobs for thousands of workers that should be used to the best economic potential for the nation.

Republicans are more apt to talk about such land use issues as grazing, logging, drilling, and hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”), both overall and in positive terms, than Democrats are, and this is true of the differences in party platforms as well. A New Era in Energy The 2016 Republican Party platform stresses the GOP’s interest in “the creation of an all-of-the-above energy strategy,” referring to any sort of energy extraction or production. The party argues that the federal government ought to devolve

xiii

xiv

Pr e fa ce

authority over federal public lands to states, so that states may determine and manage energy resources within their respective borders. The party also indicates that public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf ought to be open for energy exploration and production. For the specific types of energy that the platform expects the states to develop, the Republican Party lists an “all of the above” approach—encompassing fracking, horizontal drilling, oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy. According to the GOP, the responsibility for production ought to be undertaken by “private capital,” while the states ought to retain regulatory authority. Yet there are some regulations that a state could undertake that would run afoul of the platform. For example, a simple yet informative declarative sentence from the platform states, “We oppose any carbon tax.” Environmental Progress Environmental progress is a term that is meant to highlight the ever-increasing environmental standards the United States has seen in the past few decades, while arguing that other considerations, such as economic costs, ought to be factored into new decisions regarding environmental regulation. One of the first plank topics is endangered species, another topic that Republicans tend to communicate more to their constituents than Democrats do. The platform says, “The Endangered Species Act should not include species . . . if these species exist elsewhere in healthy numbers in another state or country.” This statement reflects a long-standing Republican concern that Democratic presidents and lawmakers seek to put more animals on the endangered species list than is merited by other calculations; this platform concern is repeatedly highlighted in the communications of Republican representatives from Kansas, Wyoming, Alabama, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. As for the impact of international agreements on environmental standards within the United States, the Republican platform flatly states, “We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.” This is a sentiment that most current members of the GOP adhere to, and there exists very little diversity of opinion on this issue of international agreements and the role they ought to play in shaping domestic environmental policies. Not only is Republican distaste for such agreements rooted in aversion to international interference in domestic policy, but congressional Republicans also generally share a skepticism surrounding the scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is a genuine phenomenon. Diversity within the Party There are a few environmental issues within the Republican Party that split opinions. These divisions mostly center on states’ rights versus federal rights, genetically modified organisms, and land conservation. A vote in 2016 on a Republican-sponsored bill to create new federal standards to label GMO food products passed in the U.S. House of Representatives 306–117, but 36 Republicans split from their party to vote against the bill and then sought to

P r efa c e

explain to constituents why they made their decision. Republicans who supported this legislation argued that it would give farmers certainty in what labeling systems they had to adhere to, rather than the patchwork of state labeling requirements currently in place. Those who opposed the bill asserted that it should be a right of states to determine if and how GMO food ought to be labeled. Another area of contention is preservation and land use on protected lands. Many representatives in Congress from such states as Idaho, Colorado, North Dakota, and Wyoming represent constituencies that value the wilderness and nature within their states as a place to hike, hunt, and camp. But their states are also home to companies and industries that lobby for more access to federal lands for oil and gas exploration, as well as such business activities as ranching and farming. Over the last several decades, the Republican Party has traditionally been more in support of exploration over preservation, in support of extraction of energy over conservation of wildlife habitats, and in support of an evaluative framework that places greater weight on alleged economic benefits over alleged environmental harm. The contemporary Republican Party seems poised to continue this stance into the future. Democrat Positions 2016

The Democratic Party Platform of 2016 devotes less space to environmental issues than does the platform offered by Republicans. In contrast to the Republican platform’s heavy focus on the current Democratic administration, the Democratic platform contains only one reference to Republican policy on environmental issues: a criticism of GOP perspectives on global warming. Excerpts from the Democratic platform convey many of the same messages seen in contemporary congressional communications to their constituents on green energy technologies and sustainability. One of the lines in the platform touts the expansion of alternative energy technologies over the previous eight years: “We’ve increased our use of solar energy twentyfold since President Obama took office, and tripled our electricity produced by wind power” (Democratic Party Platforms 2016). These ends were accomplished by extending clean energy tax credits to wind and solar projects. In order to attempt to more fully tilt the balance away from fossil fuels to alternative, green energies, Democrats also routinely offer initiatives to repeal tax subsidies for large oil companies. Another part of the platform hails President Obama’s and the EPA’s efforts to “regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants” with the goal of reducing pollution associated with coal usage. Democrats dedicate relatively more communications to the issues of pollution and emissions than Republicans do, and this difference is also apparent in the party platforms. In addition to regulation of traditional fuels, since 2009 the Department of Energy under President Obama issued 40 new or updated efficiency standards on a variety of products and electricity services to reduce the environmental footprints of many forms of energy.

xv

xvi

Pr e fa ce

One of the major accomplishments heralded within the party was President Obama’s decision to reject permitting to build the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on the grounds that the economic ends would not justify the environmental havoc wreaked by the pipeline, and that supporting the pipeline would only divert attention away from innovating alternate solutions to fossil fuel dependency. On top of providing more controls for fossil fuels, Congress passed and President Obama signed a 2016 update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, in order to better accord the handling, processing, and public information on chemical substances with scientific standards. This reform specified updated procedures for evaluating and handling the chemicals used in every setting—from the workplace to homes—and it renewed standards to safely limit human exposure to harmful substances. This legislation was a rare case of bipartisan congressional consensus on an environmental issue during the Obama years. Democrats use both of the terms climate change and global warming relatively more often than Republicans in constituent communications. This focus is made clear in a commitment highlighted as the end of the party platform on the environment—and specifically on international accords signed in Paris to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change: “Democrats will fight to protect the Paris Agreement to protect our planet for future generations.” This clear position on the Paris Agreement reinforces the starting point of the Democratic Party platform: that climate change and clean energy are high-level priorities for Democrats. Though it is not a focus of the official Democratic Party platform, the U.S. system of national parks is championed by many Democratic members of Congress. In contrast to the Republican Party, some members of which have advocated privatizing parts of national parks or allowing private entities to develop or use parts of federally protected land, the Democratic Party generally supports the national parks system as a public good to be enjoyed by all, and it rejects calls to place units under greater control of private entities. In 2016, Democratic advocates for national parks pushed to add even more land to the system of federally recognized parks and protected areas, a position that does not enjoy the same level of support from Republicans. The arguments offered in favor of park expansion include appeals to a sense of obligation to preserve national parks and other protected areas as a legacy of the natural beauty of the United States for current and future generations to enjoy. Diversity within the Party The diversity within the Democratic Party on environmental principles and policies largely comes down to geography. Representatives from the Gulf Coast find themselves torn between environmental conservationists within the party and constituents who are economically dependent on traditional oil and gas extraction industries. While Republicans increasingly represent the Gulf Coast states of the

P r efa c e

South, the few Democrats who represent or recently represented those areas found themselves occasionally at odds with the party leadership. Travis W. Childers (D-MS), a Democratic member of the House, found himself at the center of just this sort of uncomfortable straddle after the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. That spill devastated many Mississippi families, small businesses, and various local economies. At the same time, Childers opposed calls for a moratorium on offshore drilling by noting that the national security of the United States and thousands of jobs in Mississippi would be at risk if the nation ended exploration activities altogether. Childers’s viewpoint differed so much from that of Democrat leaders that with the support of congressional Republicans he spearheaded legislation to challenge the Obama administration’s ban on new offshore drilling permits. Childers sought reelection in 2010, but lost to Republican challenger Alan Nunnelee. The Democratic Party has been more or less consistently aligned with the idea of conservation and protection of the environment and in favor of federal power to carry out that goal if need be. The changes observed within the party do not appear to be a waver in commitment to environmental priorities, but rather a response to a multitude of concerns that sometimes make achieving consensus difficult. Lindsey Cormack Further Reading Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform.” The American Presidency Project, July 21, 2016. Accessed June 29, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu​ /ws/index.php?pid=117717. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform.” The American Presidency Project, July 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid =117718.

xvii

Introduction

The Republican and Democratic Parties claim to have the best interests of the United States and its people at heart when they make policy. Both parties purport that their policies are the best solutions to address the environmental problems facing the nation. Today’s Environmental Issues: Democrats and Republicans examines the proposal and positions of the two parties—both the profound disagreements and the areas of common ground between the two parties. Today’s Environmental Issues: Democrats and Republicans sorts through the rhetorical clutter and partisan distortions that typify so many disputes between Republicans and Democrats. The intent is to provide an accurate, balanced, and evenhanded overview of the parties’ respective policy positions and attitudes on the most important environmental issues and challenges facing the United States in the 21st century. In addition to explaining the differences between the two parties on today’s most pressing environmental issues, this volume documents differences of opinion within the parties where present. Despite the ideological stereotypes attached to both parties, neither Republicans nor Democrats think or vote in lockstep on a wide range of environmental issues, from sustainability to renewable energy to water pollution. Additionally, Republican and Democratic elected officials often do not reflect the views of Republican and Democratic voters. Most voters are not consistently conservative or liberal, but somewhere in the middle. Throughout the volume, the text features actual quotes from conservative and liberal party leaders, elected officials, and media figures, as well as public opinion poll results and other valuable information. These serve to enhance the book’s coverage of the philosophies and records of the two parties on such diverse issues as climate change and energy investment, endangered species and wilderness protection, CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, fracking, freshwater use, and public ownership of land. Entry Features

Each essay in Today’s Environmental Issues: Democrats and Republicans begins with an “At a Glance” summary of the prevailing positions and policies of the two parties on the issue being discussed. This section also includes reader-friendly “bullet points” listing the most important views of each party.

xx

In tr odu c t ion

Each essay provides an “Overview” of the issue, including historical trends, events, and attitudes of the parties. This section explores the environmental impact of the issue, attitudes towards key legislation, political alliances, and evolutions in party perspectives over time. Each essay then provides a more in-depth exploration of the history and attitudes of the two parties on the environmental issue in question. This exploration comprises two special sections—one devoted to the Republican record on the issue, the other devoted to the Democratic record. These two detailed sections are crafted to provide a balanced overview of the parties’ positions. Many essays are supplemented with illuminating sidebars on major policies, political beliefs, events, and trends pertaining to the topic under discussion. Each entry concludes with a helpful “Further Reading” section to direct users to other sources. Teri J. Walker

Climate Change

At a Glance

Climate change weaves together such narrowly defined environmental challenges as flooding, drought, weather-related disasters, habitat loss, and so forth and connects them to controversial questions about the size and scope of the state, the benefits and costs of industrialization, the ways to handle uncertainty and risk, and the very relationship between humanity and nature. As the Earth’s climate warms, such consequences as rise in sea level, decline in freshwater supplies and agricultural productivity, and extinction of species create various political challenges associated with generating collective action. The politics associated with climate change involve psychological, cultural, economic, and ideological factors. Differences of opinion on climate change in the United States represent a stark example of the more general political polarization that has occurred in the 21st century. As an issue, climate change creates political terrain that is not neutral in an ideological sense. As the atmosphere is a common-pool resource, addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution requires some degree of governmental intervention. And given the global scale of the problem, the overall amount of coordinated government intervention required is considerable. As the Democratic Party has shifted to the left both socially and economically, its membership has become more philosophically comfortable with acknowledging and accepting such problems, as the party members are more comfortable embracing government-related solutions. As the Republican Party has become both socially and economically more conservative, its members have taken more skeptical views of climate science and have taken a more hostile position toward government policies designed to address it. Many Democrats . . .

• Believe we should accept the scientific consensus that climate change is real and that human-related emission of greenhouse gases is an important factor

2

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

• Believe we should be more risk-averse and should adopt government policies that create market incentives to prohibit or discourage fossil fuel consumption • Believe we should subsidize alternative forms of clean energy, and prepare to adapt to environmental vulnerabilities made worse by climate change • Believe we should be actively engaged in the international community, committing to agreements to improve the environmental sustainability of our economy, and we should support poorer countries to do the same with theirs • Believe that if we fail to do these things, catastrophic climate change will result in dramatic ecological harm to societies around the planet, which will in turn harm economic productivity and compromise national security Many Republicans . . .

• Believe there is not a clear scientific consensus that climate change is real, and especially not on the question of anthropogenic causes • Believe government policies limiting consumption of fossil fuels and subsidizing clean energy alternatives are too costly to justify their worth in economic terms • Believe committing to international agreements to promote environmental sustainability will put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to fastergrowing economies, and national interest is more important than assisting poorer countries to develop sustainably • Believe we should be more risk-tolerant, and should trust free markets to create wealth and the conditions wherein ingenuity and innovation will emerge as successful responses to any adversities created by climate change

Overview

Earth’s climate has varied considerably over its four and a half billion years. Fossil evidence of tropical plants can be found above the Arctic Circle, and glacial periods saw much of the North American and European continents covered in ice sheets as thick as a mile. Natural causes of such climate variability include variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun and in its tilt and axial rotation, change in the solar output of the Sun, continental drift, and volcanic activity. Volcanoes affect climate in several ways: by spewing solar reflective particles high into the atmosphere— resulting in cooler temperatures in the short run, and increasing the amount of heat-trapping, planet-warming gases in the atmosphere over the longer term. This last factor is an example of what is known as the greenhouse effect. Certain gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, reduce the amount of energy radiating back into space. As these gases become more prevalent in the atmosphere, the

C lim ate C h a ng e

surface temperature of the Earth rises. Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution at the end of the 18th century, the burning of coal (first for steam power and later for electricity) and oil for a variety of industrial purposes, as well as for transportation, has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 40 percent (half of this increase has occurred in the last 40 years), to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. According to temperature records that date back a century, the estimated linear trend in global surface temperatures has risen 0.85ºCelsius between 1880 and 2012 (Henson 2014, 3). Climate modeling cannot reproduce these historical rises in temperature without the carbon dioxide and methane generated from human sources. While uncertainty remains about aspects of the issue—for example, the particular effects of the climate system’s multiple feedback mechanisms, such as cloud formation and methane releases from permafrost, or the rate of glacial loss in Greenland or Antarctica—the fundamental questions of whether the Earth is warming and whether human activity is behind it are settled. A survey of over 4,000 peer-reviewed climatology research papers found over 97 percent in agreement on these basic issues, and every national academy of science in the world has accepted that anthropogenic climate change is taking place (Cook et al. 2013). Concern about climate change has motivated the international community to take important actions. In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), consisting of representatives of over 190 countries working with scientific experts from around the world to review and summarize the science on climate change to inform policy makers and the public. The review processes culminate in periodic Assessment Reports, the fifth and most recent of which was completed in 2014. The IPCC projects four potential climate scenarios based on possible GHG concentrations (called representative concentration pathways, or RCPs). One scenario (RCP 2.6) assumes that GHG emissions level off between the years 2010 and 2020; GHG emissions in RCP 4.5 are assumed to peak around 2040; RCP 6 assumes emissions level off in 2080; and RCP 8.5 assumes they continue to climb through the 21st century. Each of the four scenarios predicts comparable warming of 0.3º to 0.7ºC through the year 2035. But by the end of the century, the predictions diverge significantly, with a range of 0.3º to 1.7ºC of warming likely for the low-end CO2 concentration scenario, and a range of 2.6º to 4.8ºC of warming likely for the high-end scenario (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014, 60). The ratio between GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and the resultant warming is called climate sensitivity, and there is some disagreement about what the particular ratio is. In its recent report, the IPCC conservatively revised the lower end of its estimates downward, but recent research has suggested the climate is more sensitive than the recent IPCC report indicates (Marvel et al. 2016). Do seemingly small differences in average temperature matter? In terms of their environmental effects—yes; a 5ºC increase in average global temperature would

3

4

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

represent more than half the difference in temperatures between the last ice age and today (Henson 2014, 6). The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report states that “climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development” (IPCC Core Writing Team 2014, 13). These risks include displacement of populations along coastal regions, increased food insecurity, heightened competition for scarce freshwater, and increased vulnerability to heat waves and other extreme weather events. In a study of climate change’s effects on human mortality, the World Health Organization found an additional 241,000 deaths from heat exposure, malaria, diarrhea, and childhood malnutrition are likely by the year 2030 due to degraded environmental conditions (Hales et al. 2014). Those figures do not account for declining economic conditions or for rising military conflicts, both of which are serious concerns associated with climate change. Declining economic conditions may be very significant: one recent study calculated that if warming is not mitigated, by the year 2100 humans would see a 23 percent loss in average global incomes, accompanied by greatly increasing inequalities (Burke, Hsiang, and Miguel 2015). This study does not factor economic costs associated with sea level rise. A recent paper that focuses on economic costs of sea level rise (using the IPCC estimates of 0.3 m to 1.24 m of rise) calculates those costs to be somewhere between 0.3 percent and 9.3 percent of global gross domestic product, depending on amount of sea level rise and socioeconomic responses over time (Hinkel et al. 2014). Rising military conflicts may also be significant, as emphasized by a 2015 U.S. Department of Defense report to Congress. The report identifies security risks from military conflicts driven by social instability, economic stress, and population displacement resulting from flooding, drought, and higher temperatures. It also predicts greater demand on military resources for humanitarian responses to extreme weather events and increased activity in the Arctic as that region warms up. The report makes clear that the Defense Department’s judgment is that climate is a “present security threat, not strictly in the long-term”—and that “although climaterelated stress will disproportionately affect fragile and conflict-affected states, even resilient, well-developed countries are subject to the effects of climate change in significant and consequential ways” (U.S. Department of Defense 2015). Aside from the impacts on human health and welfare, climate change is altering ecosystems in ways that are increasing extinction risks for nonhuman species. One recent study of more than 130 published research articles projected extinction rates at various levels of temperature rise. If global temperature rise is limited to the agreed-upon target of 2ºC (increasingly considered unlikely by most experts), an extinction rate of 5.2 percent of current species is expected. At an increase of 3ºC, the extinction rate rises to 8.5 percent. The “business as usual” scenario results in a temperature increase of 4.3ºC and the extinction of 16 percent, or nearly 1 in 6 species alive today (Urban 2015, 571–573).

C lim ate C h a ng e

Concern about the negative consequences noted above was the key motive behind the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) drafted in 1992 at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (popularly referred to as the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro. In Article 2, the UNFCCC expressed the commitment by its signatories “to achieve . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (United Nations 1992). The treaty set in motion a series of international meetings called Conferences of the Parties where representatives of the world’s countries assess progress toward achieving the treaty’s objective. The third Conference of the Parties—held in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997—led to the first significant outcome under the UNFCCC. The Kyoto Protocol sought to achieve the primary objective of the UNFCCC by procuring commitments to modest reductions (4–5 percent below 1990 levels) in carbon emissions in the industrialized economies of the developed world by 2012, and encouraging—but not requiring—developing countries to adopt cleaner, more sustainable growth strategies. Assessments of the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol are generally negative. Countries that remained signatories mostly met their commitments, though largely as a result of market-driven shifts from coal to natural gas in the power industry and to economic recession in Eastern Europe in the 1990s and globally in 2008 (Schiermeier 2012). And overall global emissions grew significantly in the decade after the Kyoto Protocol emerged, largely due to growth in emissions in Asia as much manufacturing shifted from Europe and North America to places like China. However, the Kyoto Protocol did establish important emissions-reporting and emissions-verifying mechanisms as well as the European Union’s emissions trading system. It also introduced the Clean Development Mechanism, whereby developed nations can receive emission credits for investing in sustainable projects in the developing world. The most recent significant outcome of the UNFCCC’s Conferences of the Parties occurred in Paris in 2015. The Paris Agreement reaffirms the pledge to hold global temperature increases to below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, but introduces a 1.5ºC increase as a preferred target. The 176 countries signing the agreement are expected to pledge reductions (at levels of their own choosing) in GHG emissions, and to meet every five years to report on their progress toward their pledges. Importantly, it does not make distinctions between developed and developing countries as the Kyoto Protocol did. China and India have both made pledges to reduce GHG emissions. Questions over the degree to which developing countries like India and China bear responsibility for reducing the global amount of GHG emissions represent a key point of contention in debates over how to address climate change. Limiting global warming is a public good: it creates benefits for all countries regardless of whether a given country helps out. Thus, there is a disincentive to contribute to the effort, since the benefits of successfully limiting the Earth’s temperature rise

5

6

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

will go to everyone. This explains the considerable efforts to create international agreements. But since the principal culprits behind climate change—fossil fuels— are also generally speaking the least expensive forms of energy in terms of price (though not full cost over time), many countries (developing ones, in particular) are reluctant to forgo them. Developing countries argue that since the developed world developed through the unregulated burning of low-priced fossil fuels, it is unfair for them to tell poorer, developing countries that are trying to advance their economies to do so using higher-priced forms of energy. Although China has become the biggest emitter of GHG, and India the fourth, CO2 is a persistent gas in the environment, moving between the atmosphere and oceans for centuries. Thus. fossil fuels burned during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution continue to have insulating effects on the climate. For this reason, developing nations argue that advanced industrialized countries share a larger responsibility for the problem as well as a greater capacity to adapt to negative consequences. The persistence of GHG in the environment relates to another dimension of the climate change issue—the latency between cause and effect. Because the causes of climate change occur in the present, and the effects extend into the future, motivating collective action to address the problem is a serious challenge. The main strategies for addressing climate change involve mitigating as much warming as possible and adapting to changes that cannot be avoided. Mitigation primarily involves moving away from fossil fuels, and the significant growth of wind and solar technology reflects such efforts, but also important are improvements in the efficiency with which power is used. Improved fuel standards and mass transit are examples. Ecosystem reforestation, and halting deforestation, would create new (and preserve existing) carbon sinks. Restoring native grasslands would help remove carbon from the atmosphere, as would the development of bio-energy generation with carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Democrats on Climate Change

Political progressives of the early 20th century who championed natural resource management carried out by scientific experts in government agencies began in the Republican Party, but as the century wore on, the Democratic Party increasingly became their home. Major environmental laws of the 1960s and 1970s had significant bipartisan support, but key legislative leaders behind the policies— men like Edmund Muskie, Gaylord Nelson, and Henry Scoop Jackson—were Democrats. In a basic sense, the progressive justification of environmental protection relates to the famous tragedy of the commons: that unregulated, self-interested market activity results in harmful consequences both to the group and to individuals who may or may not have been responsible for the harm. This justifies rules imposed by government to limit or minimize such harmful behavior. By the 1980s, as the costs of environmental regulation became more apparent, differences between the

C lim ate C h a ng e

parties on the appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic development had grown significantly (Rosenbaum 2014, 9–16). Very little was done on the issue of climate change in the United States until the 1990s. Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush signed the UNFCCC, which stated that harmful global warming should be avoided in principle, and the Congress ratified it without much controversy. Democratic president William Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, which moved beyond mere principle, calling on signatories to actually reduce GHG emissions. But Clinton never sent the treaty to the Senate, which had passed a resolution opposing it by a vote of 95–0. Principle objections to it were cost to the U.S. economy, fears that binding international agreements involve a loss of national sovereignty, and the lack of any requirement that countries like China or India also reduce their emissions. This opposition reflected the general refusal of the Congress to work with the Clinton administration on climate policy. Nevertheless, the Clinton administration had an effect on international climate policy by championing the idea of a mandatory market for carbon emissions based on the similar and successful strategy used to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment’s Acid Rain Program. While the U.S. Congress refused to take up the idea for GHG, it became the basis of the European Union’s carbon trading market. The basic idea of a cap and trade approach is for government to set some limited amount of total emissions (the “cap”), and to identify the particular emitters who are part of the program. The government then allocates permits (through auction or through initial free assignment) to emit for some determined period, the sum of which equals the cap. Emitters are allowed to trade permits with one another; those who are effective at reducing their emissions are rewarded financially by being able to sell unused emission permits. Over time, government can issue fewer permits or acquire and retire permits to lower the cap. This approach allows industries (rather than government agencies) to determine where and how emission reductions take place, and it is thus generally considered more efficient than strict universally imposed emission standards that a command and control system would involve. In 2003, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) championed the Climate Stewardship Act, which would have created a national cap and trade market for carbon emissions, but it failed to overcome (mostly) Republican opposition in the Senate. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced a bill to create a cap and trade system for carbon emissions in 2007, as did (by then) Independent Senator Lieberman and Senator Mark Warner (R-VA). Neither bill was ever given a vote, as support to end debate failed to reach the 60-vote threshold, mostly along party lines, Democrats being in favor and Republicans opposed. In 2009, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, known as the Waxman–Markey bill,

7

8

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

after authors Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA). The vote was again largely along party lines; Democrats voted in favor, 211–44, and Republicans voted against, 168–8. Democrats opposed to the bill were largely moderates and conservatives from the South and the Midwest, regions more reliant on coalgenerated power than other parts of the country (Broder 2009). The bill would have established a national cap and trade program for carbon emissions, and would have set a minimum standard for electricity generation from renewable sources. The Waxman–Markey bill was generous enough to business to garner support from some large corporations such as the Dow Chemical Company and the Ford Motor Company, and opposition from environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (Broder 2009). Otherwise, a more conventional alignment of support and opposition occurred, with groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers against it, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and other mainstream environmental groups in favor. The Waxman–Markey bill did not make it through the Senate, as Republicans and a handful of Democrats from coal-dependent states—like John Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Evan Bayh of Indiana—were opposed (Walsh 2010). It is not clear that the Democrats, with 59 seats, could have mustered the simple majority needed to pass the bill, but they clearly could not muster the 60 votes needed to override a Republican-led filibuster. The failure of Waxman–Markey represented the highest profile example of congressional unwillingness to address climate change. In contrast to the gridlock in Washington, entrepreneurial policy innovation to address climate has been more prevalent among the states. Such efforts have framed the issue more flexibly, allowing for adoption of both direct strategies to lower greenhouse emissions, as well as indirect measures such as renewable energy portfolio requirements (Rabe 2004). One prominent example is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which established a market among nine Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States for carbon emissions through a cap and trade system in 2007. The program has far exceeded all of its goals for GHG emission reduction. Like in the case with Kyoto, however, this has largely been the result of the economic recession and market-driven conversion of coal utility plants to natural gas (Newell, Pizer, and Raimi 2013). Still, the market has continued to function, and receipts from the sale of emission permits have been an important source of revenue for renewable energy projects. The program will lower the cap on emissions, so that future GHG reductions are likely to be driven by the RGGI rather than by external economic variables. The politics behind the RGGI have reflected a level of bipartisan support not seen at the federal level (Huber 2013). Republican governor George Pataki of New York was an early proponent and facilitator in the years during which the program was being designed and negotiated. Republican governors Jim Douglas of Vermont and Larry Hogan of Maryland have been supporters as well, but more generally,

C lim ate C h a ng e

the program’s advocates and detractors have reflected the national partisan split. In 2005, as the program was being designed, Republican governor Mitt Romney withdrew Massachusetts from RGGI, only to have his Democratic successor, Duval Patrick, rejoin in 2007. Democratic governor Dave Corzine of New Jersey was an advocate, but his Republican successor, Chris Christie, led New Jersey’s withdrawal from the program in 2011. The Republican legislature in New Hampshire voted to pull their state from RGGI, only to be thwarted by the veto of Democratic governor John Lynch. The Obama administration’s failure to procure a cap and trade policy from Congress generated significant disappointment among environmentalists, who had been encouraged by the pro-environment positions his campaign took in 2008. This disappointment was compounded by the collapse of climate negotiations at the 2009 UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. Assessment of Mr. Obama’s performance on this issue should consider the challenging context of his first term, including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, economic recession, and turmoil over the passage of healthcare reform. Assessment should also acknowledge the administration’s successful push to help the emerging renewable energy sector with $92 billion of subsidies and support in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which (although designed to work in tandem with a cap and trade policy that never materialized) had a positive impact on the clean energy sector (Mundaca and Richter 2015). In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court rejected the EPA’s position (established during the George W. Bush administration over the objections of agency scientists) that greenhouse gases were not pollutants that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Court’s ruling required the EPA to reconsider the scientific evidence to determine whether climate change regulations were warranted under the Clean Air Act. Under the direction of Obama-appointee Lisa Jackson, the EPA reversed course, ruling carbon dioxide a pollutant under the Clean Air Act in 2009. With Republicans retaking the House of Representatives in 2010, and the Senate in 2014, there has been little prospect of congressional action on climate policy. Thus, the Obama administration used regulatory authority under preexisting law to craft an approach to climate. The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan would direct states to develop plans to reduce greenhouse gases by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. If states refuse to comply by 2018, the EPA is to impose limits directly on utilities, requiring them to purchase tradable emission permits, which would revitalize a national cap and trade approach as was proposed by the Waxman–Markey bill (Sussman 2015). President Obama’s Clean Power Plan came under immediate criticism by congressional Republicans. There were 27 states filing suit against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, and 18 other states filing briefs on behalf of the EPA. While clearly there are valid legal questions regarding federalism and separation of powers, partisanship appears to be a factor as well. Of the states suing the EPA, 85 percent of the attorneys general and 85 percent of the governors were Republican,

9

10

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

whereas among states siding with the EPA, 100 percent of the attorneys general were Democrats and 67 percent of the governors were Democrats. In the spring of 2016, the Supreme Court issued a stay, blocking implementation of the plan. The issue is as yet unresolved. What is resolved is the degree to which President Obama and the Democratic Party have made climate change a priority. In terms of its importance, President Obama has characterized it as preeminent, stating in a speech to the United Nations, “There is one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate” (Obama 2014). At the end of 2014, his administration worked out a bilateral agreement with China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that gave crucial momentum to the negotiations in France that successfully produced the 2015 Paris Agreement. Such concern is also reflected in positions taken in the 2012 Democratic Party platform. “The national security threat from climate change is real, urgent and severe. . . . Our goal is an effective, international effort in which all major economies commit to reduce their emissions, nations meet their commitments in a transparent manner, and the necessary financing is mobilized so that developing countries can mitigate the effects of climate change and invest in clean energy technologies” (Democratic Party Platforms 2012). These positions are in line with the general opinions of most Democratic voters in the United States. According to research by the Pew Center, 80 percent of Democrats say they agree with their party’s positions on climate change (Pew Research Center 2016). In a separate survey, Pew found that 68 percent of Democrats believe “climate change is a very serious problem,” 53 percent of Democrats believe that it is “harming people now,” and 82 percent support limiting greenhouse gases (Stokes, Wike, and Carle 2015). Republicans on Climate Change

The Republican Party has a long history of involvement in environmental protection. Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant helped establish national parks in Yosemite and Yellowstone; Benjamin Harrison helped create national forest reserves. Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot were among the country’s most important conservationists, advocating vigorous, scientific management of natural resources and establishing the U.S. Forest Service. Together they set aside millions of acres of national forest, the bulk of the current system. Later in the 20th century, Richard Nixon signed into law some of the country’s most important environmental policies, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air and Water Acts, and the Endangered Species Act. His administration also created the Environmental Protection Agency, and he appointed William Ruckleshaus as its first, and widely respected, administrator. By the time climate change was becoming a concern in the late 1980s, however, Republicans in Washington had largely cooled toward environmental protection,

C lim ate C h a ng e

seeing it as a source of intrusion in the private sector and a burden on the economy. Instead, they increasingly embraced a free market–oriented approach to environmental concerns that political scientist John Dryzek calls Prometheanism (Dryzek 2013). Prometheanism believes the natural environment is properly understood not in terms of intrinsic value but instead as commercially useful resources; that human ingenuity is maximized in capitalist systems; and that natural resource scarcity is nothing to worry about, as natural resources are, for all practical purposes, limitless. Key to Promethean belief in limitless natural resources is the human ingenuity unleashed by market forces. As a natural resource becomes scarce, its price rises. Higher prices create incentives to conserve and, importantly, to innovate new technologies that improve efficiency, to provide access to previously inaccessible stocks of the resource, or to facilitate the substitution of new resources in its place. Much faith is placed in technological progress and in our ability to let markets create incentives for ingenuous solutions to problems. This, according to Prometheans, is the most efficient approach to environmental challenges, and it explains their tolerance of risk associated with the challenges. This strength of this vision was amplified by the conservative Tea Party movement starting in 2009, and it is evident in the ways the 2012 Republican Party platform discusses the environment in Section 4, which is entitled “America’s Natural Resources” (Republican Party Platforms 2012). The title reflects the priority given not to nature or the environment (the latter receives a short paragraph in the middle of the section) but to the economic value of commodities. The second paragraph addressing energy states this: “The United States and its neighbors to the North and South have been blessed with abundant energy resources, tapped and untapped, traditional and alternative, that are among the largest and most valuable on earth. Advancing technology has given us a more accurate understanding of the nation’s enormous reserves that are ours for the development. The role of public officials must be to encourage responsible development across the board. Unlike the current Administration, we will not pick winners and losers in the energy marketplace. Instead, we will let the free market and the public’s preferences determine the industry outcomes” (Republican Party Platforms 2012). This language reflects the Promethean belief that markets, left alone, allocate value appropriately, and will continue to do so with coal for “hundreds of years” and with oil and natural gas for “many generations to come.” The language protective of fossil fuels reflects not just philosophical commitment to markets but also a real material interest on the part of the party. Since 1990, the oil and gas industry has spent over $488 million on election campaigns, with 80 percent of that total going to Republicans (OpenSecrets Staff 2016). Any collective interest in considering the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions associated with particular forms of energy production is not addressed by their 2012 platform. Indeed, nowhere in the section on America’s Natural Resources is climate change even mentioned.

11

12

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Climate is mentioned, however, in Section 7 of the Republican platform, entitled “American Exceptionalism,” in a passage objecting to the Obama administration’s “Failed National Security Strategy.” The platform states that “the [Obama] strategy subordinates our national security interests to environmental, energy and international health issues, and elevates ‘climate change’ to the level of ‘severe threat’ equivalent to foreign aggression. The word ‘climate,’ in fact, appears in the current President’s strategy more often than does Al Qaeda, nuclear proliferation, radical Islam, or weapons of mass destruction” (Republican Party Platforms 2012). The platform characterizes this as misplaced priorities, and its use of quotation marks around climate change and climate is meant to recommend that its readers view these terms with suspicion. Finally, the Promethean perspective can be seen in the way the platform—and many Republicans, more generally—argue the importance of using property rights to protect natural resources. The concept is simple: ownership provides an incentive to care for the long-term well-being of a given resource. The tragedy of the commons economic theory maintains that natural resource depletion results from unregulated, self-interested behavior for open access resources. If the commons are privatized, then owners have the right to deny access to nonowners. The problem of overuse is solved by forcing the user to bear the long-term costs of overuse. Section 4 of the Republican platform states the following: “Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control. . . . The enduring truth is that people best protect what they own” (Republican Party Platforms 2012). Because climate change involves threats to resources for which there are no ready substitutes, the Promethean argument may be of limited applicability. Because it is hard to establish property rights to climate or to the atmosphere, privatization strategies are limited too. Nonetheless, governments can apply the logic of markets in a limited fashion through cap and trade systems for carbon dioxide, or through carbon taxes. While such ideas have their origins in conservative policy thinking, and some Republicans (such as those mentioned earlier) have supported their application in policy, it is overwhelmingly Democrats who have embraced them so far. Instead, many Republicans have resorted to denying the problem or emphasizing uncertainties in causes and severity. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe was chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2017. In a 2003 speech on the floor of the Senate, Mr. Inhofe said, “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it” (Revkin 2003). This characterization of climate change inspired the title of Senator Inhofe’s book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, in which he argues that the planet is not warming and that a conspiracy of interests is using the issue to

C lim ate C h a ng e

promote implementation of an international regime hostile to capitalism (Inhofe 2012). Senator Inhofe is hardly the only conservative with such a viewpoint. Researchers have found evidence of a strong tendency generally among Americans who identify with free-market worldviews to reject the science behind issues that suggest a need for regulation, such as climate change, and to embrace conspiratorial theories to rationalize the rejection (Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Oberauer 2013). Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, is less vociferous in denying climate change, but he has made exaggerated claims about uncertainty in the issue, and has referenced debunked myths in order to undermine political support for climate policy. In a 2013 Washington Post article, Smith argued that “there is a great amount of uncertainty associated with climate science. These uncertainties undermine our ability to accurately determine how carbon dioxide has affected the climate in the past. They also limit our understanding of how anthropogenic emissions will affect future warming trends. Further confusing the policy debate, the models the scientists have come to rely on to make climate predictions have greatly over-estimated warming. Contrary to model predictions, data . . . show that global temperatures have held steady over the past 15 years, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. Among the facts that are clear, however, are that U.S. emissions contribute very little to global concentrations of greenhouse gas, and that even substantial cuts in these emissions are likely to have no effect on temperature” (Smith 2013). The “steady” temperatures Smith refers to are part of a warming “pause” or “hiatus” myth, popular among conservatives, based on certain IPCC-reported temperature calculations that suggested a slight slowing of surface air warming between 1998 and 2012. Calculating an average global air surface temperature is a complicated task, involving the use of data from around the planet as well as data generated by satellites. Solar energy also moves unevenly through the Earth system, transferring between the atmosphere and the oceans. In 2015, a group of scientists published research identifying factors explaining why the lower temperature figures of the so-called pause were inaccurate; the scientists recalculated average global temperature for that period, showing a pace of warming that was higher than the IPCC had reported and was consistent with models of the past half-century’s larger warming trend (Karl et al. 2015). Eight of the study’s nine coauthors are scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency for which Lamar Smith’s committee has oversight. Representative Smith subpoenaed the scientists’ emails, data, and other internal agency documents and accused the scientists at NOAA of fraudulently manipulating data to support the Obama administration’s “extreme climate change agenda” (Tollefson 2015). This triggered a conflict with the head administrator of NOAA, Kathryn Sullivan, who turned over the data and briefed Smith’s committee but refused to turn over the emails, stating “I . . . will not allow anyone to manipulate the science or coerce the scientists who work for me” (Hiltzik 2015).

13

14

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Senator Inhofe and Representative Smith are not the only congressional Republicans in important leadership positions who have denied, outright or in part, the science of climate change. Representative Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), chair of the House Subcommittee on Environment, answered no to the question of whether he believed human activity is contributing to climate change (Project Vote Smart 2012). Elaborating, he said, “There is no credible scientific evidence that greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations, including carbon dioxide, affect global climate. I oppose regulating greenhouse gases” (Project Vote Smart 2012). Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), chair of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, was a vocal opponent of cap and trade policy efforts in 2009 and 2010, and he has said he does not think human activity is causing climate change (Johnson 2011). A recent analysis of official documents and platforms of the major conservative parties of the world’s industrialized democracies finds that the Republican Party is unique in the degree of its opposition to climate change policy and in its willingness to deny a key source of the problem or the very problem itself (Båtstrand 2015). It is difficult to get an accurate sense of exactly how many individual Republicans in Congress genuinely reject climate science. The Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank, concludes on the basis of public statements and votes that 59 percent of Republicans in the House are climate skeptics, and 70 percent of Republican senators are (Ellingboe and Koronowski 2016). When the fact-checking organization Politifact investigated California governor Jerry Brown’s claim that “virtually no Republicans in Washington accept climate science,” they concluded the claim to be “mostly true” (Kliegman 2014). This may overstate how many are genuinely skeptical about the science, however; Democratic Senator Al Franken has recently said he believes the percentage of Republicans in Congress who privately accept the science of climate change to be about 90 percent, but that most are afraid to state that position openly for fear of being “primaried” by members of their own party (Tomasky 2016). A few Republicans in Washington have spoken of the need for climate policy over the years, including Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Thune (R-SD), and Lamar Alexander (R-TN). In 2016, Representative Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) started the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. George Shultz, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, who helped negotiate the Montreal Protocol— the effective international treaty addressing acid rain—has been an outspoken advocate for policies to mitigate climate change. There is also increasing evidence that the views of Republican voters are starting to shift. In the fall of 2015, Pew Research Center researchers found that while only 20 percent of Republicans believe “climate change is a very serious problem” and only 24 percent of Republicans think it is “harming people now,” 50 percent of Republicans express support for “limiting greenhouse gas emissions” (Stokes, Wike, and Carle 2015). Ongoing, longitudinal studies of public attitudes about climate change have shown an increase in the percentage of conservative voters who

C lim ate C h a ng e

Movers and Shakers A reasonable conclusion to reach about climate policy is that there hasn’t been enough moving or shaking. But that doesn’t mean there haven’t been important persons in the emerging politics of climate change. In the fall of 2015, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced plans to increase the share of New York’s electricity generated by renewable sources to 50 percent by 2030, joining states like California, Vermont, and Hawaii as among the most ambitious in seeking to decarbonize their economies (Fairbrother and Cross-Call 2016). Governor Cuomo’s strategy includes the following: • Requiring more competition within the wholesale energy market and cooperation between big utilities and smaller companies; • Rewarding innovation and subsidizing such green initiatives as solar plants, wind farms, and efficiency improvements; • Adopting a middle-of-the-road approach to nuclear energy; and • Modernizing the grid that’s delivering power from producers to consumers. The plan rests on new assumptions that buck conventional zero-sum viewpoints of environmental protection versus economic prosperity or government regulation versus business interests. It promotes the belief that win–win collaboration between the public and private sectors can make capitalism both prosperous and sustainable (Gillis 2016). Cuomo also announced that he intends to create an integrated North American cap and trade system for CO2, uniting efforts in the Northeast with carbon markets in California and Canada. He was also one of 17 governors (13 Democrats and 4 Republicans) to sign the “Governors Accord for a New Energy Future,” which pledges to coordinate energy approaches similar to those of the New York plan. These efforts represent trends in the larger issue: greater flexibility and initiative at the state level than at the federal, and the willingness of Democrats to take otherwiseconservative ideas about incentives and markets as part of policy strategies to further the public interest. Former Republican Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC), a conservative from South Carolina, is trying to build support among conservatives for these ideas, and to develop policies based upon them as well. Encouraged by his children to study the science being done on climate change, Inglis went so far as to travel to Antarctica to learn about the issue. Accepting the science, he became a champion of carbon taxes as a way to incorporate the environmental and social costs of fossil fuels into the prices of these fuels, which would allow the market to reward cleaner energy sources. This position and several others contributed to his defeat in the 2010 primary season, which saw the rise of the Tea Party movement (Holthaus 2015). Since then, Inglis created the Energy and Enterprise Institute at George Mason University. He has also served as a fellow at Harvard University, Duke University, and the University of Chicago, promoting the possibility of free enterprise approaches to mitigating climate change. He currently is the executive director of RepublicEn, an outreach organization supported by the Energy and Enterprise Institute and

15

16

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

dedicated to uniting conservatives who are concerned about climate change—and growing their numbers. These efforts reflect the small but growing shift among Republicans on climate change in recent years. If bipartisan efforts at the state level eventually move up and catch hold in the form of federal legislation, it will likely be due in part to the efforts of individuals like Inglis. Sources Fairbrother, Courtney, and Dan Cross-Call. 2016. “New York’s Plan to Reach 50 Percent Renewable Energy.” Green Biz/Rocky Mountain Institute, February 23. Accessed July 1, 2016. https://www.greenbiz.com/article/new-yorks-plan-reach-50-percent-renewable-energy. Gillis, Justin. 2016. “New York Plans to Make Fighting Climate Change Good Business.” New York Times, May 9. Accessed July 1, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/science /new-york-plans-to-make-fighting-climate-change-good-business.html?_r=0. Holthaus, Eric. 2015. “This Man Is America’s Best Hope for Near-Term Climate Action.” Slate, May 13. Accessed July 1, 2016. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future _tense/2015/05/republican_bob_inglis_is_america_s_best_hope_for_near_term_climate _action.html.

believe in climate change—with 47 percent expressing this belief in 2016, up from 28 percent in 2014 (Lehmann 2016). This suggestion that attitudes of Republican voters are shifting is supported by Pew’s findings that 41 percent of Republicans disagree with their party’s positions on climate change, the highest amount of disagreement between voters and parties for either party among the nine issues they examined (Pew Research Center 2016). Those attitudinal shifts among citizens identifying as Republicans didn’t stop them from electing a president skeptical of climate change in the fall 2016. Donald Trump, who once called climate change an “expensive hoax” that “was created by and for the Chinese,” campaigned on promises to cut regulations and reinvigorate the coal industry (Schulman 2017). Once elected, Trump appointed the former attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, to administer the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt has denied the scientific judgment that human-caused carbon emissions are changing the climate and has promised to dismantle the Obama administration’s Clean Energy Plan regulations. Under his direction the Environmental Protection Agency has removed scientific material on climate change from its website, and Pruitt has announced plans to create a formal government initiative to challenge the findings of climate science (Dennis and Eilperin 2017). In April 2017, tens of thousands of demonstrators gathered in Washington, D.C., and hundreds of thousands gathered in cities around the country and the world for a “March for Science” protesting the misuse and neglect of science in public policy. In June 2017, President Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, stating involvement imposed unfair and excessive

C lim ate C h a ng e

economic costs to the United States and was an unacceptable infringement on U.S. sovereignty that exposed the country to “massive liability” (Trump 2017). A number of the points Trump laid out in the speech were mischaracterizations of the agreement and several aspects of the broader climate change issue (Schipani et al. 2017). The decision to withdraw, which initiates a process that will take as long as four years to complete, would make the United States one of only three countries (Syria and Nicaragua are the others) to not be a party to the agreement. The decision drew swift condemnation from world leaders (Crooks 2017) and seems well out of line with public sentiment in America, with 69 percent of adults (including 51 percent of Republicans) favoring U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, according to researchers at George Mason and Yale universities (Leiserowitz et al. 2017). Jerald C. Mast Further Reading Båtstrand, Sondre. 2015. “More Than Markets: A Comparative Study of Nine Conservative Parties on Climate Change.” Politics and Policy 43 (4): 538–561. doi:10.1111 /polp.12122. Broder, John. 2009. “House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change.” New York Times, June 26. Accessed June 29, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us​ /politics/27climate.html?_r= 1&hp. Burke, Michael, Solomon Hsiang, and Edward Miguel. 2015. “Global Non-Linear Effect of Temperature on Economic Production.” Nature 257: 235–230. Cook, John, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A. Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce. 2013. “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature.” Environmental Research Letters 8 (2). Accessed June 27, 2016. http://iopscience.iop.org ​/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. Crooks, Ed. 2017. “Business and World Leaders Criticize Trump’s Paris Exit.” Financial Times, June 2. Accessed July 24, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content /71a43384-4707-11e7-8d27-59b4dd6296b8. Democratic Party Platforms. 2012. “2012 Democratic Party Platform,” September 3. The American Presidency Project. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu​ /ws/index.php?pid=101962. Dennis, Brady, and Juliet Eilperin. 2017. “EPA Chief Pushing Government Wide Effort to Question Climate Change Science.” Washington Post, July 1. Accessed July 24, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/01​/epa -chief-pushing-governmentwide-effort-to-question-climate-change-cience/?utm​ _term=.29516c09213a. Dryzek, John. 2013. Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ellingboe, Kristen, and Ryan Koronowski. 2016. “Most Americans Disagree with Their Congressional Representative on Climate Change.” ThinkProgress.org, March 8. Accessed July 1, 2016. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/08/3757435​/climate -denier-caucus-114th-new-research/.

17

18

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Fairbrother, Courtney, and Dan Cross-Call. 2016. “New York’s Plan to Reach 50 Percent Renewable Energy.” Green Biz/Rocky Mountain Institute, February 23. Accessed July 1, 2016. https://www.greenbiz.com/article/new-yorks-plan-reach-50-percent-renewable -energy. Gillis, Justin. 2016. “New York Plans to Make Fighting Climate Change Good Business.” New York Times, May 9. Accessed July 1, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10​ /science/new-york-plans-to-make-fighting-climate-change-good-business.html?_r=0. Hales, Simon, Sari Kovats, Simon Lloyd, and Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, eds. 2014. Quantitative Risk Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Selected Causes of Death, 2030s and 2050s. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Accessed June 27, 2016. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/134014/1/9789241507691_eng​ .pdf?ua=1. Henson, Robert. 2014. The Thinking Person’s Guide to Climate Change. Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society. Hiltzik, Michael. 2015. “The Attack on Climate Change Scientists Continues in Washington.” Los Angeles Times, December 4. Accessed June 30, 2016. http://www.latimes .com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-attack-on-climate-change-scientists-20151204​ -column.html. Hinkel, Jochen, Daniel Lincke, Athanasios T. Vafiedis, Mahé Perette, Robert James Nicholls, Richard S. J Tol, Ben Marzeion, Xavier Fettweis, Cezar Ionescu, and Anders Levermann. 2014. “Coastal Flood Damage and Adaption Costs Under 21st Century Sea Level Rise.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (9): 3292–3297. Holthaus, Eric. 2015. “This Man Is America’s Best Hope for Near Term Climate Action.” Slate, May 13. Accessed July 1, 2016. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future _tense/2015/05/republican_bob_inglis_is_america_s_best_hope_for_near_term _climate_action.html. Huber, Bruce. 2013. “How Did RGGI Do It? Political Economy and Emissions Auctions.” Ecology Law Quarterly 40: 59–106. Accessed June 30, 2016. http://scholarship.law .nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&context=law_faculty_scholarship. Inhofe, James. 2012. The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. Washington, DC: WND Books. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Core Writing Team. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contributions of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by R. K. Pachuari and L. A. Meyer. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Accessed June 27, 2016. https:// www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. Johnson, Brad. 2011. “Rep. Fred Upton on Global Warming: ‘I do not say that it is manmade.’” Think Progress, February 8. Accessed June 30, 2016. http://thinkprogress.org /politics/2011/02/08/142997/upton-climate-denier/. Kahn, Debra. 2016. “17 Governors Agree to Pursue Clean Energy Goals: States across the U.S. Are Moving Forward with Renewables, Energy Efficiency, and Electric Cars.” Scientific American, February 17. Accessed June 29, 2016. https://www.scientificamerican .com/article/17-governors-agree-to-pursue-clean-energy-goals/. Karl, Thomas, Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay Lawrimore, James McMahon, Matthew Menne, Thomas Peterson, Russell Vose, and Huai-Min Zhang. 2015. “Possible Artifacts of Data Biases in the Global Surface Warming Hiatus.” Science 348 (6242): 1469–1472. Accessed June 30, 2016. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full.

C lim ate C h a ng e

Kliegman, Julie. 2014. “Jerry Brown Says Virtually No Republican in Washington Accepts Climate Change Science.” Politifact, May 18. Accessed July 1, 2016. http://www .politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/18/jerry-brown/jerry-brown -says-virtually-no-republican-believes-/. Lehmann, Evan. 2016. “Many More Republicans Now Believe in Climate Change.” Scientific American, April 27. Accessed July 1, 2016. http://www.scientificamerican.com /article/many-more-republicans-now-believe-in-climate-change/. Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, and M. Cutler. 2017. “By More Than 5 to 1, Voters Say U.S. Should Participate in the Paris Agreement.” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Accessed July 24, 2017. http://climatecommunication.yale .edu/publications/5-1-voters-say-u-s-participate-paris-climate-agreement/. Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gilles E. Gignac, and Klaus Oberauer. 2013. “The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting the Rejection of Science.” PLoS One 8 (10): e75637. Accessed July 13, 2016. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article​ /asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075637.PDF. Marvel, Kate, Gavin A. Schmidt, Ron L. Miller, and Larissa S. Nazarenko. 2016. “Implications for Climate Sensitivity from the Response to Individual Forcings.” Nature Climate Change 6: 386–389. Mundaca, Luis, and Jessika Luth Richter. 2015. “Assessing Green Energy Economy Stimulus Packages: Evidence from the U.S. Programs Targeting Renewable Energy.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42: 1174–1186. Accessed June 29, 2016. http:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032114008855. Newell, Richard, William Pizer, and Daniel Raimi. 2013. “Carbon Markets 15 Years after Kyoto: Lessons Learned, New Challenges.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (1): 123–146. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep .27.1.123. Obama, Barack. 2014. “Remarks by the President at U.N. Climate Change Summit,” September 23. The White House Office of the Press Secretary. Accessed June 29, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23 ​ / remarks-president-un -climate-change-summit. OpenSecrets Staff. 2016. “Oil and Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends.” Center for Responsive Politics. Accessed June 30, 2016. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries​ /totals.php?ind=E01++. O’Toole, Molly, and Keith Johnson. 2016. “Climate Change Is Undeniable. So Why Is the GOP Still Denying?” Foreign Policy, March 11. Accessed July 1, 2016. http:// foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/11/climate-change-is-undeniable-so-why-is-the-gop -still-denying-it/. Pew Research Center. 2016. “Partisanship and Animosity in 2016: 5. Views of Parties’ Positions on Issues, Ideologies.” Accessed June 29, 2016. http://www.people-press .org/2016/06/22/5-views-of-parties-positions-on-issues-ideologies/. Project Vote Smart. 2012. “Jim Bridenstine’s Issue Positions (2012 Political Courage Test).” Accessed June 30, 2016. http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/135894​ /jim-bridenstine/#.V3WZ8PkrK00. Rabe, John. 2004. State House and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Republican Party Platforms. 2012. “2012 Republican Party Platform,” August 27. The American Presidency Project. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu​ /ws/index.php?pid=101961.

19

20

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Revkin, Andrew. 2003. “Politics Reasserts Itself in the Debate over Climate Change and Its Hazards.” New York Times, August 5. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://www.nytimes​ .com/2003/08/05/science/politics-reasserts-itself-in-the-debate-over-climate-change​ -and-its-hazards.html?pagewanted=all. Rosenbaum, Walter. 2014. Environmental Politics and Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Congressional Quarterly Press. Schiermeier, Quirin. 2012. “The Kyoto Protocol: Hot Air.” Nature, November 29. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.nature.com/news/the-kyoto-protocol-hot-air-1.11882#before. Schulman, Jeremy. 2017. “A Timeline of Every Ridiculous Thing Trump Has Said About Climate Change.” Newsweek, April 2. Accessed July 24, 2017. http://www.newsweek​ .com/timeline-every-ridiculous-thing-trump-has-said-about-climate-change-576238. Smith, Lamar. 2013. “Lamar Smith: Overheated Rhetoric on Climate Change Hurts the Economy.” Washington Post, May 19. Accessed June 29, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost .com/opinions/lamar-smith-overheated-rhetoric-on-climate-change-hurts-the -economy/2013/05/19/32cb6d94-bda4-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?utm _term=.34d0601824cb. Stokes, Bruce, Richard Wike, and Jill Carle. 2015. “Global Concern About Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions.” Pew Research Center, November 5. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/global-concern -about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/. Sussman, Bob. 2015. “Return of Cap and Trade Is Good News for U.S. Climate Policy.” Brookings PlanetPolicy (blog), October 21. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs​ /planetpolicy/posts/2015/10/21-return-cap-and-trade-us-climate-policy-sussman. Tollefson, Jeff. 2015. “U.S. Science Agency Refuses Request for Climate Records.” Nature, October 28. Accessed June 30, 2016. http://www.nature.com/news/us -science-agency-refuses-request-for-climate-records-1.18660. Tomasky, Michael. 2016. “The Dangerous Election.” New York Review of Books, March 24. Accessed July 1, 2016. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/24/the-dangerous -election/. Trump, Donald J. 2017. “Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord.” Office of the Press Secretary. Accessed July 24, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov​ /the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord. United Nations. 1992. “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Accessed July 1, 2016. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. Urban, Mark C. 2015. “Accelerating Extinction Risk from Climate Change.” Science 348 (6234): 571–573. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://science.sciencemag.org/content /348/6234/571.full. U.S. Department of Defense. 2015. “National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate,” July 23. Accessed June 30, 2016. http://archive .defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate​ -change.pdf?source=govdelivery. Walsh, Bryan. 2010. “Cap and Trade Is Dead (Really, Truly, I’m Not Kidding). Who’s to Blame?” Time, July 22. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://science.time.com/2010/07/22​ /cap-and-trade-is-dead-really-truly-im-not-kidding-whos-to-blame/.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

At a Glance

Republicans and Democrats are both concerned about the economic, environmental, and public health impacts of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), but they address these issues from different angles than they do many other environmental policy issues. On agricultural issues, in fact, Republicans and Democrats are much more likely to follow the tenet that “all politics is local.” For example, arguments about farm bills, which play an important role in setting government policies regarding the CAFO industry, are typically not so much between Democrats and Republicans, as both parties support farm subsidies, “but between lawmakers from different regions, battling over whose favored commodities got what benefits from the law” (Ball 2014). Many Democrats . . .

• Believe effective regulation of CAFOs is necessary to ensure food safety • Believe CAFOs negatively impact the environment and cause negative health impacts • Believe there are more sustainable ways to produce food • Believe CAFOs put small farms out of business • Believe citizens should not be subjected to limited compensation for CAFO pollution lawsuits • Believe CAFO operations constitute animal abuse

Many Republicans . . .

• Believe regulations for CAFOs should be reduced • Believe CAFOs boost the economy and create local jobs • Believe CAFOs are efficient in food production • Believe CAFOs help keep food prices low for consumers

22

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

• Believe economic benefits of CAFOs outweigh negative environmental impacts • Believe limitations should be placed on citizen complaints concerning CAFO pollution

Overview

CAFOs are industrial-sized livestock operations, or factory farms, where feed is brought to the animals—which are housed in very tight quarters, rather than the animals grazing or seeking feed in pastures, in fields, or on rangelands. CAFOs raise animals for their meat, eggs, or milk, to be consumed by humans. CAFOs can include pigs, chickens, turkeys, beef cattle, sheep, lambs, and dairy cows. Concerns about CAFOs range from animal welfare to degradation of water and land, as well as health effects from air, water, and land pollution. The number of CAFOs operating in the United States has increased from approximately 3,600 in the early 1980s to more than 19,000 in 2016 (Gustin 2016). Environmentalists, however, believe that number is actually higher, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “has been unable to get reliable and comprehensive information, thanks to patchy state regulation and years of legal pushback from the livestock industry to keep the information from the public” (Gustin 2016). Critics typically attack the growth in “factory farms” on environmental, public health, and animal welfare grounds. The public interest group Food & Water Watch, for example, charged that “the growth of factory farming is the result of bad farm policies that often have subsidized artificially cheap feed; lax regulatory enforcement that enabled factory farm expansion without addressing the environmental and human impacts of their massive quantities of waste; and unchecked corporate consolidation that allowed giant agribusiness companies to drive up the size of farms raising food animals” (Food & Water Watch Staff 2015). But while some people consider CAFOs to be “the worst thing that has ever happened to American agriculture . . . there are others who simply consider them to be the most economical way to produce animal products” (Frisk 2012). The environmental concerns about CAFOs are numerous. CAFOs produce a large amount of waste, and this waste can pollute the land, water, and air. Decomposing manure and manure stored in lagoons release toxic chemicals that can contribute to air pollution and gases that contribute to global warming (Gustin 2016). Air toxins cause eye irritation and respiratory problems. Waste spills into rivers and tributaries and seeps into groundwater. Contaminated water can cause vomiting, diarrhea, fever, skin rashes, and various infections. In 2008, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimated that the price to clean up the contamination under hog and dairy CAFOs in the country would be over $4 billion (GurianSherman 2008). Opponents argue that CAFOs also routinely abuse antibiotics. The National Center for Biotechnology Information (Landers et al. 2012) reported that antibiotic

Co n c entr ated A n im a l F eed i ng Op er at i o ns

use in farm animals contributes to the overall problem of antibiotic resistance— a problem that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sees as a worldwide threat. Robert Martin, director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, stated that “the present system of producing food animals in the United States is not sustainable and presents an unprecedented level of risk to public health and damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to the animals we raise as food” (Frisk 2012). Organizations such as the UCS assert that lawmakers should instead promote “healthy farms” that are more sustainable and less destructive to the environment, but they admit that healthy farm solutions face daunting obstacles in expanding beyond a niche role in America’s overall food supply. As the UCS has noted, the “marketplace of agricultural products and policies is dominated by the industrial model, prioritizing expensive products over knowledge-based agroecological approaches” (Union of Concerned Scientists Staff 2017). Proponents of these operations dismiss many of these criticisms as overwrought. They believe that CAFOs are an economic and efficient way to produce food, and they assert that CAFOs are safe due to modern sanitation methods. They also argue that CAFOs enhance the local economy, create jobs, and use less farmland than “free range” alternatives, thus preserving green space. Finally, they point out that, according to the National Association of Local Boards of Health, CAFOs that are properly managed, located, and monitored can be a source of low-cost food due to efficiency and specialization (Hribar 2010). CAFOs are regulated by federal, state, and local authorities. CAFO regulation typically falls under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, but regulation or monitoring of CAFOs can also fall under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, which regulates hazardous waste; and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which helps communities plan for chemical emergencies. The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 is the principal law for controlling pollution of rivers, lakes, and wetlands in the United States, and it specifically includes CAFOs as point sources of water pollution—and thus subject to regulation. Consequently, a permit program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), was created to set effluent limitation guidelines and standards for CAFOs. As the number and size of CAFOs increased, revisions of the permit system and operation regulations became necessary. In 2003, the EPA issued a rule requiring, for the first time, that all CAFOs apply for discharge permits unless they could prove they did not have the potential to pollute. The new rule was challenged in court by the livestock industry on the grounds that the CWA authorized EPA to require a discharge permit only if there was actual discharge, not potential discharge. A federal appeals court agreed with the livestock industry. In 2008, the EPA issued another rule requiring CAFOs to obtain permits if they “discharge or propose to discharge” pollutants. Making the same argument, the livestock industry won again in a federal appeals court (Gustin 2016).

23

24

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

In 2011, EPA proposed a “reporting rule” requiring CAFOs to submit certain basic information to the agency in order to obtain discharge permits under the CWA. The agricultural industry pushed back, and EPA withdrew the rule in 2012 and announced it would collect data from existing sources. Environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging EPA’s withdrawal of the proposed rules, claiming that such information is necessary to enforce regulations—and that the collection of such data was mandatory under the CWA. Meanwhile, environmental groups filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with EPA for all of the state-generated data gathered by the agency. EPA responded by publicly releasing the information in its entirety. In 2013 a group of 24 senators, including both Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to EPA to “express concern” about the agency’s 2013 disclosure of data about the nation’s CAFOs (Edwards 2013). Two years later, a district court ruled in favor of EPA, but in 2016 the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that EPA had “abused its discretion” by releasing private information. In 2017, a federal court approved a settlement agreement that will require the EPA to withhold some information from the records collected from states, but does not limit the agency’s release of any other CAFO records. This ruling, according to the court, will protect the public’s access to information about factory farm pollution. EPA is authorized to implement the Clean Air Act (CAA) and has the authority to require CAFOs to measure and control their emissions; however, according to the Environmental Integrity Project, EPA regulators “have exercised their authority in only a few instances, because industry lobbyists and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have effectively undermined CAA enforcement of CAFOs” (Environmental Integrity Project 2011). In 2011, EPA released the results of a two-year air monitoring study, jointly sponsored by the agency and the livestock industry, that indicated air at some CAFOs may be unsafe—with levels of particulate matter, ammonia, or hydrogen sulfide at many sites well above federal health-based standards (Environmental Integrity Project, 2011). E&E News reported that “EPA’s nine-year effort to document air pollution at livestock operations is likely still many years from completion and unlikely to be as useful as industry and environmental groups had hoped” (Peterka 2014). With little progress made by EPA toward regulating and monitoring CAFOs, some states have taken the initiative in regulating emissions from CAFOs. Such states as Oregon, Minnesota, Missouri, and North Carolina have all put air pollution from CAFOs on their legislative agenda. Republicans on CAFOs

In December 2008, during the waning days of the administration of Republican president George W. Bush, EPA issued a rule to exempt animal waste emissions to the air from most CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements. All kinds of legal challenges ensued, which led Congress to return to the issue. In 2011, the

Co n c entr ated A n im a l F eed i ng Op er at i o ns

Superfund Common Sense Act was introduced by Billy Long of Missouri (R-MO) in the House and Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) in the Senate. These bills, cosponsored by 113 Republicans and 4 Democrats in the House and by 6 Republicans in the Senate, would have amended Superfund provisions so that manure would not be considered a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant under that act. Proponents argued that naturally occurring, organic manure and its nutrient components should not be so defined, and that Congress did not intend for CERCLA to apply to agriculture. Opponents of the bill countered that because manure produces ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, which are hazardous substances, there is no legal or scientific basis to totally exempt manure from the regulatory scheme of CERCLA and EPCRA (Efflandt 2012). As one critic of legislation commented, “Why shouldn’t mega-livestock operators be equally regulated as they sell their ‘waste’ product for its nutrient and soil building value? Since when do commercial N, P and K producers or handlers get a free ride from the EPA . . . or Congress?” (Long 2011). The bills never made it out of committee. The GOPled effort to remove manure from the list of hazardous wastes regulated under CERCLA ultimately failed, however, at least in part because of opposition from the Obama administration. Approximately every five years, Congress passes a bundle of legislation known as the Farm Bill, which serves as a sort of blueprint for agriculture and food policies and practices of the federal government. In 2013, House Republicans passed a farm bill that supported billions in subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses, even though it would cost taxpayers some $195 billion over 10 years. Some observers openly wondered how a party that claimed to stand for decreased government spending could pass such a bill. Some speculated that the bill’s generosity to agribusiness stemmed from the amount of money agribusiness lobbyists contributed to these legislators, but Duke University economist Marc Bellemare and political scientist Nicholas Carnes found that it may have been electoral pressure faced by the legislator—that is, “the proportion of their constituents who are farm owners or farm managers” (Plumer 2013). Arguments are made that federal tax subsidies create an uneven playing field for small sustainable livestock operations by favoring grants of subsidies to CAFOs (Less=More 2013). The bill passed the House 216–208 with no support from Democrats. The Agriculture Act of 2014 passed the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 68–32. There had been much deliberation between the House and the Senate, and the conference committee reported an agreement between the two versions of the bill in January 2014. The compromise Farm Bill that was ultimately crafted by House and Senate negotiators was signed into law by President Obama in February 2014. It was expected to save $16.6 billion (–1.7 percent) over 10 years—less than either the House-passed or Senate-passed proposals (Chite et al. 2014). When Republican president Donald Trump began filling his administration in late 2016 and early 2017, he filled several key positions with individuals known for their support of CAFOs or their opposition to “overregulation” of the agriculture

25

26

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

industry. Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, had run Perdue Partners, a global agribusiness trading company, since 2011. Critics of Perdue say that he supports corporate interests over small family farmers, and that he will disregard such environmental issues as water pollution and climate change. Defenders of his selection, on the other hand, argue that he understands agricultural issues because of his background (Cooke 2017). Trump’s choice to direct the EPA, Scott Pruitt, was the attorney general of Oklahoma in 2011, when the state faced dangerous and widespread groundwater pollution problems caused by illegal discharges of toxic waste from industrial-scale swine CAFOs. An investigation by Waterkeeper Alliance and Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that Scott Pruitt had “not taken a single legal action to enforce Oklahoma’s stringent water quality laws and protect the public from a pollutant that can be deadly for infants” (Hunter-Foster, Benesh, and Mahotama 2017). On March 29, 2017, Iowa Republican governor Terry Branstad signed into law Senate File 447, “which limits the amount of compensation that can be received in lawsuits against livestock feeding operations filed by nearby residents” (Howe 2017). The bill passed the Iowa Senate by a 31–18 vote, with two Democrats joining Republicans in support, and the Iowa House 60–39, with three Democrats joining Republicans in support. Republican Dan Zumbach, chair of the Iowa Senate Agriculture Committee, said the legislation is intended to protect animal agriculture, which provides 160,000 jobs in Iowa and generates $38 billion annually in economic impact. Environmentalists and most Democrats argued that the bill would worsen the quality of life of rural Iowans and give companies even less incentive to curb air and water pollution from livestock production (Howe 2017). Democrats on CAFOs

Most Democrats have fought against the Republican legislative push to exempt agricultural air emissions from the Superfund law; their strategy has been to argue that the cleanup statute provides certain protections that are not available under air and water laws. They are also more concerned about environmental and health impacts. President Obama’s 2008 campaign literature on CAFOs stated that he was committed to tougher regulations on CAFOs to protect the environment and public health in Iowa and elsewhere. Obama supported (1) tougher regulations on CAFOs, such as limits on emissions of nitrogen, phosphorus, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia; (2) enforcing stricter requirements for polluters and not allowing immunity from the CAA or Superfund; (3) strict local requirements and choices; (4) limiting eligibility of CAFOS to federal programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), a USDA effort to provide financial support to farmers seeking to improve the environmental quality of operations; (5) proper manure management; and (6) the right of the public to know what chemicals are being released into the environment (Obama’08 Staff 2008). Obama may have been

Co n c entr ated A n im a l F eed i ng Op er at i o ns

responding to Iowans who claimed that Iowa state politicians had “largely taken a pass at creating meaningful legislation that seriously addresses the real economic, environmental and public health threats that factory farms pose to their constituents” (Murphy 2008). Some campaign observers believe that Obama’s subsequent victory in the 2008 Iowa caucus may have been due at least in part to this hardline stand on CAFOs. Obama began fulfilling his CAFO reforms during his first term. EPA proposed rules to enforce factory-farm compliance with discharge regulations under the CWA and pushed reluctant states to comply with federal water rules. Meanwhile, the USDA closed some farm subsidy loopholes; began new transparency rules for loans to pork and poultry growers; launched a program to link local producers and consumers; increased funding for agricultural conservation efforts; and reformed organic labeling regulations to require that animals must pasture-graze at least 120 days per year and receive at least 30 percent of their dry food intake from pasture in order to qualify for “organic” status (Kirby 2011). The Obama administration also took action against the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture, especially as used in CAFO settings. In 2014, Obama issued Executive Order 13676, Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. In March 2015, he released the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, a five-year action plan to combat antibiotic resistance threat at a cost of $1.2 billion. But the plan was criticized because CAFOs would still be allowed to use antibiotics in animal food to prevent sickness. Critics charged that the provision would leave the door wide open for livestock producers to keep using antibiotics for growth as well (Goodrich 2015). In October 2015, the Senate approved a bipartisan budget deal by a vote of 64–35, with 18 Republicans joining Democrats in support of the final passage (all 35 no votes came from Republicans). The House approved the legislation earlier with the overwhelming support of Democrats but less than one-third of Republicans backing it. The deal included a doubling of funding for combating antibiotic resistance in U.S. agriculture (White House 2015). At the state level, in 2017 Democrat state senator Dave Koehler of Illinois introduced legislation aimed at protecting the environment in rural Illinois by changing regulations governing CAFOs (Illinois Senate Democrats 2017). Koehler’s bills would require more livestock farms to register with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and all farms to file livestock waste management plans. Koehler defended these bills as “common sense,” but the Illinois Farm Bureau, which is heavily influenced by powerful agribusinesses within its membership, asserted that the proposed rules “increase the level of regulation by adding requirements that are redundant and unnecessary. Livestock farms already face regulations through the LMFA and the IEPA that are robust and protective of the environment” (Shipman 2017). In May 2017, North Carolina’s Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, vetoed a bill passed by his state’s Republican-dominated legislature that would have limited compensation to plaintiffs filing lawsuits against CAFOs for environmental or

27

28

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

public health reasons. The bill, known as the Agriculture and Forestry Nuisance Remedies bill, was criticized by Cooper for placing the interests of agribusiness above those of the state’s citizens. Teri J. Walker Further Reading Ball, Molly. 2014. “How Republicans Lost the Farm.” The Atlantic, January 27. Accessed May 12, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/how-republicans -lost-the-farm/283349/. Chite, Ralph M., Randy Schnepf, Dennis A. Shields, Renée Johnson, Megan Stubbs, Joel L. Greene . . . Tadlock Cohen. 2014. “The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.” Congressional Research Service Report. Accessed May 12, 2017. http:// nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/R43076.pdf. Cooke, Christina. 2017. “What’s at Stake for Ag Policy under Trump’s USDA Pick?” Civil Eats, January 23. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://civileats.com/2017/01/23/whats-at -stake-for-ag-policy-under-trumps-usda-pick-former-georgia-governor-sonny-perdue/. Edwards, Scott. 2013.” The Hypocrisy of a Cockroach Congress and CAFO Pollution Control.” HuffPost, The Blog, August 31. Accessed May 12, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost .com/scott-edwards/the-hypocrisy-of-a-cockroach-congress_b_3521572.html. Efflandt, Charles. 2012. “Is Clarification of Superfund ‘Common Sense’ Unnecessary? The EPA Doth Protest Too Much, Me Thinks.” American College of Environmental Lawyers, August 10. Accessed May 8, 2017. http://www.acoel.org/post/2012/08/10 /Is-Clarification-of-Superfund-%E2%80%9CCommon-Sense%E2%80%9D-Unnecessary-The-EPA-doth-protest-too-much-me-thinks%E2%80%A6.aspx. Environmental Integrity Project. 2011. “Hazardous Pollution from Factory Farms: An Analysis of EPA’s National Air Emissions Monitoring Study Data.” Accessed May 9, 2017. https:// www.environmentalintegrity.org/reports/hazardous-pollution-from-factory-farms/. Environmental Integrity Project. n.d. “Raising a Stink: Air Emissions from Factory Farms.” White Paper. Accessed May 12, 2017. http://environmentalintegrity.org/pdf/publications /CAFOAirEmissions_white_paper.pdf. Food & Water Watch Staff. 2015. “Factory Farm Nation, 2015 Edition.” Accessed May 9, 2017. https://factoryfarmmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/FoodandWaterWatch FactoryFarmFinalReportNationMay2015.pdf. Frisk, Charlie. 2012. “CAFOs: What They Are and Why We Should Care.” Fall. Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin. Accessed May 12, 2017. http://www .cleanwateractioncouncil.org/newsletter/archives/2012/CWAC_Fall12_REVISED.pdf. Goodrich, Amy. 2015. “Obama Announces $1.2 Billion Plan That Will Let CAFOs Continue Abusing Antibiotics While Claiming to Fight Antibiotic Resistance.” Natural News, April 2. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.naturalnews.com/049218_antibiotic _resistance_superbugs_factory_farming.html. Gurian-Sherman, Doug. 2008. “CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed May 7, 2017. https:// www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/cafos_uncovered.pdf. Gustin, Georgina. 2016. “EPA’s Failure to Regulate Factory Farm Pollution Draws New Scrutiny.” InsideClimate News, November 28. Accessed May 8, 2017. https://inside​ climatenews.org/news/22112016/epa-regulate-factory-farm-emissions-pollution.

Co n c entr ated A n im a l F eed i ng Op er at i o ns

Howe, Carter. 2017. “Senate File 447 Restricting Nuisance Complaints on CAFOs Community.” The Scarlet & Black, April 7. Accessed May 9, 2017. http://www.thesandb .com/community/senate-file-447-restricting-nuisance-complaints-on-cafos.html. Hribar, Carrie. 2010. “Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities.” National Association of Local Boards of Health. https:// www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf. Hunter-Foster, Kelly, Benesh, Melanie, and Mahotama, Wicitra. 2017. “As Okla. Attorney General, EPA Nominee Did Nothing to Protect Oklahomans from Toxic Swine Waste.” EWG (Environmental Working Group), February 17. Accessed May 9, 2017. http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/02/okla-attorney-general-epa-nominee -did-nothing-protect-oklahomans-toxic-swine. Ikerd, John. 2007. “The Concentrated Animal Feeding Controversy: A Question of Sound Science.” Prepared for presentation at the Annual Assembly of the Missouri Catholic Conference, Jefferson City, MO, September 29. Accessed May 11, 2017. http://web .missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jeff%20City%20Catholic-%20CAFO%20Controversy .htm#_ftn2. Illinois Senate Democrats. 2017. “Koehler Unveils New Environmental Protections with Proposed CAFOs.” Accessed May 9, 2017. http://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com /caucus-news/blog-archive/5492-koehler-unveils-new-environmental-protections-for -cafos. Imhoff, Daniel, ed. 2010. CAFO: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories. New York: Earth Aware Editions. http://www.cafothebook.org/theissue.htm. Kirby, David. 2011. “Obama’s Factory Farm Policy: Not as Bad as You Think.” The Blog (blog). Accessed May 9. 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/obamas​ -factory-farm-polic_b_516382.html. Landers, Timothy F., Bevin Cohen, Thomas E. Wittum, and Elaine L. Larson. 2012. “A Review of Antibiotic Use in Food Animals: Perspective, Policy, and Potential.” Public Health Reports 127 (1): 4–22. Accessed May 8, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pmc/articles/PMC3234384/#B1. Less=More. 2014. “Restoring the Balance to Michigan’s Farming Landscape.” White Paper. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.senate.michigan.gov/committees/files/2014-SCT -AG__-05-15-1-03.PDF. Long, Billy. 2011. “Billy Long on Environment.” OnTheIssues.org. Accessed May 8, 2017. http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Billy_Long_Environment.htm. Love, Orlan. 2017. “CAFO Law Would Hurt Recourse, Organization Says: Legal Damages Would Be Limited for Neighbors.” The Gazette, March 22. Accessed May 9, 2017. http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/agriculture/cafo-law-would-hurt -recourse-organization-says-20170322. Murphy, Dave. 2008. “The Great Pig Debate: How CAFOs Stalk the Future President.” Animal Welfare Institute Quarterly, Winter. Accessed May 10, 2017. https:// awionline.org/content-types-orchid-legacy/awi-quarterly/great-pig-debate-how -cafos-stalk-future-president. Obama’08 Staff. 2008. “Barack Obama on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” Accessed May 9, 2017. http://obama.3cdn.net/6274ad7348d96cd410_2aumv2byv .pdf. OntheIssues Staff. 2016a. “Bernie Sanders on Environment: Sep 5, 2015—Advocate of Animal Welfare and Humane Treatment.” OntheIssues.org. Accessed May 9, 2017. http://www.ontheissues.org/News_Animal_Rights.htm.

29

30

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

OntheIssues Staff. 2016b. “Jill Stein on Environment: Mar 31, 2016—Create Local, Sustainable, Organic, Plant-Based Food System.” OntheIssues.org. Accessed May 9, 2017. http://www.ontheissues.org/News_Animal_Rights.htm. Peterka, Amanda. 2014 “EPA Study of CAFO Emissions Grinds On with No End in Sight.” E&E News, June 25. Accessed May 8, 2017. https://www.eenews.net /stories/1060001938. Philpott, Tom. 2017. “North Carolina Republicans Are Trying to Keep Residents from Suing Hog Farms: The Smell of Pig Manure Is Literally Ruining People’s Lives.” Mother Jones, April 21. Accessed May 9, 2017. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/04 /big-pork-makes-life-miserable-160000-north-carolinians. Plumer, Brad. 2013. “The U.S. Has Few Farmers. So Why Does Congress Love Farm Subsidies?” Washington Post, July 12. Accessed May 9, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost .com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/12/the-u-s-has-few-farmers-so-why-does-congress -love-farm-subsidies/?utm_term=.442430fe6cf1. Shipman, Kay. 2017. “State Legislation Seeks to Add Livestock Regulations.” FarmWeekNow.com, March 30. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://farmweeknow.com/story -state-legislation-seeks-add-livestock-regulations-4-157661. Union of Concerned Scientists Staff. 2017. “Genetic Engineering Risks and Impacts.” Accessed May 9, 2017. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food -system/genetic-engineering/risks-of-genetic-engineering.html#.WRHn9dxOnIV. White House. 2015 “FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Releases National Action Plan to Combat Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria.” Office of the Press Secretary, March 27. Accessed July 24, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27 /fact-sheet-obama-administration-releases-national-action-plan-combat-ant.

Emissions Trading

At a Glance

Emissions trading, also known as cap and trade, has historically not been uniformly supported or opposed by either party. The concept of a marketbased approach to reducing airborne emissions of environmentally damaging substances was, however, a Republican idea originally. It was supported by President George H. W. Bush to deal with the problem of acid rain created by sulfur emissions in the late 1980s. It was supported fairly well by both parties at that time, especially after it proved highly effective at lowering the rate of sulfur emissions into the air with much less cost to businesses than flat restrictions were estimated to cost. The success of the program at reducing sulfur led environmentalists to push for carbon to be similarly regulated. This never received strong support from either party until the Obama years, when environmental issues became much more partisan. President Obama’s embrace of cap and trade led Republicans to reject it, particularly after the 2010 midterms and the rise of the politically powerful Tea Party, which expressed deep skepticism about the strong scientific consensus about the dangers of climate change. Support for or opposition to so-called cap and trade programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is now almost perfectly split down partisan lines. Many Democrats . . .

• Believe pollution reduction at the expense of business growth is sometimes necessary • Believe cap and trade is a viable approach for achieving pollution reduction • Believe carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be added to national cap and trade programs • Believe the success of cap and trade at limiting sulfur emissions is proof that such programs could be used to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases Many Republicans . . .

• Believe pollution reduction at the expense of business profitability is not acceptable

32

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

• Believe any form of cap and trade is a tax, and therefore should be opposed • Believe imposing a cap and trade plan on greenhouse gases would increase energy prices and hurt low-income families the most • Believe emissions trading was effective for sulfur, but carbon and other greenhouse gases are not the same

Overview

Typically, the means of limiting pollution has been direct regulation of businesses by the government, an approach also known as command and control. The concept of using market-based incentives to achieve reductions in pollution—as opposed to command and control—first emerged in a series of research studies beginning in the 1960s. Several studies for the National Air Pollution Control Administration (now known as the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation) by Ellison Burton and William Sanjour suggested creating a market for emissions to allow businesses flexibility in meeting air quality standards (Sanjour n.d.). The result was a system called “emissions trading,” now typically referred to as cap and trade. Instead of companies being fined for the pollution that they let into the atmosphere, a maximum pollution “cap” is imposed on each company, with companies being given the option to either meet the cap or buy allowances that allow them to release higher amounts of pollution. In some versions of the system, each year the cap is decreased and it is up to the company to decide how it will limit the pollution that it puts into the environment. Businesses that are able to make changes to limit emissions will not use all of their allotments, and those businesses will be able to profit by selling shares to other businesses that seeking a higher cap on the open market. This creates a financial incentive to invest in ways to limit emissions, with no government funding needed. Unlike command and control systems, the process of cap and trade is an openmarket solution that allows companies to decide the most cost-effective approaches for themselves. However, like most environmental issues today, the cap and trade system is a struggle between advocates of business growth and supporters of environmental conservation. Writing in “The Politics of ‘Cap and Trade’ Policies,” Timothy Heinmiller (2007) isolated three processes that have led to the politicization of cap and trade—despite the system being a privatized one. The three distinct but inseparable processes of cap and trade are capping, allocation, and trading. The capping process is generally established by politicians and government administrators, or some combination of the two. Capping is the process of deciding what the aggregate limit on emissions will be. This means that the caps that are set up are more likely to be political accommodation than pure scientific recommendation. Allocation is the assignment of an allowed amount of emissions to organizations. This process is the most important part for the factories

Emi s s i o ns T r a d i ng

and companies that are part of the cap and trade market. There is intense pressure to sway politicians and officials in charge of determining what the original allocation should be. Finally, when it comes to the act of trading emissions, lower-valued users such as nonprofits attempt to use political action to maintain their stake in trading. This way, they have a bargaining chip that allows them some influence over the cap and trade market (Heinmiller 2007). The history of cap and trade programs in the United States began with bipartisan support, but devolved into divisions within both parties before becoming the polarized issue it is today. One of the first and most comprehensive laws passed by Congress was the Clean Air Act of 1970 (1970 CAA). It authorized the creation of national and state pollution standards, and soon afterward the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created by executive order by Republican president Richard Nixon. The 1970 CAA created several regulatory programs: the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which set standards for air quality for all outdoor air; State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for complying with the 1970 CAA regulations; New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which set standards for future sources of pollution; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). The creation of the EPA in 1970 and the passage of these statutes, which gave the new agency significant regulatory powers, were political moves designed to prevent the regulation of pollution from being taken over by industries that might be more interested in saving money on operating expenses than cutting pollution. In 1990, the first cap and trade system was signed into law. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 CAAA) were designed to limit sulfur dioxide emissions causing acid rain, which was being increasingly linked to damage to wildlife and natural ecosystems across the United States and Canada. George H. W. Bush spoke often about acid rain on the campaign trail in 1988, and he promised the American people that if he were elected to the presidency he would be the “environmental president.” Only five months after Bush took office, his administration sent Congress amendments to the Clean Air Act that would ultimately become the basis for the first cap and trade law. The legislation allowed power companies to buy offsets to limits on sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. It set a goal of decreasing acid rain emissions by 10 million tons in 10 years. It passed with fairly strong bipartisan support, passing the Senate 89–10 and the House 401–25. Unfortunately, this is where bipartisan support ended. The 1990 CAAA were more effective than expected, and in 1995, when the law took effect, acid rain emissions fell by 3 million tons in one year. Seeking to capitalize on the bipartisan support and effectiveness of this law, environmental activists began pushing for the inclusion of carbon in cap and trade bills. None of these bills would ever become law at a national level, though several regional and state programs would be successful, such as California’s Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), in which Connecticut, Delaware,

33

34

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont are participants. The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (also known as the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol) established the world’s first international cap and trade market for greenhouse emissions. President Bush, however, called the agreement “unfair to developed nations” due to the lower emissions targets imposed on them. Citing both that concern and a domestic economic downturn, the Bush administration rejected the Kyoto treaty. The next major international cap and trade agreement that the United States would help negotiate was the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement. Rather than establishing individual countries’ reduction targets, this agreement focused on voluntary reduction targets and focused on implementation. Reductions were determined by each country and submitted as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). This allowed all countries to work together in an established framework while retaining individual sovereignty over reduction targets. With a Republican Congress hostile to any “‘cap and tax” legislation, as the GOP termed the agreement, Democratic president Barack Obama avoided the fate of the Kyoto Protocol in Congress by sidestepping Congress and ratifying the agreement by executive action. Public opinion of the cap and trade system began to change around 2008 with the economic recession, Obama’s election, and the rapid politicization of all environmental issues. America’s economy is heavily reliant on the industries that are most affected by cap and trade, such as oil and coal. In a 2011 Gallup poll, the largest margin showed that the most public support went to economic growth (54 percent) instead of environmental protection, which polled at 36 percent (Saad and Jones 2016). Also, the United States continues to be one of the few developed countries where there is significant doubt about the existence of global warming (Chang 2013). Since the recovery from the recession, support has split basically down party lines, with most Republicans favoring the economy and most Democrats favoring the environment. Republicans on Cap and Trade

Republican president George H. W. Bush’s administration submitted the bill that would become the first law implementing a cap and trade system. This implementation covered only sulphur emissions, aimed at curbing the damage of acid rain on the environment. The huge success of the cap and trade system introduced in the 1990 CAAA in reducing sulphur emissions was not enough to convince a majority of Republicans that a similar system could be effective at limiting greenhouse gas emissions without doing too much damage to American businesses. Republicans remained lukewarm toward cap and trade through the 1990s. Though no significant bills were proposed nationally, a few regional programs that were begun during that time received a mixed reception from Republicans

Emi s s i o ns T r a d i ng

at the state level. California’s RECLAIM program was passed by the bipartisan South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The program was one of the first cap and trade programs in the country to include carbon, and though the SCAQMD tried to keep the program’s aims moderate, it ended up being not very effective. The bipartisan program also received bipartisan criticism—from the Republican-majority state assembly as well as from environmental groups, which filed suit against the program. In 2005, seven state governors, four of whom were Republicans, signed on to the RGGI. In 2007, the states of Massachusetts, Maryland, and Rhode Island also signed on. All three of these states also had Republican governors—including Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who would go on to become the party’s presidential nominee in 2012. The RGGI program has been highly effective, with an internal program review in 2016 finding that $1.37 billion in revenue had been generated and reinvested in energy futures, saving $4.67 billion in and preventing 15.4 million tons of carbon emissions. In the western United States, meanwhile, few Republican governors participated in the 2007 Western Climate Initiative (WCI) negotiations. Only Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah participated. The WCI mostly fizzled, with only California and a few Canadian provinces still participating as of December 2016. The Republican Party’s opinion on cap and trade coalesced with the 2010 midterm elections. The Republican Party, and its Tea Party wing, won several victories that gave them majority in the House, though the Senate remained in Democratic hands. The Tea Party was much more skeptical of man-made climate change and more hostile to environmental regulation of any sort. The Tea Party’s strong gains caused other Republicans who previously supported emissions trading to come out against it. There have been strong divisions of support within the Republican Party regarding cap and trade since the 1990 CAAA, but the starkest differences could be seen between the Tea Party and the “traditional” Republicans. The 1990 CAAA passed the House and Senate with roughly equal support from Democrats and Republicans. Both parties remained mostly lukewarm to cap and trade for the next 20 years. Prominent Republicans such as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney came out in support of cap and trade in the late 1990s. As recently as 2007, Newt Gingrich stated, “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support . . . If [Bush] had instituted a regime that combined three things I just said—mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps, as we have with clean air, and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology—I think we would be much better off than we are in the current situation” (Jackson 2011). But Gingrich, Romney, and other Republicans who had once signaled an openness to cap and trade systems turned against it after Obama took office.

35

36

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

The 2010 midterms heralded a major change in Congress with sweeping victories for the Tea Party, whose fierce opposition to environmental regulations in general and skepticism regarding the idea of man-made climate change signaled that from now on environmental issues would be strictly split down partisan lines. Traditional Republicans who had previously indicated support all came out firmly against any “cap and tax” bills around this time. Four of the Republican candidates in the 2012 primaries—Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman Jr.—had previously supported cap and trade plans, but by then they were firmly against it. Tea Party Republicans uniformly opposed any and all environmental legislation at the expense of economic growth and more power to Washington. Many prominent Tea Party Republicans question whether the temperatures are even getting warmer. This hostility to cap and trade proposals has remained strong within the Republican Party. The 2016 GOP platform makes it clear the party believes that business growth and environmental protection are not zero-sum concepts. Indeed, Republicans link the steady decline in pollution over the past few decades to cleaner technology made possible by economic growth. Their platform states that poverty is the greatest threat to the environment, and that steady economic growth brings both wealth to the people and cleaner technology. They further state that the “environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists,” and that Democrats are stuck in a 1970s mindset in which they use shoddy science and scare tactics to justify a command and control system that places more power at the federal level. The data from the EPA does show a steady decline in pollution. From 1970 to 2015, emission levels of the six common pollutants (particles, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide) have dropped 70 percent, while gross domestic product (GDP) has grown by 246 percent (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency n.d.). Environmental groups, EPA officials, and many Democrats, on the other hand, attribute much of this drop to both state and national standards that have been implemented through the 1970 Clean Air Act and other antipollution laws. The 2016 GOP platform states that Republicans propose (1) to give authority over establishing air standards back to Congress; (2) to forbid the EPA from setting standards that it never had authority to set under the Clean Air Act; and (3) to modernize the permitting process to avoid what Republicans decry as a “sue and settle” system in which environmental groups sue complicit federal agencies, creating a state of affairs in which antigrowth regulations are settled upon behind closed doors. Republicans believe that the successes of air pollution reduction are being used as justification by Democrats to increase federal power. The 2016 Republican Party platform states that these successes have made it necessary for Democrats to “reach farther and demand more to sustain the illusion of an environmental crisis” (Republican Party Platforms 2016). Democratic politicians are accused of ignoring costs, using misleading data, and looking the other way when federal agencies

Emi s s i o ns T r a d i ng

harm the environment, such as the Oroville Dam’s spillway failure and the Animus River spill, which was caused by the EPA itself. Regarding cap and trade, the Republican Party platform dismisses the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, both of which sought to establish international cap and trade systems, as “reflecting the personal commitments of their signatories,” since no such agreement is binding without the approval of Congress. With the Byrd–Hagel Resolution, Congress rejected the Kyoto Protocol before it was ever presented (the resolution was a Senate vote of 95–0 led by Senators Robert Byrd and Chuck Hagel, signaling their intention to reject the Protocol). The Senate was never given the chance to vote on the Paris Agreement, as it was signed by executive action by President Obama. Furthermore, Republicans want to halt all funding to the UNFCC, which Kyoto and Paris extend, on the grounds that it violates the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This act prevents the United States from funding any affiliated organizations of the United Nations that recognize a Palestinian state. Climate change denial is now standard and almost completely uniform in the Republican Party, with President Donald Trump taking it a step further, declaring in several tweets that global warming is a “Chinese hoax,” that wind farms are harmful to health, and that temperatures are falling, not rising. Democrats on Cap and Trade

The 2016 Democratic Party platform states that the party believes global warming is an “existential problem that must be actively combated.” The Democrats go on to state that they will “take bold steps to slash carbon pollution and protect clean air at home, lead the fight against climate change around the world, and make sure that no American is left out” as they change to a clean energy economy. They also refute the Republican position “that we have to choose between protecting our planet and creating good-paying jobs,” saying that both goals are achievable. Declaring that there is no more time for “climate deniers and defeatists in Congress to start listening to science,” the platform also claims that Democrats will use every tool to reduce emissions, including local, state, and federal initiatives (Democratic Party Platforms 2016). The Democratic platform directly references cap and trade as a means of cutting emissions, stating that “Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals” The platform states that the Democratic Party’s goal is to not only meet but exceed the terms of the Paris Agreement, which sets up an international carbon cap and trade system with the goals of preventing global temperature increases from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius (Democratic Party Platforms 2016). The Paris Agreement was signed by 190 countries, including China. The United States and China alone represented 40 percent of global emissions.

37

38

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Environmental policies limiting carbon emissions create a regional divide within the Democratic Party, however. Coal states, such as Wyoming, Kentucky, and West Virginia, rely on the carbon-intensive source for energy and job needs. Democrats in such states as Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, and West Virginia are more likely to distance themselves from cap and trade and any other form of carbon regulation. These states and several others joined in a lawsuit against President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, alleging that it would be destructive to their states and that the EPA did not have the legal authority to impose these rules. Early solutions to curbing global emissions were usually based on a “command and control” framework, which involved direct government mandates of specific pollution controls or limits. The Democratic Party generally supported traditional command and control regulations, railing against the Reagan administration’s cutting of funds and calling for stronger environmental regulation in their 1984 platform. They mostly opposed president Ronald Reagan’s attempts at establishing a cap and trade system to decrease leaded gasoline, calling the administration’s proposed cap and trade program a “license to pollute” (Arnold 2014). As acid rain became a more pressing issue in the 1980s, Democrats relented on their opposition to cap and trade, and President Bush’s 1990 CAAA passed with strong bipartisan support. This bipartisan support ended when cap and trade advocates attempted to apply a cap and trade system to carbon emissions, with opposition from both Republicans and Democrats, particularly from heavy coalusing states. While no national legislation implementing cap and trade systems was passed for the next 20 years, several regional cap and trade markets had varying levels of support from Democrats. California was the first to implement a regional cap and trade system. In 1994, the RECLAIM program went into effect with bipartisan support from the SCAQMD. It was also met with bipartisan opposition from both the Republican-controlled state legislature and environmental groups. The RGGI was signed by a total of three Democratic governors in 2007. It established a cap and trade system among the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. An internal program review in 2016 found that $1.37 billion had been generated in the carbon market and reinvested in energy futures of participating states, saved $4.67 billion in energy costs for millions of homes and businesses and prevented 15.4 million tons of carbon emissions. In the late 2000s, environmental issues began to be more divided around partisan lines. As the Democratic Party began to embrace cap and trade as the best way to fight carbon emissions, the Republican Party moved in the opposite direction. At the time of the 2008 recession, however, Democrats increasingly shied away from using the phrase “cap and trade,” because Republicans had become effective in painting such initiatives as economic job-killers. In 2009, John Kerry introduced a proposal that would limit greenhouse gases. When discussing the bill, Kerry denied that it was a cap and trade policy. He described it as a “pollution

Emi s s i o ns T r a d i ng

reduction’ bill,” even though it kept the basic cap and trade structure with emission allowances and a marketplace. Despite economic downturns, the Democrats have demonstrated a commitment to the environment with the introduction of several significant pieces of legislation. In 2009, Democratic Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts introduced the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Also known as the Waxman–Markey Bill, it proposed a cap and trade system, subsidies for clean energy, and protections against energy price increases for consumers. It was the first national cap and trade bill to pass either house of Congress when it passed the House, though a counterpart bill was never introduced to the Senate so it never became law. In 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power Plan, which proposed caps on carbon emissions while allowing states to choose how they achieved those levels, including cap and trade. It was halted by the Supreme Court in 2016, and President Trump has stated he will not implement it. Andrew Riffle, Tiffany Messer, and Jenna Kelkres Emery Further Reading Arnold, Chris. 2014. “GOP Demonizes Once Favored Cap-and-Trade Policy.” National Public Radio, June 3. http://www.npr.org/2014/06/03/318414868/gop-demonizes-once -favored-cap-and-trade-policy (February 5, 2017). Chang, Alice H. 2013. “The Politics and Future of Carbon Cap-and-Trade: Lessons from the European Union, Australia, and the United States.” The Journal of MacroTrends in Energy and Sustainability 1 (1): 24. Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform,” July 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. Heinmiller, B. Timothy. 2007. “The Politics of ‘Cap and Trade’ Policies.” Natural Resources Journal 47 (2): 445–467. Jackson, Brooks. 2011. “Gingrich on Climate Change.” FactCheck.org. Accessed February 5, 2017. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/gingrich-on-climate-change/. Mulkern, Anne C. 2016. “Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Combat Climate Change.” Scientific American/E&E News, May 9. Accessed February 5, 2017. https://www.scientificamerican .com/article/hillary-clinton-s-plan-to-combat-climate-change/. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform,” July 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed February 5, 2017. Saad, Lydia, and Jeffrey M. Jones. 2016. “U.S. Concern about Global Warming at EightYear High.” Gallup, March 16. Accessed January 29, 2017. http://www.gallup.com /poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx Sanjour, William. n.d. “Collected Papers of William Sanjour.” Accessed February 6, 2017. http://www.williamsanjour.name/main.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “Clean Air Act Overview: Progress Cleaning the Air and Improving People’s Health.” Accessed February 5, 2017. https://www.epa.gov /clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health#pollution.

39

Endangered Species

At a Glance

Some of the fiercest political battles in American politics involve disputes over the identification and protection of endangered and threatened species on both public and private lands in the United States. Although factions within both political parties support the protection of endangered plant and animal species, Democrats tend to place higher value on biodiversity and are, therefore, more likely to support wildlife conservation even when it conflicts with other important values, such as economic growth. Most contemporary Republicans, on the other hand, are less enthusiastic about wildlife conservation requirements imposed by the national government. They argue that the protection of some plant and animal species should be pursued with caution, especially when habitat protection and preservation intrude on private property rights or interfere with the economic development of natural resources. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe that laws protecting endangered and threatened species interfere with economic development • Believe that laws protecting endangered and threatened species reduce the freedom of local property owners • Believe that laws protecting endangered and threatened species require land use planning that has not been shown to improve the population of endangered or threatened species • Believe that laws protecting endangered and threatened species cause protracted litigation over the listing of species Many Democrats . . .

• Believe that laws protecting endangered and threatened species reduce the illegal “taking” and sale of plant and animal species • Believe that laws protecting endangered and threatened species protect the viability of whole ecosystems

E nd a ng er ed Sp eci es

• Believe that laws protecting endangered and threatened species cause government agencies to consider the impact of projects on the habitat needs of plants and animals

Overview

In the United States, both the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have authority to regulate flora and fauna. The first significant national-level policy to protect endangered species and eliminate the interstate trade of wildlife taken in violation of state laws came in the early 20th century, when the Lacey Act of 1900, named after Representative John Lacey (R-IA), was passed. It became evident in the late 1800s—due to the rapid decline of the U.S. bison population and the eventual extinction of the American passenger pigeon (Weber 2016)—that national-level policies were needed to regulate the taking of species. This statute, which has been strengthened to ban the international sale and importation of species that are illegally taken, still stands as federal law today, and substantial federal civil and criminal penalties can be incurred for the illegal purchase and sale of plants and animals. The Lacey Act represented the first significant attempt to create a national conservation policy relating to threatened species of plants and animals. The international migration patterns of birds, and the emergence of the National Audubon Society as a viable political organization, led to international agreements among countries to prevent the overhunting of birds. Overhunting accelerated in the late 19th century, when fashion trends made bird feathers into fashion accessories and small game birds became popular sellers on restaurant and hotel menus (Weber 2016). The declining bird population caused Great Britain and the United States to reach an agreement in 1916, later formalized as a treaty, protecting birds migrating between the United States and Canada. Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) to execute the treaty, which required U.S. states to recognize closed hunting seasons and brought about the national regulation of certain migratory birds. After the statute was passed, however, it faced almost immediate opposition from states resisting national policies that interfered with local control of natural resources. The most high-profile challenge to the MBTA came when the state of Missouri unsuccessfully tried to stop U.S. game wardens from enforcing the law by appealing to a federal district court and later to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a landmark 7–2 ruling, the Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland (1920) upheld the MBTA. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that without the statute, “there soon might be no birds for any powers to deal with. We see nothing in the Constitution that compels the Government to sit by while a food supply is cut off and the protectors of our forests and our crops are destroyed. It is not sufficient to rely upon the states.”

41

42

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

The passage of the Lacey Act and the MBTA both came at a time when environmental interest groups were growing stronger and the political philosophy underlying natural resource management turned to the conservation of natural resources (Costain and Lester 1997). As the 1960s approached, the consolidation and growth of the environmental movement made it impossible for Congress to ignore demands for comprehensive environmental statutes. With public support for environmental protections on the upswing, a new wave of federal statutes managing natural resources was passed, often with bipartisan support. The most important federal statute to affect endangered species came when president Richard Nixon signed into law the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), which was proposed by representative John Dingell (D-MI). Before the ESA, federal agencies paid little attention to how their decisions impacted threatened and endangered species, but the act established the USFWS as the agency responsible for determining whether plant and animal species fell under the act’s protection and how they would be protected.

President Nixon Extols the Endangered Species Act In 1973, when President Nixon signed the ESA into law, he issued the following statement: I have today signed S. 1983, the Endangered Species Act of 1973. At a time when Americans are more concerned than ever with conserving our natural resources, this legislation provides the Federal Government with needed authority to protect an irreplaceable part of our national heritage—threatened wildlife. This important measure grants the government both the authority to make early identification of endangered species and the means to act quickly and thoroughly to save them from extinction. It also puts into effect the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora signed in Washington on March 3, 1973. Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans. I congratulate the 93d Congress for taking this important step toward protecting a heritage which we hold in trust to countless future generations of our fellow citizens. Their lives will be richer, and America will be more beautiful in the years ahead, thanks to the measure that I have the pleasure of signing into law today.

Source Nixon, Richard. 1973. “Statement on Signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973,” December 28. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency​ .ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4090.

E nd a ng er ed Sp eci es

The ESA allows anyone to petition for a particular plant or animal species to be considered a candidate for “listing.” The agency undertakes a comprehensive scientific evaluation to determine whether the plant or animal species is threatened; if the agency determines that the species is endangered or threatened, the species becomes “listed.” Listing the plant or animal means that the agency is required to use its regulatory authority to prevent the “taking” of the listed species, and the agency has enforcement power to impose fines on those who are found to be in violation of the statute. Controversy has swirled around the agency’s interpretation of the term take, with conservatives typically preferring a narrow interpretation of the term and environmentalists typically preferring a broader interpretation. The statute, which applies to both private and public land, defines take as applying to actions that “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” But even this has not settled the debate, as controversy has spilled over into the courts to also define various related terms. At the center of the controversy over the ESA is the national government’s power to determine how private and public lands are used. Although these conflicts are not confined to any one part of the United States, they are especially pitched in the American West, which is economically dependent on the enormous tracts of public lands that are home to valuable natural resources. After Ronald Reagan, a westerner, was elected president in 1980, he wasted little time in trying to open public land to economic interests and to weaken federal laws that imposed regulatory burdens on those seeking to develop natural resources. For example, in 1982 Congress passed amendments to the ESA that added more flexibility to the act by allowing “incidental takes” of listed species. Applicants who are granted permits allowing incidental takings are given permission to proceed with projects in areas that might affect listed species, in exchange for following a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that is designed to mitigate the effects of the proposed activities. The approval of a HCP promises permit-holders a “No Surprises” assurance, which means that in the event of “unforeseen circumstances,” landowners are not asked to commit “additional land, water or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources,” over and above what had been agreed upon in the original plan. HCPs have been praised for facilitating dialogue among private landowners and the USFWS to create localized plans that acknowledge the needs of threatened and endangered species, while also giving private landowners the freedom to manage their land. Yet, the accommodations that are built into the law have not erased the divisions that exist between the two dominant political parties. One study, for instance, examined the empirical differences between Republicans and Democrats for their support of laws that protect endangered plant and animal species. The study revealed that Democrats tend to support wildlife conservation at higher rates than Republicans do, and that Republicans place a higher value on the protection of private property rights than their Democratic counterparts (Czech and Borkhataria 2001). Furthermore, the study found that support

43

44

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

for the ESA was lower among Republicans than among Democrats, of whom 91.9 percent overwhelmingly supported it. A 2015 Pew poll examining the contemporary controversy over the listing of the sage-grouse in the western United States sheds light on whether this divide among Democrats and Republicans still persists. The poll found that while 95 percent of Democrats polled considered the protection of sage-grouse habitat important, only 68 percent of Republicans felt the same way (Pew Charitable Trusts 2015). It is fair to say that in today’s rough-and-tumble world of American politics, Democrats and Republicans remain fiercely divided on wildlife conservation policy in general—and the protection of endangered species in particular. An example demonstrates why these laws have become so controversial: National forests and public lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are home to a variety of endangered species, but the history of the American West is one where timber companies have traditionally had access to old-growth timber on these lands. Harvesting the valuable old-growth timber is labor-intensive, and so timber companies deliver well-paying jobs to workers in the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and Washington (Layzer 2016). Yet, environmentalists who place a high value on biological diversity claim that extracting old-growth timber alters the habitat of such endangered animals as the northern spotted owl. Their view is that these public lands should be preserved to protect these vulnerable species. At its very core—and as this example demonstrates—the protection of threatened and endangered species involves difficult value trade-offs that cause economic values and the protection of biological diversity to come into conflict with one another. The battles that have been waged over the protection of species have also implicated the land use patterns of private landowners, causing the protection of biological diversity to collide head-on with the private property rights of landowners. Republicans on Endangered Species

Even though Democrats and Republicans are polarized on the issue of endangered and threatened species today, history reveals that the protection of endangered species during the 1970s was not even a matter of debate among the dominant parties. In fact, when the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was being considered, it easily passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 390–12, with 219 Democrats and 170 Republicans voting for it, and only 9 Republicans and 3 Democrats voting against it. When the bill was considered in the Democratic-controlled Senate, it passed unanimously 92–0 and was signed into law by Republican president Richard Nixon, who announced that “nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed” (Nixon 1973). Rank-and-file members of the Republican Party even formalized their support for President Nixon’s signing of the ESA in their 1972 party platform with this statement: “Although the President cannot move

E nd a ng er ed Sp eci es

until and unless Congress passes laws in many of these [environmental] areas, he nevertheless . . . has acted . . . to provide for early identification and protection of endangered wildlife species. This would, for the first time, make the taking of endangered species a Federal offense” (Republican Party Platforms 1972). By the late 1970s, however, Republicans began showing some signs of opposition toward applications of the ESA. This became especially true when the highprofile emergence of the Tellico Dam controversy cast new light on the unforeseen challenges of implementing a statute such as the ESA. The Tellico Dam in Tennessee was home to the snail darter, a species of fish that was listed as threatened; with the dam partially completed, the Tennessee Valley Authority was ordered to stop construction of the dam to protect the snail darter. When the ESA came up for reauthorization in 1979, motions were made to amend the act to exempt the Tellico Dam, but that motion failed by a 45–53 vote; 39 Democrats and 14 Republicans voted not to exempt the Tellico Dam from the ESA, while 18 Democrats, 26 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted to exempt the dam from the law’s requirements. That same year, however, the persistent efforts of Senator Howard Baker (R-TN) bore fruit when the Senate reconsidered an amendment that allowed construction of the dam to continue without interference from the ESA. The amendment passed 48–44, this time with 19 Democrats, 28 Republicans, and 1 Independent supporting it, and 34 Democrats and 10 Republicans opposing it (5 Democrats and 3 Republicans did not vote on the amendment). The politics of the Tellico Dam controversy aside, the reauthorization of the ESA overwhelmingly passed that year, but this time the Senate vote was no longer unanimous, and influential western-state Republicans like Orrin Hatch (R-UT) began taking strong positions against it. When Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency in 1980, the consensus holding together the protection of wildlife and plant species quickly began unraveling. Though past party platforms had voiced support in for the ESA, the 1980 Republican Party platform made no mention of wildlife protection. When Republicans seized control of the U.S. Senate in 1982, significant modifications were made to the ESA that eased the statute’s burdens on private landholders by allowing “incidental takes” (the measure passed on a “voice vote” in both chambers, and so no recording of individual votes was made). Even though the 1988 Republican Party platform had promised to “fight to protect endangered species” (Republican Party Platforms 1988), the party’s 1992 platform included a plank that opposed “bureaucratic harassment of farm, ranch, and timber families under statutes regarding endangered species” (Republican Party Platforms 1992). The 1992 presidential election provides further evidence that Republicans were beginning to fundamentally change their orientation toward the ESA. While campaigning for reelection in the Pacific Northwest just months before the 1992 presidential election, President George H. W. Bush announced to lumber employees in Washington that “environmental protection and economic growth must go hand in hand; they can’t be divorced from each other . . . frankly, I believe that when it comes to the

45

46

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Endangered Species Act and its application here in the Northwest, the balance has simply been lost” (Bush 1992). During the mid-1990s, Republicans changed strategies and, influenced by the wise use movement, began grounding their approach to endangered species on the philosophy that plant and animal wildlife are best protected through voluntary measures that are incentivized through strong private property rights. Wise

Comparing Endangered Species Attitudes in 2016 Since the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, the two dominant political parties in the U.S. system have become polarized on the issue of species conservation. The 2016 Republican Party Platform: There is certainly a need to protect certain species threatened worldwide with extinction. However, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) should not include species such as gray wolves and other species if these species exist elsewhere in healthy numbers in another state or country. To upset the economic viability of an area with an unneeded designation costs jobs and hurts local communities. We must ensure that this protection is done effectively, reasonably, and without unnecessarily impeding the development of lands and natural resources. The ESA should ensure that the listing of endangered species and the designation of critical habitats are based upon sound science and balance the protection of endangered species with the costs of compliance and the rights of property owners. Instead, over the last few decades, the ESA has stunted economic development, halted the construction of projects, burdened landowners, and has been used to pursue policy goals inconsistent with the ESA—all with little to no success in the actual recovery of species. For example, we oppose the listing of the lesser prairie chicken and the potential listing of the sage grouse. Neither species has been shown to be in actual danger and the listings threaten to devastate farmers, ranchers, and oil and gas production. While species threatened with extinction must be protected under the ESA, any such protection must be done in a reasonable and transparent manner with stakeholder input and in consideration of the impact on the development of lands and natural resources.

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform: Democrats oppose efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act to protect threatened and endangered species.

Sources Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform,” August 14. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 25, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform,” July 31. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 25, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index .php?pid=117718.

E nd a ng er ed Sp eci es

use operates under the philosophy that “the private use of many presently protected natural resources . . . would constitute a more economically efficient and nationally beneficial policy (or wise use) than the present restrictions on public resource exploitation” (Rosenbaum 2017, 339). In their 1996 platform, Republicans promised to “improve the ESA by implementing an incentive-based program in cooperation with State, local, and trial governments and private individuals to recognize the critical relationship between a healthy environment and a healthy economy founded on private property rights and responsibilities” (Republican Party Platforms 1996). Their 2000 platform struck similar themes by promising to “promote market-based programs that are voluntary, flexible, comprehensive, and cost-effective” (Republican Party Platforms 2000), while the 2004 platform called for the modernization of the ESA through the “expansion of voluntary agreements with private property owners while ensuring that ESA enforcement respects and upholds private property rights” (Republican Party Platforms 2004). Republicans remain critical of national efforts to conserve endangered wildlife, especially animals that call the western United States home. In the 2016 Republican Party platform, for instance, federal protections for the lesser prairie chicken and greater sage-grouse were singled out as having the potential to “devastate farmers, ranchers, and oil and gas production” (Republican Party Platforms 2016). Moreover, after his inauguration, Republican president Donald Trump immediately imposed a regulatory freeze that affected the listing of endangered species (Bittel 2017). In addition, his oft-stated plans to build a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border have raised concerns about endangered species living in that region (Fears 2017). The Republican Party’s position on endangered species has thus undergone substantial changes since President Nixon signed the ESA into law in 1973. While at first Republicans used their party platform to announce support of wildlife conservation, today’s Republicans are strongly in support of pursuing the protection of endangered species through incentive-based private stewardship programs that facilitate dialogue among public agencies while at the same time respecting the private property rights of landowners. Democrats on Endangered Species

Democrats, meanwhile, have taken positions that are strongly in support of advancing the value of biodiversity and defending threatened and endangered species. It was during the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s that Democrats made protection of environmental species a key part of their party platform. As early as 1972, they wrote, “Such practices as ‘clear cut’ logging, strip mining, the indiscriminate destruction of whole species, creation of select ocean crops at the expense of other species . . . cannot be justified when they threaten our ability to maintain a stable environment” (Democratic Party Platforms 1972). Six years after the initial passage of the ESA, the statute came up for reauthorization in 1979. That

47

48

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

year, Democratic president Jimmy Carter signed the reauthorization of the ESA into law and reiterated his party’s commitment to endangered species with this announcement: “This act is one of the most far-reaching and progressive laws ever enacted by any nation to protect wildlife and plant resources. Reauthorization of the act has been one of my high legislative priorities” (Carter 1979). Despite its strong support of species conservation during the 1970s, the Democratic Party’s position on endangered species protection during the 1980s was mixed. In 1980 the Democratic Party platform called for “new efforts at home and abroad . . . to face squarely . . . the loss of countless irreplaceable species” (Democratic Party Platforms 1980). Four years later, in its 1984 platform, the party supported “protection of endangered species, land management to maintain healthy populations of wildlife, and full participation to implement international wildlife treaties” (Democratic Party Platforms 1984). The mid-1980s, however, proved a point of departure for the Democratic Party’s predictable and vocal support for conservation protection, especially with protracted litigation emerging over the listing of the northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. Increasingly concerned that their proenvironment stance was costing them votes in some parts of the country, Democrats were silent on the protection of endangered species in their 1988 party platform. However, the party’s silence on the issue of endangered species did not last long. In 1992 they squarely addressed the northern spotted owl issue and promised to “protect our old growth forests [and] preserve critical habitats” (Democratic Party Platforms 1992). When President Clinton was elected, he almost immediately approached the problem of endangered species by pursuing high-profile actions against countries trading in endangered species and by blocking Republican efforts to roll back parts of the ESA. In 1994, Clinton announced trade sanctions against Taiwan to stop the illegal trade of rhinos and tigers, and he used his statement on Earth Day to announce that the problems posed by environmental problems and endangered species are “a global crisis . . . That’s why we’re working around the world to protect fresh water resources, to preserve forests, to protect endangered species, leading a fight for strong environmental protection in our global negotiations on trade” (Clinton 1994). When Republicans gained control of the House in 1994, Clinton was the only obstacle to the GOP’s efforts to weaken the ESA. This caused Clinton to fight several high-profile battles with Congress’s new Republican majority; one of these battles occurred when, in a near party-line vote, Republican majorities in the House and Senate passed a Department of the Interior appropriations bill that prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from “listing” new species as threatened or endangered. Clinton vetoed the bill, declaring that “the bill would impose a misguided moratorium on future listings and critical habitat designations. . . . And in the case of . . . the marbled murrelet, it would eliminate the normal flexibility for both the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to use new scientific information in managing our forests” (Clinton 1995).

E nd a ng er ed Sp eci es

The Republican Party philosophy of voluntary regulations and respect for private property rights—advanced persistently for the past 20 years—stands in stark contrast to the Democratic Party’s struggle to adopt a coherent position on species conservation. While the Democratic Party’s 1996 platform made no mention of endangered species, their 2000 platform blamed Republicans for trying to undermine the ESA. In 2004, the Democratic Party platform, like that of the Republicans, included a position that supported “voluntary, incentive-based programs that target private landowners” (Democratic Party Platforms 2004), yet four years later the party promised only to “expand scientific research and protections for species and habitats” in the Great Lakes, Everglades, and Chesapeake Bay (Democratic Party Platforms 2008). Still, the Obama presidency meant new opportunities for groups seeking to advance the values of biodiversity. Although President Obama was opposed by Republicans in Congress throughout his presidency, he still used the powers of the Oval Office to advance biodiversity through the creation of national monuments, a power that is congressionally granted to the president under the Antiquities Act of 1906. These new national monuments include the Sand to Snow National Monument, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, and the expansion of the Papahaˉnaumokuaˉkea Marine National Monument, all of which are home to endangered species. Aaron J. Ley Further Reading Bittel, Jason. 2017. “Trump’s Attack on Endangered Species Really Stings.” onEarth, National Resources Defense Council, February 2. Accessed February 3, 2017. https:// www.nrdc.org/onearth/trumps-attack-endangered-species-really-stings. Bush, George H. W. 1992. “Remarks to Vaagen Brothers Lumber Employees in Colville, Washington,” September 14. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21452. Carter, Jimmy. 1979. “Endangered Species Act Amendments Statement on Signing S. 1143 into Law,” December 28. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=31882, Clinton, William J. 1994. “Remarks on Observance of Earth Day,” April 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /?pid=50012. Clinton, William J. 1995. “Message to the House of Representatives Returning Without Approval the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996,” December 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 24, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=50912. Costain, W. Douglas, and James P. Lester. 1997. “The Evolution of Environmentalism.” In Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence, 2nd ed., ed. James P. Lester. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Czech, Brian, and Rena Borkhataria. 2001. “The Relationship of Political Party Affiliation to Wildlife Conservation Attitudes.” Politics and the Life Sciences 20 (1): 3–12.

49

50

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Democratic Party Platforms. 1972. “1972 Democratic Party Platform,” July 10. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /?pid=29605. Democratic Party Platforms. 1980. “1980 Democratic Party Platform,” August 11. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/?pid=29607. Democratic Party Platforms. 1992. “1992 Democratic Party Platform,” July 13. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /?pid=29610. Democratic Party Platforms. 2000. “2000 Democratic Party Platform,” August 14. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/?pid=29612. Democratic Party Platforms. 2004. “2004 Democratic Party Platform,” July 27. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /?pid=29613. Democratic Party Platforms. 2008. “2008 Democratic Party Platform,” August 25. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=78283. Fears, Darryl. 2017. “Endangered Animals Are Already Cut Off by a Border Wall. Trump Wants It to Be Much Bigger.” Washington Post, January 27. Accessed February 3, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/27/endan gered-animals-are-already-cut-off-by-a-border-wall-trump-wants-it-much-bigger /?utm_term=.a9917d5fb9be. Kraft, Michael E., and Norman J. Vig. 2016. “U.S. Environmental Policy: Achievements and New Directions.” In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, 9th ed., ed. Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft. Washington, DC: Sage Publications. Layzer, Judith A. 2016. The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy, 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Nixon, Richard. 1973. “Statement on Signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973,” December 28. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www .presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4090. Pew Charitable Trusts. 2015. “Western Voters Favor Protecting the Greater Sage-Grouse.” American’s Western Lands, July 9. Accessed March 29, 2017. http://www.pew trusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2014/07/09/western-voters-favor-pro tecting-the-greater-sage-grouse. Republican Party Platforms. 1972. “Republican Party Platform of 1972,” August 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/?pid=25842 Republican Party Platforms. 1988. “Republican Platform of 1988,” August 16. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/?pid=25846. Republican Party Platforms. 1992. “Republican Party Platform of 1992,” August 17. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/?pid=25847. Republican Party Platforms. 1996. “1996 Republican Party Platform,” August 12. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=25848.

E nd a ng er ed Sp eci es

Republican Party Platforms. 2000. “2000 Republican Party Platform,” July 31. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/?pid=25849. Republican Party Platforms. 2004. “2004 Republican Party Platform,” August 30. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/?pid=25850. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform,” July 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117718. Rosenbaum, Walter A. 2017. Environmental Politics and Policy, 10th ed. Washington, DC: Sage Publications. Weber, Edward P. 2016. Endangered Species: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing. Weber, Edward P., and Aaron J. Ley. 2014. “The Department of the Interior and its Precursors (1800s–Present).” In Guide to U.S. Environmental Policy, ed. Sally K. Fairfax and Edmund Russell. Washington, DC: Sage Publications.

51

Environmental Justice

At a Glance

The concept of environmental justice dates back to the early 1980s, when state officials in North Carolina designated a poor, rural, and largely African American county as the site for a landfill for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)poisoned soil and other toxic chemicals. An environmental justice movement emerged in the wake of that decision, and it has become an important part of the wider environmental movement. As one history of U.S. environmental policy described it, “This crusade, inspired and still led by African American, Latino, Native American, Asian, and other minority groups, is dedicated to shining a spotlight on—and ultimately alleviating—the disproportionate impact that pollution and other environmental ills have on minority and poor families and communities in the United States” (Hillstrom 2010). Of course, neither party would ever say that it is against environmental justice or for environmental racism. However, there are differences between the parties in recognition of the issue; in views as to the extent to which the problem exists; and in prescriptions for alleviating the problem through various statutes, regulations, and executive orders. There are also issues that can relate directly to environmental justice, such as pesticides, drinking water, mining, brownfield revitalization, nuclear waste disposal, hazardous waste disposal, and oil pipelines. For example, a pipeline may cut through sacred Native American lands and risk damage to drinking water, or continued support for coal energy may increase levels of coal ash as a pollutant in underprivileged communities. Many Democrats. . .

• Believe low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately affected by air pollution, water pollution, and exposure to toxic hazards • Believe lead poisoning disproportionately impacts low-income children and children of color • Believe one of the Environmental Protection Agency’s core missions should be to improve public health in underserved communities

E n vi r o n m enta l Jus t ic e

Many Republicans. . .

• Believe states are better equipped than the federal government to address instances in which poor and/or minority communities are being disproportionately affected by pollution and other forms of environmental degradation • Believe most sitings of hazardous waste facilities and similar controversial sites in poor minority communities are due to low real estate prices, good access to transportation hubs, and development-friendly zoning status rather than racism

Overview

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Fair treatment means that no segment of society should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harm and risks. The notion of environmental equity more broadly refers to the equal enjoyment of amenities as well as the equal burden of suffering (Environmental Protection Agency 2017). Historical government actions that predate the term environmental justice, yet would eventually become clearly relevant to the concept, include the Clean Air Act (1963), the National Environmental Policy Act (1970), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (aka Clean Water Act of 1972), the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (1972), the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), the Toxic Substances Control Act (1976), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), and the Water Quality Act of 1987. None of these, however, explicitly identified the concept of environmental racism or environmental justice. Empowered by the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, activists and community organizers began to organize in the 1980s against the siting of hazardous waste disposal in predominantly minority and poor communities. In a 1982 landmark case often credited with starting the environmental justice movement, residents of Warren County, North Carolina, rose up in protest against the proposed construction of a landfill for the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). Opponents maintained that the location was not chosen for technical or scientific reasons, but because of the demographics of the county, which was 84 percent African American, the highest of any county in the state. Warren County residents were ultimately unable to stop the PCB landfill, but in 2003 the state started a program to actively destroy the PCB. Moreover, the example of resistance inspired other poor communities of color to scrutinize how state and federal environmental policies and industrial activities were impacting their own communities.

53

54

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Within a few years, numerous cases of alleged environmental racism were being investigated throughout the country, and in 1987 the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice published Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States, a nationwide study of hazardous waste and demographics. The study demonstrated a direct correlation between the placement of toxic waste facilities and communities of poverty and/or color. The lead author of the report was Reverend Benjamin Chavis, who is credited with coining the term environmental racism. During this same period, Robert D. Bullard’s multiple studies of waste disposal plant sitings in the South, beginning in 1979 and culminating in the seminal work Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality (Bullard 1990), became part of the fundamental bibliography on the topic. Bullard also emerged as a prominent activist on the issue of environmental justice, and he is credited with helping pressure Republican EPA director William Reilly into creating EPA’s Working Group on Environmental Justice in 1990. An even more notable landmark in the history of the environmental justice movement came in 1994, when Democratic president Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12898: “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (Clinton 1994). (For Web links to additional information on Executive Order 12898, see the “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” entries in “Further Reading” at the end of this article.) The order directed federal agencies to “identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.” Clinton’s executive order also framed instances of environmental racism as violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Since that 1994 directive, EPA and other federal agencies have been closely scrutinized by scholars for their success or failure in implementing Executive Order 12898, and these same agencies have frequently been the targets of various class action suits related to environmental justice. The most widely recognized aspects of environmental justice are distributive justice, procedural justice, and corrective justice (Konisky 2015). Advocates of poor and minority communities assert that burdens and benefits must be distributed equally, without regard to race, class, ethnicity, nationality, gender, etc. Procedural justice means that all persons are included equally in any decision-making process, and corrective justice means that regulations and enforcement are implemented without race bias or class bias. These categories help define goals of the entire environmental justice movement, and they are used to evaluate the performance of EPA as the leading government agency on the issue. During the administration of Democratic president Barack Obama, the federal government moved forward on a number of fronts related to environmental justice. For example, the Department of Agriculture placed a much higher priority on environmental justice issues. EPA, meanwhile, unveiled its Plan EJ 2014, claiming key accomplishments already in the five cross-agency areas of rulemaking, permitting, enforcement, community-based action, and administration-wide action. The

E n vi r o n m enta l Jus t ic e

plan asserted significant development of scientific and legal resources, and it made a distinct effort to customize its outreach to indigenous tribes through a separate document, the EPA’s “Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014.) Nonetheless, alleged instances of environmental racism regularly appear in America’s news headlines, from the discovery of high levels of lead contamination in the drinking water of Flint, Michigan, a poor and predominantly African American city, to the exposure of primarily Latino farmworkers to pesticide contamination in California’s Central Valley, made public by environmental justice advocates (Balazs et al. 2011). Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel also took action to address air quality in Pilsen, a primarily Latino and impoverished community of Chicago; but again, only after grassroots campaigns and nonprofit organizations forced action. After many years of contaminating the air quality in Pilsen, the Crawford and Fisk coal-burning power plants, operated by Midwest Generation, were shut down. Groups such as the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization put pressure on city aldermen and Mayor Emanuel to pass the Chicago Clean Power Ordinance. Once it became clear that the company would be required to make expensive upgrades to pollution controls and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet the new regulations, Midwest Generation elected to shut down. Democrats on Environmental Justice

While civil rights were not considered in conjunction with environmentalism until the early-to-mid 1980s, in 1963 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the first version of the Clean Air Act, which impacts the issue of environmental justice. Johnson also signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, upon which all cases alleging environmental discrimination based on race are now constructed. President Jimmy Carter did not stop at famously having solar panels installed on the roof of the White House; he spoke continuously about being good stewards of [God’s] Earth. Carter established the Department of Energy to regulate levels and safe disposal of waste from nuclear and other forms of energy. He also fought to establish a Superfund to pay for the cleanup of toxic waste, which was enacted into law just before he left office in 1980. Carter stated, “The Superfund legislation . . . may prove to be as far-reaching and important as any accomplishment of my administration. The reduction of the threat to America’s health and safety from thousands of toxic-waste sites will continue to be an urgent but bitterly fought issue—another example for the conflict between the public welfare and the profits of a few private despoilers of our nation’s environment” (Carter 1995). Superfund, in an effort to help all of society, would contribute to a more just environment as well. President Bill Clinton’s best-known contribution to the environmental justice movement was Executive Order 12898, which mandated that environmental

55

56

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

justice be built into the agenda of every government agency, including EPA. As Clinton declared, “All Americans have a right to be protected from pollution—not just those who can afford to live in the cleanest, safest communities.” But since Clinton signed that order in 1994, EPA has been criticized for failing to sufficiently incorporate environmental justice principles into its policy making. A 2016 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, for example, condemned EPA in all three major areas of environmental justice advocacy (distributive, procedural, and corrective). The commission stated that EPA is “failing” in its environmental justice obligations while struggling to help poor communities of color facing pollution, particularly coal ash, and that the agency drags its feet when faced with environmental justice concerns until forced to do so (Fragoso 2016). Still, Clinton is credited with being the first president to make environmental justice a meaningful element of environmental policy making. In addition to Executive Order 12898, which made “environmental equity . . . a core consideration in federal environmental decision-making,” wrote one scholar, “President Clinton’s team offered new policy mandates, administrative reorganization, and research and data collection programs. The Clinton team also mounted efforts to reach out to communities and build their capacity to respond to environmental risks” (Konisky 2015). Barack Obama clearly expressed a commitment to environmental justice throughout his terms as a senator and a president. Battling a strong and resistant Republican majority in both houses for much of his two terms in office, Obama turned to proclamations, memorandums, and executive orders to advance his policy priorities, especially in his final years in the Oval Office. In the area of environmental justice, Obama built on Clinton’s executive order in both word and deed. In 2011, he reconvened the Environmental Justice Interagency Working Group. He reached out to community members at a White House Forum on Environmental Justice, and he brought together leaders of 17 federal agencies (including some not originally included in Executive Order 12898) to sign a Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898—about how they would build environmental justice directly into their agendas. In this manner, he strove to make environmental justice a household term as well as a White House term. In a formal and very public act, Obama officially proclaimed February 11, 2014, to be the “20th Anniversary of Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.” Obama called upon “all Americans to observe this day with programs and activities that promote environmental justice and advance a healthy, sustainable future.” The three actions that may prove to be the most significant under Obama’s final years (or that could be swept away by the administration of Republican president Donald Trump, Obama’s successor) are Plan EJ 2014, EPA’s EJ 2020 Action Agenda, and the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan, originally announced on August 3, 2015, has been stayed by the Supreme Court pending judicial review.

E n vi r o n m enta l Jus t ic e

The plan was designed to task the states with management and regulation of clean power in many regards, and therefore it lists “Community and Environmental Justice Considerations” under its section on states. The plan is also listed separately as number nine under “Major Provisions.” The approach clearly treats environmental justice on the distributive, procedural, and corrective levels in ways that permeate the plan. Plans EJ 2014 (originally published in 2010) and EJ 2020 (published in 2016) impact the operations of the EPA only, but both are aggressive, explicit commitments to “integrating environmental justice in EPA programs, policies and activities by developing a comprehensive suite of guidance, policies and tools” (Environmental Protection Agency 2017). Observers noted that the plan sought to not only incorporate procedural justice but also provide technical tools and recommendations: Plan EJ 2014 emphasizes cross-agency responsibility for advancing environmental justice into all aspects of environmental decision making. The plan also aims to improve the scientific and technical tools available to better diagnose and prevent the concentration of environmental risk in any community, along with evaluating more carefully the way that the agency’s current initiatives can be tailored to support environmental justice goals. (Daley and Reames 2015) Republicans on Environmental Justice

Republicans tend to try to stimulate the economy by cutting regulation, and to shrink the budget and impact of the federal government by limiting agencies such as the EPA. They also generally favor moving control over power production, waste disposal, and management of natural resources from the federal government to the state governments. These beliefs have informed the policy priorities of Republican lawmakers since Ronald Reagan occupied the White House during the 1980s. Not surprisingly, then, Republicans in general have been much less vocal on the issue of environmental justice than their Democratic counterparts. When the issue of environmental equity does come up within Republican circles, it is often in the context of criticizing “burdensome” regulations crafted to address environmental justice issues. However, Republicans have declared their belief that environmental benefits should be shared by all Americans, irrespective of socioeconomic standing. The specific issue of environmental justice has also occasionally been broached by Republican administrations. In 1990, for example, the EPA under President George H. W. Bush formed the Environmental Equity Workgroup, which published Environmental Equity: Reducing Risks in All Communities, a study of environmental racism. In the early 2000s, meanwhile, President George W. Bush made a distinct effort to speak about “environmental justice for all” instead of identifying marginalized or

57

58

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

disproportionately affected groups. While he made significant efforts to maintain and rebuild national parks, refuges, and public lands, his administration—with cooperation from Republicans in Congress—pursued policies of deregulation to weaken the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act and to open millions of acres of wilderness to mining, oil and gas drilling, and logging. He was a staunch critic of the Superfund, yet he more than doubled the funds allocated for brownfield cleanup (through tax incentives). In the area of environmental justice, though, advocates expressed deep disappointment with the Bush administration’s focus on deregulation and its preference for state-level control of environmental policy. Environmental equity activists saw both of those trends as detrimental to the health and welfare of poor neighborhoods and communities of color, most of which have little political power in comparison to wealthier, whiter regions. Chemical & Engineering News concluded that the “EPA has been weakened politically by a White House that exercised strong central control over federal regulatory agencies . . . the Bush Administration will make it harder for EPA to issue future regulations that advance its mission to protect human health and the environment” (Hogue 2008). Free-market conservatives in the Republican Party, however, argued that many cases of alleged environmental racism were overblown. They acknowledged that poor and minority communities are sometimes exposed to a disproportionate amount of pollution, but they said that choosing locations for factories, incinerators, landfills, and other facilities generally could be traced back to basic economic calculations rather than racism. They also stressed that many in the GOP are supportive of providing tax incentives for restoration of brownfields, many of which are located in communities of color. “The amalgam of politicized civil rights groups and politicized environmentalists often summons the worst reflexes of both movements, combining frivolous charges of racism along with unfounded environmental scares,” wrote Steven F. Hayward of the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). “For much of the civil rights movement, it is always the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma; for much of the environmental movement, the Cuyahoga River is always burning” (Hayward 2003). In 2017, the administration of Republican president Donald Trump made clear that it was going to seek deep cuts in the EPA budget. It also announced that it intended to shutter a number of EPA programs and offices, including EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice. The administration claims that “this work will be done elsewhere in EPA” (Clegg 2017), but environmental justice advocates have sounded the alarm about these cuts and closures. They assert that the Trump administration’s policies will result in increased air, water, and soil pollution, and that poor communities of color will be particularly vulnerable to these increases due to their proximity to such major pollution sources as factories, landfills, and major transportation arteries. Christopher M. Travis and Teri J. Walker

E n vi r o n m enta l Jus t ic e

Further Reading Balazs, Carolina, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Alan Hubbard, and Isha Ray. 2011. “Social Disparities in Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in California’s San Joaquin Valley.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119: 1272–1278. Accessed October 13, 2016. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002878. Bullard, Robert D. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. 3rd ed. New York: Westview Press. Carter, Jimmy. 1995. Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press. First published 1982 by Bantam Books. Clegg, Roger. 2017. “Environmental Justice and the Trump Administration.” National Review/The Corner (blog), March 10. Accessed April 17, 2017. http://www.nationalreview .com/corner/445669/epa-environmental-justice-trump-administration. Clinton, William J. 1994. “Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.ejnet.org/ej/execorder.html. Daley, Dorothy M., and Tony G. Reames. 2015. “Public Participation and Environmental Justice: Access to Federal Decision Making.” In Failed Promises: Evaluating the Federal Government’s Response to Environmental Justice, ed. David Konisky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DiPeso, Jim. 2009. “Few Americans Are Ever Likely to See George W. Bush’s Greatest Environmental Legacy.” Grist.org, January 17. http://grist.org/article/republican/. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. “Plan EJ 2014: At-a-Glance.” Accessed June 1, 2017. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100DFCO.PDF?Dockey=P100DFCO.PDF. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. “Plan EJ 2014.” Office of Environmental Justice. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100DFCQ.PDF ?Dockey=P100DFCQ.PDF. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples.’” Accessed June 1, 2017. https://archive.epa.gov/partners/web/pdf /ej-indigenous-policy.pdf. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. “Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants.” Accessed June 1, 2017. https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan -existing-power-plants-regulatory-actions.html. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. “Learn About Environmental Justice.” Accessed June 1, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental -justice. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Environmental Justice.” Accessed June 1, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “Environmental Justice and National Environmental Policy Act.” Accessed October 12, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice /environmental-justice-and-national-environmental-policy-act. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “Summary of Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations.” Accessed June 1, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations /summary-executive-order-12898-federal-actions-address-environmental-justice. Fields, Leslie, and Alejandra Núñez. 2015. “Environmental Justice in the Clean Power Plan.” Sierra Club, August 20. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.sierraclub.org/compass /2015/08/environmental-justice-clean-power-plan.

59

60

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Fragoso, Alejandro Dávila. 2016. “EPA Is ‘Failing’ Its Environmental Justice Obligations, Civil Rights Watchdog Says.” ThinkProgress, September 26. Accessed April 17, 2017. https:// thinkprogress.org/civil-rights-commission-blasts-epa-environmental-justice-efforts -deab8cbd08c. Hayward, Steven F. 2003. “Environmental Justice: Where Selma and the Cuyahoga River Fire Meet.” American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, October 31. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://www.aei.org/publication/environmental-justice/. Hillstrom, Kevin. 2010. U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: A Documentary History. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Hirji, Zahra. 2016. “Civil Rights Agency Blasts EPA for Weak Environmental Justice Record.” Inside Climate News, September 28. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://insideclimatenews.org /news/28092016/civil-rights-agency-blasts-epas-weak-environmental-justice-record. Hogue, Cheryl. 2008. “Bush’s Legacy at EPA.” Chemical and Engineering News 86 (51): 27–31. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/email/html/cen_86_i51_8651gov1.html. Konisky, David M., ed. 2015. Failed Promises: Evaluating the Federal Government’s Response to Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Koronowski, Ryan. 2014. “The Climate Guide to Governors.” ThinkProgress, July 1. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://thinkprogress.org/the-climate-guide-to-governors-a822 a998a94a#.v0v48ieaq. Obama, Barack. 2014. “Presidential Proclamation—20th Anniversary of Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.” The White House Office of the Press Secretary, February 10. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/10 /presidential-proclamation-20th-anniversary-executive-order-12898-environ. The Record Staff. 2016. “A Historic Commitment to Protecting the Environment and Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change.” The White House/President Barack Obama. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record /climate.

Freshwater Use and Pollution

At a Glance

Clean water has traditionally been a bipartisan issue. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) found that from 1988 to 2012 both Democratic and Republican platforms referenced water infrastructure and the importance of clean water in communities, consistently advocated for clean water, and included clean water and water resource issues as a priority in their national platforms (Krantz 2012). Republican platforms typically made broad general statements regarding the desirability of clean water and responsible freshwater use; Democratic platforms were more specific in their statements and goals for protecting the nation’s water resources—for example, calling for reductions in particular pollutants and toxins. The parties also differed on assigning responsibility and levels of funding for clean water policies and programs. Though the parties referenced clean water, they addressed it in different ways based on the issues of the time. For example, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, the 2004 and 2008 Republican platforms “advocated increased security for water systems and infrastructure as a safeguard against potential bioterrorism” (Krantz 2012). The 2004 Democratic Party platform did not mention safeguarding the nation’s water supply, but focused on water pollution and making water safer for Americans. The 2008 Democratic Party platform, similar to the Republican Party platform, mentioned safeguarding our waters. Many Republicans . . .

• Issue broad general statements in support of clean water • Emphasize the need to provide an adequate water supply for agriculture, ranching, and the timber industry • Believe state waters, watersheds, and groundwater should be controlled by the states and not the federal government • Support public–private partnerships to build and finance the nation’s water infrastructure

62

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Many Democrats . . .

• Issue specific statements or plans of action for water issues • Support the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) role in setting and implementing strict federal standards for clean water • Support federal investment in water infrastructure and projects • Focus on public health and the safety of drinking water

Overview

Approximately 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. About 97 percent is saline, or from the ocean, which means that only about 3 percent of the water on Earth is freshwater. There are two sources of freshwater: ground water found in the aquifers under the Earth’s surface, and surface water found in lakes, streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, groundwater, cave water, springs, floodplains, and wetlands. The ultimate source of freshwater is rain and snow. Freshwater provides water for drinking, sanitation, agriculture, transport, electricity generation, and recreation. It also creates habitats for a diverse range of animals and plants (WWF Staff 2016). Thus, water pollution and depletion not only threaten human and wildlife health, but also exact a tremendous economic toll. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (FWPCA) was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. During the environmental movement of the 1960s, public awareness and concern about water pollution led directly to the passage of FWPCA amendments in 1972. After 1972, the FWPCA simply became known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Subsequent amendments and laws have modified some provisions in the CWA. For example, in 1987 the Clean Water State Revolving Fund phased out EPA construction grant programs and addressed water quality needs by building on EPA–state partnerships. In 2014, this program was amended by the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, which provides for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States, as well as the conservation and development of water and related resources. The bill was supported by both parties and signed into law by President Obama. In addition to the CWA, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA) was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States. The SDWA focuses on all waters that are actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from aboveground or underground sources, and it applies to every public water system in the United States. Amendments to this act passed in 1986 and 1996 mandated federal agencies such as the EPA to take numerous actions to protect drinking water and the rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater wells from which such water originates. The 1996 amendment was a bipartisansponsored bill; it was passed unanimously in the Senate, and it passed in the House with only 7 percent of Democrats voting against.

F r es h water U s e a nd P o ll ut i o n

At least three in four Americans surveyed in Gallup’s 2011 Environment poll said they worried a great deal or a fair amount about contamination of soil and water by toxic waste; pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs; pollution of drinking water; and the maintenance of the nation’s supply of freshwater for household needs (Saad 2011). In April 2012, Mother Jones published a list of the top 10 most polluted waterways in the United States. The Ohio River and the Mississippi River, which run through or by a combined 15 states, were the top two most polluted rivers on the list (Butler 2012). In March 2013, the EPA released the results of a survey examining the health of thousands of stream and river miles across the country. It found that more than half—55 percent—were in poor condition for aquatic life. Findings of the assessment include the following: (1) nitrogen and phosphorus (a common ingredient in detergents and fertilizers) were at excessive levels, (2) streams and rivers were at an increased risk due to decreased vegetation cover and increased human disturbance, (3) increased bacteria levels were found in many waterways, and (4) increased mercury levels were detected (Kika 2013). Water infrastructure problems, meanwhile, were highlighted by the experiences of the city of Flint, Michigan, in 2014–2017. When Flint experienced a water fund shortfall in 2014, the city switched water sources from Lake Huron (which they were paying the city of Detroit for) to the Flint River until a new pipeline connecting Flint with Lake Huron could be completed. After the switch, however, residents complained to city officials that the water from the Flint River smelled, looked, and tasted funny. City and state officials denied that there was a problem. It eventually became public knowledge, however, that the state’s Department of Environmental Quality was not treating the Flint River water with an anticorrosive agent. Therefore, pipes were eroding and leaching lead and iron into the water supply—and into people’s homes. Lead has been documented to have a wide range of negative health effects on people, especially on the development of the brain and nervous system in young children. In pregnant women, meanwhile, exposure to lead is associated with reduced fetal growth. Lead has also been found to increase the risk of high blood pressure and kidney failure in adults. In late December 2015 and early January 2016, when the full scale of the public health crisis in Flint was revealed, Flint mayor Dayne Walling, Michigan governor Rick Snyder, and President Obama all declared a state of emergency, and Obama authorized $5 million in aid. In March 2017, EPA announced that it had granted $100 million to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to fund drinking water infrastructure upgrades in Flint. This grant was made possible by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, a measure passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama in December 2016. Aside from the concern about water pollution in surface rivers and streams, unsustainable withdrawals from rivers and underground aquifers for agricultural and industrial use have also become a source of growing concern. Many areas of the United States are experiencing groundwater depletion—a term used to describe

63

64

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

long-term water-level declines caused by sustained groundwater pumping. Some of the negative effects of groundwater depletion are drying up of wells, reduction of water in streams and lakes, deterioration of water quality, increased pumping costs, and land subsidence—which is the gradual sinking of land. For example, the Ogallala Aquifer, which lies under eight states from South Dakota to Texas, provides freshwater for approximately one-fifth of the wheat, corn, cattle, and cotton in the United States. But key parts of the aquifer are being depleted faster than they can be recharged by rain; because of drought, farmers have been pulling from the aquifer in order to sustain their crops and livestock. Of the Kansas portion of the Ogallala Aquifer, 30 percent has already been pumped out—and according to some estimates (Plumer 2013), at existing rates approximately 40 percent more will get used up in the next half-century. Northern regions are less stressed than the southern High Plains. Experts such as Sasha Richey, a hydrologist at Washington State University in Pullman, have stated that local initiatives can help slow the depletion, but what is ultimately needed is a multistate response (Bjerga 2015). The federal government responded to drought and overdrawing issues in 2016 with the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN). Negotiated by both parties, passed overwhelmingly by Congress, and signed into law by President Obama, this measure was designed to bring drought relief to California and the wider West—including drought-prone Indian reservations in arid parts of by the region—by expanding water storage and delivery options. Experts caution, however, that over the long term, the region is still consuming water at an unsustainable rate. Republicans on Freshwater

Throughout the decades, Republicans have addressed water as a concern. They support state supremacy in water policy, and they view the federal government’s regulation of water use as interference. They also tend to focus on economic growth over environmental protection in natural resource management, emphasizing their confidence that it is possible to arrive at a sensible and workable balance between the two considerations. In their platforms, Republicans consistently frame farmers as natural stewards of the lands who should not be burdened with unrealistic environmental regulations from distant bureaucrats. Farmers, foresters, and ranchers are thus frequently recognized in the GOP party platform with respect to water rights. The Republican Party’s 1960 platform, for example, specifically stated that water programs may best be developed through interstate compacts, which preserve the integrity of individual states to govern water rights and establish water policies within their own borders. The party did, however, pledge federal support for Republican-initiated research and demonstration projects aimed at developing potable water from saltwater and brackish water sources, a theme that continued

F r es h water U s e a nd P o ll ut i o n

through the 1970s. The 1960 GOP platform also expressed support for strengthening federal enforcement powers in combating water pollution, but it called for reducing federal grants for the construction of waste disposal plants unless they made an identifiable contribution to clearing up polluted streams. By 1968, when the environmental movement was in full swing, the Republican Party platform acknowledged that in light of indications that cities were in crisis from water pollution, solutions would require a combination of vigorous state and federal action, regional planning, and maximum cooperation among neighboring cities, counties, and states. At the same time, they called for a decentralization of power, and they criticized a burgeoning federal bureaucracy that was increasingly prone to usurping legitimate state authority. The GOP thus promoted state and local government authority and interstate cooperation with respect to water pollution. During the early 1970s, the Republican Party supported efforts to restore the water quality of the Great Lakes in cooperation with Canada, as detailed in the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada. They also sought a Cooperative Agreement on Environmental Protection with the Soviet Union. The agreement with Canada outlined measures to prevent water pollution and to study the effects of water pollution, as well as to jointly develop water quality management techniques for river basins, lakes, and estuaries. The 1972 platform produced by the GOP also specifically stated that Republicans would protect the water rights of Native Americans. The platform also accused Democrats of failing to support Nixon administration proposals that, according to the GOP, would deal with pressing environmental issues facing the nation: “Sweeping environment messages were sent to Congress in 1970, 1971 and 1972 covering air quality, water quality, toxic waste substances, ocean dumping, noise, solid waste management, land use, parklands and many other environmental concerns. Almost all of these proposals still languish in the opposition Congress” (Republican Party Platforms 1972). This was a direct attack on the Democratic-controlled Congress. In 1976, the Republican Party platform acknowledged that some environmental issues, such as air pollution and water pollution, do not respect state boundaries and thus must be addressed at the federal level. Yet, they also stated that as a general rule, Republicans believe government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to the citizen as possible, because governments tend to become less responsive to citizen needs the farther away they are from them. Thus, Republicans prefer local and state government to national government, and decentralized national government wherever possible. So while they acknowledge that water pollution crosses state lines and should be addressed at the federal level, they defer to localities and states and they believe the federal government should be minimally involved in regulation. The 1980s continued to see a Republican focus on state supremacy in water law and an increased preference for voluntary soil and water conservation programs over programs mandated by government. The 1980 GOP platform was particularly

65

66

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

concerned about water policy and devoted an entire section to it, stating that the impending water crisis was perhaps even more serious than the energy problem, and that addressing water issues would be a priority of the Republican administration. The platform called for a partnership between the federal and state governments, state supremacy in water law, and cooperation between the executive branch and Congress in developing and implementing policy. “Working together, the states and the federal government can meet the impending water crisis through innovative and alternative approaches to such problems as cleaning our lakes and rivers, reducing toxic pollution, developing multiple-use projects, and achieving a workable balance between the many competing demands on our water resources” (Republican Party Platforms 1980). The 1992 Republican Party platform did not mention water pollution or use, but it briefly mentioned that the United States has spent $1 trillion to clean its air, water, and land over the previous 20 years. In 1996, the Republicans refocused more closely on water policy, specifically guaranteeing all Americans a safe and clean source of drinking water and granting local communities the flexibility to avoid unnecessary requirements. The GOP reiterated its belief in the role of state and local governments as the primary policy maker and called for the removal of the federal government’s role as a grant giver and direct lender in the development of water-related infrastructure. The platform indicated the party’s belief that establishing public–private partnerships to build and finance the nation’s water infrastructure was a more sensible and economical path forward. In the 21st century, the GOP has increasingly acknowledged water shortages in the western United States and laid out the party’s blueprint for addressing the problem. In their 2004 platform, the Republicans noted that “chronic water shortages in the West are one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the nation in the coming decades. We support efforts by the Administration [of Republican president George W. Bush] to work with states and local communities in the West to expand the use of proven tools like market-based voluntary transfers through water banks and other water-marketing tools. We steadfastly oppose diverting water away from the Great Lakes region” (Republican Party Platforms 2004). In 2008, they continued to emphasize their conviction that private ownership is the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, their belief that the government needs to balance the goals of environmental protection and economic growth and job creation, and their opposition to attempts by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to expand jurisdiction over water resources, including water that is clearly not navigable. Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican presidential nominee, suggested that both the CWA and the Clean Air Act (CAA) were out of date and needed to be modernized using smarter, more collaborative, more flexible, and more cost-effective approaches that welcome state and local participation. He promulgated that the combination of incentives and market-based programs would improve the water quality of the nation’s lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal environments (OntheIssues Staff 2012b).

F r es h water U s e a nd P o ll ut i o n

Senator Robert Portman (R-OH), who has served as vice-chair of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, has sponsored or cosponsored several bills to help keep freshwater lakes clean and safe. The Safe and Secure Drinking Water Act directed EPA to publish a health advisory and to submit reports on what level of microcystin (toxins produced by blue-green algae) in drinking water is expected to be safe for human consumption. The U.S. Senate unanimously passed the bill in December 2014, but it was not passed by the House. The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act was sponsored by 15 Democrats and 2 Republicans. The legislation, which reauthorized and improved the federal government’s research and response framework for harmful algal blooms, was signed into law in 2014 by President Obama. Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Rob Portman (R-OH) voted for this bill, bucking their party. Both of these senators, in fact, have been supportive of clean water regulations on numerous occasions. Wicker and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), for example, introduced the Grassroots Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act in 2015, which passed both houses and was signed into law by President Obama. In 2017, Wicker, Heitkamp, and U.S. Representative Gregg Harper (R-MS) introduced bipartisan legislation to help rural and small communities comply with federal “safe drinking water” regulations. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) received the 2016 National Environmental Achievement Award for Federal Public Service from NACWA, which recognized “leadership and support in ensuring that federal water quality policies impacting Great Lakes communities are based on sound science and ensure ratepayer investments lead to meaningful water quality improvements.” The 2016 GOP platform emphasized the party’s belief that federal bureaucrats— and the Environmental Protection Agency, in particular—had become sources of onerous and ineffective regulations that acted as a drag on economic growth. This belief extended to water regulation. “We will enforce the original intent of the Clean Water Act, not its distortion by EPA regulations,” stated the platform. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Donald Trump echoed the Republican viewpoint that regulations by unelected officials reward special interests and blunt economic growth, and he asserted that his administration would focus on “empowering state and local governments to protect the environment” (OntheIssues Staff 2016). Clean water advocates, however, have expressed grave concern about the impact of a Trump presidency on the health of the country’s rivers, lakes, and aquifers. In February 2017, environmental groups expressed alarm when President Trump signed a resolution voiding the Stream Protection Rule, an Obama-era rule that required coal mining companies to (1) avoid practices that pollute streams and threaten drinking water supplies, (2) monitor and report any pollution, and (3) return waterways to their previous condition after mining operations are completed. Trump’s EPA director, Scott Pruitt, has also announced plans to undo EPA’s Clean Water Rule, which is aimed at protecting the nation’s rivers, streams, and wetlands from pollution by placing them under the purview of the federal CWA. CAA law features dozens of regulations and permitting requirements for

67

68

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

anyone discharging pollution into the “waters of the United States” in a way that could affect human health or aquatic life. The CWA does not precisely define what “waters of the United States” means. That is left to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. EPA’s Clean Water Rule clarified which streams and wetlands fall under federal clean water protections. Conservatives joined with farm and industry groups, including coal mining companies, in condemning the rule as a power grab and EPA overreach. The rule would have required coal mining companies to avoid practices that pollute streams and threaten drinking water supplies, monitor and report any pollution, and return waterways to their previous condition after mining operations are completed. Both Pruitt and Trump have negatively characterized the rule as an example of federal overreach that will hurt farmers and other businesses (Erbentraut 2017). Democrats on Freshwater

As far back as 1956, when the Democratic Party platform declared that “the conservation of water is essential to the life of the Nation,” Democrats have been more willing than their Republican counterparts to use state and federal authority to meet water quality and water conservation goals. Beginning in 1960, the party acknowledged that a supply of freshwater is essential to the U.S. economy and is a national problem. Thus, they supported the development of a comprehensive national water resource policy, but they also called for cooperation among federal, state, and local governments and interested private groups in order to create a balanced, multiple-purpose plan for each major river basin. They also recognized the need to revise these plans in the future. They supported federal involvement in planning, coordinating, and financing pollution control, directly stating that “states and local communities cannot go it alone” (Democratic Party Platforms 1960). Throughout the rest of the 1960s, the Democrats did not address water pollution or conservation as specifically as they had in 1960, but they included general, broad statements about addressing water degradation from pollution, as well as support for accelerating programs to enhance the quality of water. In 1972, the Democratic platform pledged to protect Native American water resources and to support federal funding for such specific projects as purification and conservation of water and air resources as well as waste management. The Democrats also reiterated their support for expanding federal funding to assist local governments with both the capital and operating expenses of water pollution control and solid waste management. In 1976 Democrats continued to express support for protecting the water rights (and also land and civil rights) of Native Americans, though as in 1972 the platform offered little in the way of specifics to meet that goal. The party also recognized both rural and urban water supply issues and indicated that controlling the proliferation of dangerous chemicals was a necessary part of a successful national health program.

F r es h water U s e a nd P o ll ut i o n

The Democratic Party platforms of 1980 and 1984 offered more extensive remarks on water policy than ever before. The document explicitly recognized the scarce water supplies of the western United States, and called for development of a national water program, to not only support the West’s needs but also respond “to the needs of each region of our country in an active and effective manner . . . [that] recognizes the social effects of water projects” (Democratic Party Platforms 1984). Responding to some of the antienvironment policies of the Reagan administration, the Democratic Party made it clear that it supported revitalizing the EPA by providing it with a budget increase to better meet its obligations to protect the American people and the nation’s natural resources, including its rivers and lakes. They found a more active role for the federal government in developing a national water policy while working with affected state governments on cooperative financing and sharing of decision-making authority and responsibility. The party also called for providing assistance to the states, to help them better address growing problems of groundwater depletion and contamination. Lastly, the party also promoted international cooperation on water pollution. The platforms produced by the Democrats during the 1990s seemed to pull away from endorsements of specific actions or plans in favor of more general praise for the “strong actions” taken by President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore to make the country’s air and water cleaner. These actions included a strengthening of the Safe Drinking Water Act, including rules that required America’s 55,000 water utilities to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water. Also, under the Clinton administration, the number of Americans whose tap water met all federal standards increased to more than 90 percent, compared to 79 percent in 1993 when Clinton first took office (White House Staff 2001). Lastly, Democrats emphasized that when the Republican Congress voted to cut environmental enforcement resources by 25 percent during Clinton’s first term, Democrats voted against it (Democratic Party Platforms 1996). In the presidential election of 2000, Democratic nominee Al Gore put special emphasis on the health and vitality of the Great Lakes. Speaking of Lake Michigan, Gore stated that “the lake is cleaner than it has been in years and the fish are coming back. I pledge to do more to make the lakes as great as they truly can be: to cut the mercury from power plants that makes fish dangerous to eat, to prevent fresh-water diversion, to clean up toxic hot spots, to take on invasive species, and to work with local communities to ensure that pollution never closes our beautiful beaches again” (Wilke 2000). The 2000 and 2004 Democratic Party platforms briefly addressed water pollution and purity, but also acknowledged the water problems in the cities—as compared to Republicans, who tend to emphasize water problems in rural areas. From 2009 to early 2017, when Democrat Barack Obama held the Oval Office, most public and media attention focused on the Obama administration’s economic, health care, and Iraq policies. But the Obama administration also developed a

69

70

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

robust agenda on environmental protection issues, including reinvigorating the EPA’s authority to protect and preserve America’s freshwater resources. In 2012, Barack Obama stated that these policies were founded to provide a national clean water framework and to protect America’s waters for future generations: “I am working to ensure the integrity of the water Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming and fishing, and that support farming, recreation, tourism and economic growth. My Administration released a national clean water framework aimed at developing a comprehensive approach to protecting the health of America’s waters. Through partnerships with communities around the country, we are working to improve water quality, and restore rivers and critical watersheds . . . To help with water scarcity concerns in the West and elsewhere, I am supporting water conservation programs. My administration has awarded 92 grants to water conservation projects that will save enough water for an estimated 950,000 people. We are also working collaboratively with communities around the country on how to best manage freshwater resources in a changing climate” (OntheIssues Staff, 2012a). The 2012 Democratic Party platform also addressed protecting Native American water rights, but Obama received criticism—especially from progressives who usually ally themselves with Democrats—for doing little to address the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy. The pipeline is a proposed 1,172-mile oil project that would shuttle half a million barrels of North Dakota–produced oil to refining markets in Illinois and would pass through North Dakota’s Lake Oahe, a burial site sacred to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and a major source of drinking water for the community. Should the pipeline burst, it would greatly impact the drinking water. Protests against the pipeline grew to encompass over 100 Native American tribes, as well as sympathizers from a wide range of other socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. The protests began in March 2016 and continued until December 2016, when the outgoing Obama administration’s Army Corps of Engineers blocked the construction of a disputed segment of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The victory was short-lived for opponents of the pipeline, however—in January 2017 the Trump administration paved the way for the pipeline to continue. In their 2016 platform, Democrats continued to express their support for the EPA, including its mission to protect the nation’s water supply. The platform stated that Democrats “are committed to closing the Halliburton loophole that stripped the EPA of its ability to regulate hydraulic fracturing, and ensuring tough safeguards are in place, including Safe Drinking Water Act provisions, to protect local water supplies” (Democratic Party Platforms 2016). The party also addressed the Flint, Michigan, fiasco. Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential candidate in 2016, was “outraged” over the water pollution crisis in Michigan and vowed she would do everything she could to fix it if she were president. She also called out Michigan’s Republican governor Rick Snyder for his inaction even after the dimensions of the crisis were becoming clear (Scher 2016). Some conservative news coverage of Hillary Clinton’s remarks, however, observed that during his days

F r es h water U s e a nd P o ll ut i o n

as governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton grappled with his own public health crisis surrounding drinking water. “The issue of government inaction in response to a deteriorating water supply is one that should be familiar to Clinton,” wrote the conservative Washington Free Beacon. “In Arkansas, her husband was the target of criticism for standing idly by as the state’s powerful chicken industry contaminated the drinking water supply for 300,000 people with 500,000 tons of chicken waste from northwest Arkansas” (Scher 2016). Teri J. Walker Further Reading American Rivers Staff. n.d. “How Sewage Pollution Ends Up in Rivers.” American Rivers .org. Accessed March 30, 2017. https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/clean -water/sewage-pollution/. Bennett, Dashiell. 2013. “Half of All U.S. Rivers Are Too Polluted for Our Health.” The Atlantic, March 27. Accessed March 30, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/national​ /archive/2013/03/half-all-us-rivers-are-too-polluted-our-health/316027/. Bjerga, Alan. 2015. “The Great Plains’ Looming Water Crisis: Depletion of a Giant Aquifer Threatens Vital U.S. Farmland.” Bloomberg Businessweek, July 2. Accessed March 30, 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-02/great-plains-water-crisis -aquifer-s-depletion-threatens-farmland. Butler, Kiera. 2012. “America’s Top 10 Most-Polluted Waterways.” Mother Jones, April 2. Accessed April 4, 2017. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/top-10 -polluted-rivers-waterways. Daily Mail Reporter. 2013. “More Than HALF of U.S. Rivers Are Too Polluted to Support Life as Shocking Report Reveals Scale of Water Contamination.” Daily Mail, March 27. Accessed March 30, 2017. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300022/More -HALF-U-S-rivers-polluted-support-life-shocking-report-reveals-scale-water-contami​ nation.html. Democratic Party Platforms. 1956. “1956 Democrat Party Platform,” August 13. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. ttp://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/?pid=29601. Democratic Party Platforms. 1960. “1960 Democrat Party Platform,” July 11. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29602. Democratic Party Platforms. 1972. “1972 Democrat Party Platform,” July 10. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29605. Democratic Party Platforms. 1980. “1980 Democrat Party Platform,” August 11. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29607. Democratic Party Platforms. 1996. “1996 Democrat Party Platform,” August 26. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29611. Democratic Party Platforms. 2012. “2012 Democrat Party Platform,” September 3. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=101962.

71

72

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democrat Party Platform,” July 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. Erbentraut, Joseph. 2017. “Donald Trump’s Assault on Clean Water Laws Has Already Begun.” Huffington Post, February 22. Accessed April 4, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com /entry/trump-stream-protection-rule-clean-water_us_58add04ee4b03d80af717914. Kika, Stacy. 2013. “EPA Survey Finds More Than Half of the Nation’s River and Stream Miles in Poor Condition.” Environmental Protection Agency, March 26. Accessed March 30, 2017. https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb8525 7359003fb69d/26a31559bb37a7d285257b3a00589ddf!OpenDocument. Krantz, Adam. 2012. “Democratic and Republican Platforms Show That Clean Water Is a Bipartisan Issue.” NACWA The Water Voice (blog), September 11. Accessed March 30, 2017. http://blog.nacwa.org/democratic-and-republican-platforms-show-that-clean -water-is-a-bipartisan-issue/. OntheIssues Staff. 2012a. “Barack Obama in Romney vs. Obama on ScienceDebate.org.” OntheIssues.org. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2012 _Science_Debate_Barack_Obama.htm. OntheIssues Staff. 2012b. “Mitt Romney in Romney vs. Obama on ScienceDebate.org.” OntheIssues.org. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.ontheissues.org​/Archive/2012 _Science_Debate_Mitt_Romney.htm. OntheIssues Staff. 2016. “ScienceDebate.org: Donald Trump—Regulations by Unelected Officials Reward Special Interests.” OntheIssues.org. Accessed March 31, 2017. http:// www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2016_ScienceDebate_Environment.htm. Plumer, Brad. 2013. “How Long Before the Great Plains Runs Out of Water?” Washington Post, September 12. Accessed March 30, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com​ /news/wonk/wp/2013/09/12/how-long-before-the-midwest-runs-out-of-water/?utm​ _term=.b85ce4c10531. Portman, Robert. 2015. “Fighting for Ohio.” Email message, July 31. Accessed March 31, 2017. https://dcinbox.herokuapp.com/email/6f918182288c21721ecb612d05e2b9fa/. Republican Party Platforms. 1960. “Republican Party Platform of 1960,” July 25. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/?pid=25839. Republican Party Platforms. 1968. “1968 Republican Party Platform,” August 5. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/?pid=25841. Republican Party Platforms. 1972. “1972 Republican Party Platform,” August 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=25842. Republican Party Platforms. 1976. “1976 Republican Party Platform,” August 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=25843. Republican Party Platforms. 1980. “1980 Republican Party Platform,” July 15. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=25844. Republican Party Platforms. 1996. “1996 Republican Party Platform,” August 12. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=25848.

F r es h water U s e a nd P o ll ut i o n

Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform,” July 18, 2016. The American Presidency Project, online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. Accessed March 31, 2017. https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/. Saad, Lydia. 2011. “Water Issues Worry Americans Most, Global Warming Least.” Gallup, March 28. Accessed March 30, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146810/water -issues-worry-americans-global-warming-least.aspx. Scher, Brent. 2016. “That Time the Clintons Had Their Own Water Pollution Scandal.” The Washington Free Beacon, January 15. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://freebeacon.com /politics/clintons-own-water-pollution-scandal/. USGS Staff. 2014. “Summary of Estimated Water Use in the United States in 2010.” United States Geological Survey. Accessed March 30, 2017. https://pubs.usgs.gov /fs/2014/3109/pdf/fs2014-3109.pdf. USGS Staff. 2016a. “Ground Water Depletion.” United States Geological Survey. Accessed March 30, 2017. https://water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html. USGS Staff. 2016b. “How Much Water Is There On, In, and Above the Earth?” United States Geological Survey. Accessed March 30, 2017. https://water.usgs.gov/edu /earthhowmuch.html. White House Staff. 2001. “Protecting Our Environment and Public Health.” In President William J. Clinton—Eight Years of Peace, Progress and Prosperity Report. Accessed April 4, 2017. https://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-08.html. WWF Staff. 2016. “Water: Our Rivers, Lakes, and Wetlands . . .” WWF Global. Accessed March 30, 2017. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/.

73

Fuel and Energy Efficiency Standards

At a Glance

In the wake of the oil crisis that rocked the U.S. economy in the early 1970s, Congress introduced mandatory fuel and energy efficiency standards that required the federal government to set and enforce minimum requirements for the fuel economy of corporate fleets (Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards) and the energy efficiency of a wide range of consumer appliances, from air conditioners to televisions. Over the ensuing decades, Congress and relevant federal agencies have raised these standards incrementally and have expanded them to cover more types of appliances and equipment. Congress passed the laws that included these requirements with bipartisan support, and both Republican and Democratic presidents have signed them into law. The laws have nevertheless been controversial within both parties. Some Republicans have expressed concern that the standards have increased costs and reduced choices for consumers, while some Democrats are concerned that the standards are not stringent enough and may not be as effective as more far-reaching regulations. Overall, however, most liberals are supportive of them, while most conservatives do not consider them a high priority for either support or derision. A poll conducted in 2014 by the Pew Research Center, for example, found that 66 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of Democrats favor requiring better fuel efficiency for cars and trucks (Pew Research Center 2014). Many Republicans . . .

• Believe that mandatory fuel and energy efficiency standards involve a rebound or backfire effect that reduces or eliminates any energy savings they create by incentivizing consumers to use their vehicles and appliances more • View fuel economy standards as a threat to public safety because they may lead to consumers buying vehicles that are smaller and less safe • Consider them to be unnecessary regulations that limit consumer choice and put American jobs at risk

F ue l a nd E ner g y E f f ici en cy S ta nd a r d s

• Contend that these regulations needlessly raise costs for consumers and manufacturers Many Democrats . . .

• Argue that mandatory fuel and energy efficiency standards enhance national security because they reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil • Cite the significant environmental benefits of the standards in terms of reductions in air pollution, improvements in public health, and mitigation of climate change, even when rebounds are taken into account • Claim that the standards create substantial savings for consumers and are particularly beneficial for low-income households • Believe that they increase employment, incentivize technological innovation, and enhance American economic competitiveness

Overview

America’s first mandatory fuel and energy efficiency standards were included in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, which was enacted in response to the oil embargo of the United States by Libya, Saudi Arabia, and most of the other Arab oil-producing countries two years earlier (Yergin 1991). In addition to establishing a strategic petroleum reserve and a ban on the export of U.S. crude oil, the act required the Department of Transportation to establish Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which were initially set at 18 miles per gallon in 1978 for passenger cars (the pre-EPCA fleet average was 13.9 mpg). These standards increased incrementally to 27.5 mpg in 1990 (five years later than required by EPCA), where they remained until 2010. In the Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988, Congress enabled manufacturers to earn up to a 1.2-mpg credit for producing “dual fuel” vehicles that can use both regular gasoline and an alternative fuel, such as ethanol, hydrogen, or batteries (Government Accountability Office 2007; Hall 2011). Separate and lower CAFE standards were also set for light trucks, which include pickup trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (SUVs). In 1996, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) raised these standards to 20.7 mpg; they remained there until 2005, when they were increased to 22.2 mpg by 2007 (Union of Concerned Scientists n.d.). Between 1975 and 2005, light trucks increased from less than 20 percent to nearly 50 percent of the US passenger vehicle market (Government Accountability Office 2007). In 2007, the NHTSA created a new structure for the light truck CAFE standard. Beginning in model year 2011, this standard would be based on a vehicle’s “footprint,” the product of the length between its front and rear axles and the width between the tires. Light trucks with smaller footprints would have to meet a higher standard than those with larger

75

76

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

footprints. Eleven states, the District of Columbia, the City of New York, and four public interest groups petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review this new rule, and the court ruled that the rule did not adequately take into account the effects of carbon dioxide emissions and did not guarantee a minimum average fuel economy, or “backstop.” The court also held that the rule continued to allow SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks to meet a lower standard than cars; did not cover all vehicles in the 8,500–10,000-lb. gross vehicle weight rating class; and was not accompanied by a full Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007). The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) superseded the NHTSA’s rule and raised the fuel economy standards of cars, light trucks, and SUVs to a combined average of 35 mpg by 2020 (and to the “maximum feasible fuel economy standard” between 2021 and 2030). EISA also requires that these standards be based on one or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy, and it provides added flexibility to the existing credits trading program by increasing the number of years that credits could be carried forward, allowing manufacturers to sell credits to other companies and to transfer a limited number of credits between their car and truck fleets. This new law was enacted in response to growing public concern about rising fuel prices, the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and the contributions of vehicle emissions to climate change (Hall 2011). The Bush administration developed new standards under EISA but did not implement them due to the 2008 financial crisis. In 2009, the Obama administration announced new fuel efficiency standards under EISA as well as a new national program to coordinate the NHTSA’s regulation of CAFE standards, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases (as mandated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA), and the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) regulation of automobile emissions within the state of California. The administration set 39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for trucks by model year 2016 as its new fuel efficiency standard, which was supported by autoworker unions and 10 auto manufacturers (Javers and Allen 2009). Two years later, a new agreement with 13 automakers, the United Auto Workers, and California established a 54.5-mpg standard for cars and light trucks by model year 2025 (Union of Concerned Scientists n.d.). A 2016 report by EPA, NHSTA, and CARB found that manufacturers were making significant progress toward this goal, but the report concluded that 50–52.6 mpg may be more realistic due to consumer purchasing preferences (Automotive News 2016). EPCA also requires EPA to establish energy efficiency improvement targets for 14 categories of consumer products, including refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, water heaters, central and room air conditioners, furnaces and other home heating equipment, televisions, kitchen ranges and ovens, humidifiers and dehumidifiers, and any product whose average annual perhousehold energy use is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours. The law requires EPA to determine whether these targets are technologically feasible, economically

F ue l a nd E ner g y E f f ici en cy S ta nd a r d s

justified, and likely to be achieved. If EPA concludes that the targets are feasible and justified, but are not likely to be achieved, even after the introduction of energy efficiency labels, then the agency is required to issue energy efficiency standards for the related product categories. In the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) of 1978, Congress amended the EPCA to require the Secretary of Energy to develop and enforce such standards (U.S. Department of Energy 2017b). The Carter administration began this process but was unable to complete it before the inauguration of Republican Ronald Reagan, whose administration determined that standards were not needed because they would not result in significant energy savings, as required by NECPA. However, new energy efficiency standards continued to be set by California and other states, and the courts ultimately overturned the determination by the Reagan administration. As a result, appliance manufacturers agreed to national standards being set by Congress if their preemption of state-level laws was strengthened. Thus the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) of 1987 included specific energy efficiency standards for a modified list of 12 types of consumer products. This law also provided the foundation for the incorporation of efficiency standards for lamps, commercial heating and air-conditioning equipment, and electric motors in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added standards for illuminated exit signs, traffic signal modules, pedestrian modules, unit heaters, medium base compact fluorescent lamps, dehumidifiers, ice makers, and commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; it also outlined schedules for the development of standards for battery chargers, external power supplies, ceiling fans, and refrigerated beverage vending machines. Specific standards for external power supplies, residential boilers, walk-in coolers, and freezers were added in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as were significantly higher standards for general service incandescent lamps. Two years later, EISA introduced new or updated standards for 13 products (U.S. Department of Energy 2017b; Sachs 2012; Nadel and Goldstein 2017). Each of these laws set forth specific schedules and deadlines for setting and updating standards for these different product categories. While 22 of these deadlines had been missed when Democratic president Barack Obama came into office, by August 2016 his administration had met all of them and had issued a large number of additional standards as well (45 in total) (Mooney 2016). In January 2017, however, the new administration of Republican Donald Trump placed a freeze on four nearly finished standards for portable air conditioners, walk-in coolers and freezers, commercial boilers, and uninterruptible power supplies (Mooney 2017). Republicans on Mandatory Fuel and Energy Efficiency Standards

Republicans have voiced a number of concerns about mandatory fuel and energy efficiency standards, and these concerns will likely animate any action by the Trump administration in this policy area. Opponents of these standards commonly

77

78

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

emphasize the possibility of rebound effects, which occur when improvements in efficiency cause changes in behavior that offset associated reductions in energy use. For example, an increase in fuel economy may cause car owners to drive more because gas is cheaper. Similarly, a study carried out by professor of economics Robert Michaels at California State University, Fullerton, found that a rebound effect decreased the 30 percent projected energy savings from fuel-efficient refrigerators in Mexico to 7 percent because consumers chose larger capacities and energy-intensive options like ice makers. A related backfire effect occurs when this associated increase in energy use actually is more than the savings from the energy efficiency standard itself (Michaels 2012). In the eyes of some Republicans who might agree with the goal of creating energy savings, such standards are deeply problematic because they may actually increase energy use. Other Republicans are more concerned about the effects of these mandatory standards on the American consumer. Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA), who owns several auto dealerships, has argued that “the new [2017–2025] CAFE standards will limit choice, compromise safety, and increase costs to millions of Americans” (Kennedy 2012). Safety is a particularly salient issue for some Republicans; for example, Darrell Issa (R-CA) has asserted that “higher fuel efficiency standards is a goal I share—but not at the expense of consumer safety” (Kennedy 2012). These Republicans fear that standards may incentivize automakers to produce lighter automobiles that use less fuel but protect passengers less effectively. John Graham, who served as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in George W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget, has catalogued the potential dangers associated with smaller cars—they may, for example, be more likely to roll over, be less safe when they collide with guardrails, and have less space to absorb the force of a crash (Coon 2001). A Heartland Institute article cites studies estimating that CAFE standards have contributed between 1300 and 3900 deaths each year (Taylor 2002). Concerns about increases in cost and decreases in choice are also commonly cited in Republican circles. A scholar from the Heritage Foundation used previous trends, international comparisons, and comparisons with other types of goods to conclude that CAFE standards required by EISA added $3975 to $7,140 to the average price of a new vehicle (Furth and Kreutzer 2016). The author also asserted that the standards “severely limit consumers’ ability to make their own choices concerning safety, comfort, affordability, and efficiency” (Furth and Kreutzer 2016). This argument was the basis of concerns about the energy efficiency standards for lamps mandated by EISA, which caused the discontinuation of many incandescent lightbulbs that could not meet the new standards (Greenwald 2013). In response to these concerns, in 2011 Republican Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (R-MN) introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act because “government has no business telling an individual what kind of bulb to buy” (Kasperowicz 2011). The bill was not adopted, but the Republicans have successfully included a related amendment—proposed by Michael Burgess (R-TX) in appropriations

F ue l a nd E ner g y E f f ici en cy S ta nd a r d s

legislation since 2011—that prohibits the use of funds to enforce these standards (Natter 2014). Many Republicans fear that restricting people’s freedom to choose can have unintended consequences; for example, one likely replacement for incandescent bulbs is compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), although they contain mercury, which may present a danger to consumers if the bulbs are broken (Greenwald 2013). Conservatives also worry about the economic effects that these mandatory standards have on American businesses and jobs—particularly on the auto industry. As Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated, “[the CAFE standard program implemented by the Obama administration] undermines global competiveness and will hurt the country’s long-term economic potential” (Inhofe 2016). At a House hearing in September 2016, Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, estimated that the current goal of doubling fuel economy by 2025 would cost the auto industry $200 billion over 13 years (Automotive News 2016). In January 2017, Ford Motor Company CEO Mark Fields reportedly told President Trump that the current fuel economy standards could put 1 million U.S. jobs at risk (Butters 2017), which corresponds with the highest estimate reported in a 2016 study by the industry-funded Center for Automotive Research (McAlinden et al. 2016). Auto industry representatives have also expressed concern about the feasibility of meeting these standards. Echoing these apprehensions, President Trump has claimed that fuel efficiency requirements are “industry-killing regulations,” and he has announced that his administration will be reevaluating the standards for this reason (DeCicco 2017). Other conservatives oppose mandatory efficiency standards because they view them as an obstacle to innovation and, in some cases, a form of corporate welfare. Representative Michael Burgess (R-TX) believes, for example, that government requirements become the “ceiling” of performance (Cama 2016). Katie Tubb and her colleagues at the Heritage Foundation assert that these standards are used to “prop up” politically preferred companies that have lobbied for the standards because they benefit their bottom line (Tubb, Loris, and Larkin 2016). Many of these conservatives propose, in place of energy and fuel efficiency standards, relying on the market, consumers, and voluntary programs to drive innovation and improvements in efficiency. One such program is ENERGY STAR, which is jointly managed by EPA and the Department of Energy and is designed to identify, label, and promote products that are energy-efficient, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and help businesses and individuals save money. Not all Republicans have opposed mandatory energy and fuel efficiency standards, however. EISA, for example, was signed into law by George W. Bush and was passed 86–8 in the Senate and 314–100 in the House with significant Republican support. Many conservatives supported the Bush administration’s move to attribute-based fuel efficiency standards, which mitigated some of their concerns about safety and consumer choice, as they allowed for different requirements for vehicles with different sizes and attributes. More generally, eight of the nine laws

79

80

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

passed that regulate energy efficiency were signed by Republican presidents, with over 85 percent of the House and Senate voting in favor of them (CFA Staff 2017b). And according to a 2017 Consumer Federation of America (CFA) poll, two-thirds of Trump voters and self-declared Republicans have expressed support for strong fuel economy standards (as did 80 percent of Hillary Clinton voters). Democrats on Mandatory Fuel and Energy Efficiency Standards

While the 2016 Republican Party platform does not specifically mention efficiency standards, the 2016 Democratic Party platform states that “Democrats are committed to defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including . . . fuel economy standards for automobiles and heavy-duty vehicles, building codes and appliance standards.” Thus Democrats appear to prioritize this issue more highly and be more unified around it than Republicans. Democrats generally perceive energy efficiency standards as having important benefits for national security, the environment, the economy, and public health that resonate with their core policy goals. The contributions of energy efficiency standards to national security was strongly emphasized by Democrats as they rallied support for EISA in 2007. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), for example, stated that CAFE standards are a critical component of a comprehensive approach to reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil (United States Senate Democrats 2007). The U.S. Senate’s Democratic Policy Committee asserted that the new fuel economy standards would save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, which represents over half of the 2 million barrels saved by EISA overall and nearly 10 percent of the oil imported by the United States. Closely coupled with national security is an emphasis on the environmental benefits of these standards. The Democratic Policy Committee (2007) stated that the EISA fuel economy standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 192 million metric tons annually, while the U.S. Department of Energy (2014) reported that the 10 energy efficiency standards finalized in 2014 will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 435 million metric tons through 2030. Progressive advocates of these standards also emphasize their public health benefits. As Afif El-Hasan of the American Lung Association explains, “A strong federal rule on fuel efficiency standards and greenhouse gas reductions will promote healthier lungs and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits for respiratory and cardiac illnesses” (American Lung Association 2016). And the Natural Resources Defense Council asserts that the energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment contribute to reductions in air pollutants from power plants—such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury—that increase asthma symptoms, allergies, neurological impacts, heart attacks, and premature deaths (NRDC Staff 2014). Democratic sources also provide evidence of the positive benefits for consumers and the economy that challenge the Republican claims discussed above. The

F ue l a nd E ner g y E f f ici en cy S ta nd a r d s

Democratic Policy Committee initially estimated that the fuel economy standards required by EISA would save drivers $700 to $1,000 per year, and the Obama administration estimated that the net savings over the lifetime of the average vehicle from 2022 to 2025 would be $1,650 (Environmental Protection Agency 2017; Democratic Policy Committee 2007). Estimates from a study commissioned by Consumer Reports were even higher, with a typical car saving $3,200 and a typical truck saving $4,800 over its lifetime (Comings, Allison, and Ackerman 2016). The total net benefits to society—including consumer, climate, and public health benefits—are estimated to be $230 billion, with benefits outweighing costs by an 8-to-1 ratio (Environmental Protection Agency 2016). This adds to the $50 billion in net benefits created by the 2014–2018 standards, and further updates to existing standards could increase these savings by $65 billion by 2050 (Environmental Protection Agency 2016; Urbanek 2017). As for energy efficiency requirements for appliances and equipment, the Obama administration estimated that the 30 standards completed between 2009 and 2014 would save households and businesses $480 billion in energy costs through 2030 (U.S. Department of Energy 2014). Approximately $15 billion of these savings would come from the new indoor lighting standard discussed above. Consumer Reports credits these standards for catalyzing improvements in the efficiency of household appliances, highlighting the fact that the average energy use of refrigerators and clothes washers decreased by 50 percent and 75 percent, respectively, between 1987, when the program went into effect, and 2010, while their costs went down by 35 percent and 45 percent (Kuruvilla 2016). Overall, energy efficiency standards are credited with saving the typical household $320 per year on energy bills in 2015, which will increase to $460 annually by 2030 (Kuruvilla 2016). Regarding the concern about standards reducing consumer choice, proponents emphasize how the attribute-based approach introduced by the Bush administration for light trucks and adopted by EISA for all models is not biased against any particular type of vehicle. Larger vehicles have different (and lower) standards than smaller ones, enabling consumers to choose from vehicle sizes while still being able to purchase relatively fuel-efficient vehicles (CFA Staff 2017b). As for the controversy surrounding incandescent lightbulbs, Democratic lawmakers and officials assert that the new rule will create dramatic cost savings for consumers, given how inefficient incandescent bulbs can be (90 percent of their energy is dissipated as heat). Democratic congress member Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) has defended the lightbulb standards on the floor of the House, stating that the “the average American family will save about $100 every year. That is $13 billion in savings nationwide every year” (U.S. House of Representatives 2015). The Department of Energy similarly estimates that upgrading 15 traditional incandescent bulbs will save the individual consumer $50 per year (U.S. Department of Energy 2017a). It also notes that various specialty lightbulbs are exempt from the standards. Other sources note that CFLs may actually reduce the amount of mercury in the environment, because coal-fired power plants release far more of the neurotoxin (Zeller 2009).

81

82

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Some liberals and conservatives have also expressed apprehension that these standards may have a disproportionately negative effect on lower-income citizens. Proponents of the requirements, however, argue that they are particularly beneficial to these citizens, who often spend a larger percentage of their income on gas and energy. Low-income households typically spend 7.2 percent of their income on energy costs (including utility bills for both electricity and heating), which is more than triple the percentage that higher-income households spend. Because these lower-income citizens are often renters, these households also do not have much control over their appliances, and their landlords do not have much incentive to purchase energy-efficient appliances. By requiring landlords to buy energyefficient appliances, these standards help households save both energy and money. For example, a study by the Department of Energy found that, for 98 percent of low-income or senior-only households, dishwasher standards had either no effect or a net benefit (Urbanek 2016). Democrats have also emphasized the benefits of fuel and energy efficiency standards to American companies and the broader economy. In 2017, for example, Democrats publicized figures indicating that over the seven years since new fuel economy requirements were established, automobile companies had created 700,000 jobs while increasing sales and outperforming the new standards (Blades 2017). The CFA argues that these standards directly increase employment by making driving cheaper and auto ownership more attractive. In one of the six scenarios reported in the Center for Automotive Research study cited above, the new 2022–2025 fuel economy standards would create 144,020 jobs by 2025 (McAlinden et al. 2016). The CFA also cites the fact that automakers have generally been supportive of these standards, as they provide “better clarity where the road goes and how the hill to climb is going to be,” as a former Toyota top executive explains (Broder 2007). The Democratic Policy Committee has also asserted that fuel economy requirements helps improve the competitiveness of U.S. auto manufacturers by incentivizing them to “bring advanced vehicle technologies into the commercial mainstream.” Proponents of these standards also argue that concerns about the rebound and backfire effects cited above are overblown. Research published in Nature concludes that “a vast academic literature shows that rebounds are too small to derail energyefficiency policies,” as they reduce savings from these polices by only 20–60 percent (Gillingham et al. 2013). Some progressives have instead complained that existing standards do not go far enough. For example, the Center for Biodiversity, the Environmental Defense, and the International Council on Clean Transportation have all argued that various iterations of the CAFE standards would fail to adequately address the pollution and climate change effects of automobiles. Others assert that alternative policies such as carbon taxes and mileage-based user fees would more effectively accomplish environmental, efficiency, equity, and budgetary goals (DeGood and Madowitz 2007; Portney et al. 2003). Graham Bullock and Nicholas Trevino

F ue l a nd E ner g y E f f ici en cy S ta nd a r d s

Further Reading American Lung Association. 2016. “Strong Fuel Economy Standards Key to Fighting Climate Change and Protecting Public Health.” American Lung Association, July 18. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/Key-to -Fighting-Climate-Change.html. Automotive News. 2016. “GOP Lawmakers Challenge CAFE Standard.” Automotive News, September 21. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.autonews.com/article/20160921 /OEM11/160929935/gop-lawmakers-challenge-cafe-standard. Blades, Meteor. 2017. “Eleven Senators Send Letter to EPA’s Pruitt Calling for Fuel Economy Standards Not to Be Rolled Back.” Daily Kos, March 8. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/8/1641449/-Eleven-senators-send-letter-to -EPA-s-Pruitt-calling-for-fuel-economy-standards-not-to-be-rolled-back. Broder, John M. 2007. “House, 314–100, Passes Broad Energy Bill; Bush Plans to Sign It.” New York Times, December 19. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/19energy .html. Butters, Jamie. 2017. “Ford CEO Told Trump U.S. Fuel-Economy Rules Risk 1 Million Jobs.” Bloomberg.com, January 27. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://www.bloomberg .com/news/articles/2017-01-27/ford-ceo-told-trump-u-s-fuel-economy-rules-risk -1-million-jobs-iygg9wja. Cama, Timothy. 2016. “GOP Bill Would Repeal All Efficiency Standards.” The Hill, February 12. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment /269270-gop-bill-would-repeal-all-efficiency-standards. CFA Staff. 2017a. “Poll Finds Trump Voters Support MPG Targets.” Press Release. Consumer Federation of America, January 9. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://consumerfed .org/press_release/poll-finds-trump-voters-support-mpg-targets/. CFA Staff. 2017b. “Auto Fuel Economy Myth Busters: Ten Facts About the Current MPG Targets.” Consumer Federation of America, January 24. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://consumerfed.org/press_release/auto-fuel-economy-myth-busters-ten-facts -current-mpg-targets/. Comings, Tyler, Avi Allison, and Frank Ackerman. 2016. “Fueling Savings: Higher Fuel Economy Standards Result in Big Savings for Consumers.” Synapse Energy Economics, September 7. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://consumersunion.org/wp-content /uploads/2016/09/Fueling-Savings-Consumer-Savings-from-CAFE-2025.pdf. Coon, Charli. 2001. “Why the Government’s CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, Not Increased.” Heritage Foundation, July 11. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/07/cafe-standards-should-be-repealed. DeCicco, John. 2017. “The ‘Job-Killing’ Fiction Behind Trump’s Retreat on Fuel Economy Standards.” Yale Environment 360, March 20. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://e360.yale .edu/features/trump-fuel-economy-cafe-standards-decicco. DeGood, Kevin, and Michael Madowitz. 2007. “Switching from a Gas Tax to a MileageBased User Fee.” Center for American Progress, July 11. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/07/11/93657 /switching-from-a-gas-tax-to-a-mileage-based-user-fee/. Democratic Policy Committee. 2007. “Ten Reasons to Support the Democratic Energy Bill.” DPC.senate.gov, December 6. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.dpc.senate.gov /dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-196. ENERGY STAR. 2017. “History & Accomplishments.” Accessed April 28, 2017. https:// www.energystar.gov/about/history.

83

84

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. “EPA and DOT Finalize Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucks.” Accessed August 16, 2016. https://www .epa.gov/newsreleases/heavydutyaug162016. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Final Determination on the Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022–2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards under the Midterm Evaluation.” Accessed June 12, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites /production/files/2017-01/documents/420r17001.pdf. Furth, Salim, and David Kreutzer. 2016. “Fuel Economy Standards Are a Costly Mistake.” Heritage Foundation, March 4. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.heritage.org /government-regulation/report/fuel-economy-standards-are-costly-mistake. Gillingham, Kenneth, Matthew J. Kotchen, David S. Rapson, and Gernot Wagner. 2013. “Energy Policy: The Rebound Effect Is Overplayed.” Nature 493 (7433): 475–476. doi:10.1038/493475a. Government Accountability Office. 2007. “Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy: Preliminary Observations on Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.” Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/115680.pdf. Greenwald, Will. 2013. “What You Should Know about the 2014 Light Bulb Ban.” PC Magazine, December 14. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.pcmag.com/article2 /0,2817,2428279,00.asp. Hall, Laura. 2011. “The Evolution of CAFE Standards: Fuel Economy Regulation Enters Its Second Act.” Transportation Law Journal 39 (1): 1–29. Inhofe, James. 2016. “Inhofe Statement on EPA Fuel Economy Standards.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, November 30. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/11/inhofe-statement-on-epa -fuel-economy-standards. Javers, Eamon, and Mike Allen. 2009. “Obama Announces New Fuel Standards.” Politico, May 18. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22650 .html. Kasperowicz, Pete. 2011. “Bachmann: Let There Be (Incandescent) Light.” The Hill, March 2. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/147007-bach mann-let-there-be-incandescent-light. Kennedy, George. 2012. “House Republicans Urge White House to Delay 2017–2025 Fuel Economy Standards.” Autoblog.com, August 22. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/22/house-republicans-urge-white-house-to -delay-2017-2025-fuel-econo/. Kuruvilla, Jason. 2016. “Consumers Benefit from Efficient Appliances.” Consumers Union, July 28. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://consumersunion.org/2016/07/con sumers-benefit-from-efficient-appliances/. McAlinden, Sean P., Yen Chen, Michael Schultz, and David J. Andrea. 2016. “The Potential Effects of the 2017-2025 EPA/NHTSA GHG/Fuel Economy Mandates on the U.S. Economy.” Center for Automotive Research. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www .autoevolution.com/pdf/news_attachements/study-says-fuel-economy-rules-for-2025 -threaten-11-million-jobs-in-america-111481.pdf. Michaels, Robert J. 2012. “The Hidden Flaw of ‘Energy Efficiency.’” Cato Institute, August 21. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary /hidden-flaw-energy-efficiency. Mooney, Chris. 2016. “Obama Has Done More to Save Energy Than Any Other President.” Washington Post, August 5. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://www.washington

F ue l a nd E ner g y E f f ici en cy S ta nd a r d s

post.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/05/obama-has-done-more-to-save -energy-than-any-other-president/. Mooney, Chris. 2017. “Trump’s Regulatory Freeze Halts Four Obama Rules Aimed at Pro­ moting Greater Energy Efficiency.” Washington Post, January 21. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/21/this-is -how-change-comes-to-washington-detail-by-bureaucratic-detail/. Nadel, Steven, and David Goldstein. 2017. “Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards: History, Impacts, Current Status, and Future Directions.” Accessed March 19, 2017. http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/1996/data/papers/SS96_Panel2_Paper17.pdf. Natter, Ari. 2014. “Amendments on Light Bulb Standards, Gas Exports Offered to Energy Appropriations Bill.” Bloomberg BNA Energy and Environment Blog, July 10. https:// www.bna.com/amendments-light-bulb-b17179892091/. NPR Staff. 2007. “Congress Boosts Vehicle Fuel-Efficiency Mandate.” NPR.org. December 18. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId =17366844. NRDC Staff. 2014. “Strong US Energy Efficiency Standards: Decades of Using Energy Smarter.” Natural Resources Defense Council. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://pdfs .semanticscholar.org/d512/d800ad0efe33163a13df3679498616f70743.pdf. Pew Research Center. 2014. “As U.S. Energy Production Grows, Public Policy Views Show Little Change.” Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/18 /as-u-s-energy-production-grows-public-policy-views-show-little-change/. Portney, Paul R., Ian W. H. Parry, Howard K. Gruenspecht, and Winston Harrington. 2003. “Policy Watch: The Economics of Fuel Economy Standards.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (4): 203–217. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi /pdfplus/10.1257/089533003772034961. Sachs, Noah M. 2012. “Can We Regulate Our Way to Energy Efficiency? Product Standards as Climate Policy.” Vanderbilt Law Review 65 (6): 1631–1678. Taylor, James. 2002. “Senate Rejects Tighter CAFE as New Data Link Program to Thousands of Deaths.” The Heartland Institute, April 1. Accessed June 12, 2017. https:// www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/senate-rejects-tighter-cafe-as-new-data-link -program-to-thousands-of-deaths?source=policybot. Thompson, Andrea. 2007. “Coalition Calls for End of Incandescent Light Bulb.” Live Science, March 15. http://www.livescience.com/1384-coalition-calls-incandescent-light -bulb.html. Tubb, Katie, Nicolas Loris, and Paul Larkin. 2016. “The Energy Efficiency Free Market Act: A Step Toward Real Energy Efficiency.” The Heritage Foundation, August 17. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/08/the-energy -efficiency-free-market-act-a-step-toward-real-energy-efficiency. Union of Concerned Scientists. n.d. “A Brief History of U.S. Fuel Efficiency Standards.” http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy-basics.html. United States Senate Democrats. 2007. “Democratic Senators Discuss Energy Policy That Strengthens National Security and Protects Environment, Consumers.” May 23. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://democrats.senate.gov/2007/05/23/democratic-sena​ tors-discuss-energy-policy-that-strengthens-national-security-and-protects-environ​ ment-consumers/. Urbanek, Lauren. 2016. “Efficiency Standards Benefit All Income Levels. Here’s How.” National Resources Defense Council, July 27. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://www.nrdc .org/experts/lauren-urbanek/efficiency-standards-benefit-all-income-levels-heres-how.

85

86

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Urbanek, Lauren. 2017. “How Every State Benefits from Energy Efficiency Standards.” National Resources Defense Council, February 21. Accessed June 12, 2017. https:// www.nrdc.org/experts/lauren-urbanek/how-every-state-benefits-energy-efficiency -standards. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 2007. “Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA.” Accessed June 12, 2017. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions /2007/11/14/0671891.pdf. U.S. Department of Energy. 2014. “New Energy Efficiency Standards to Help Americans Save Money by Saving Energy, Cut Carbon Pollution.” Energy.gov. December 31. https://energy.gov/articles/new-energy-efficiency-standards-help-americans-save -money-saving-energy-cut-carbon. U.S. Department of Energy. 2017a. “New Lighting Standards Began in 2012.” Accessed March 19, 2017. https://energy.gov/energysaver/new-lighting-standards-began-2012. U.S. Department of Energy. 2017b. “Statutory Rules and Authorities.” Accessed March 19, 2017. https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/statutory-rules-and-authorities. U.S. House of Representatives. 2015. “Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.” Congressional Record. 114th Cong., 1st sess. Vol. 161, pt. 64—Daily Edition, April 30. Accessed June 12, 2017. https://www.congress.gov /congressional-record/2015/04/30/house-section/article/H2710-1. Yergin, Daniel. 1991. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. New York: Free Press. Zeller, Tom. 2009. “Light Bulbs Poised for a Big Change.” New York Times, March 30. Accessed June 12, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/energy-environment /30iht-green30.html.

Genetically Modified Foods

At a Glance

Though genetically modified foods have been in supermarkets since 1994, public opinion polls conducted between 2001 and 2006 found that many Americans did not know whether the food they were eating contained genetically modified ingredients or was in and of itself a genetically modified organism (GMO). During that same time period, support for the introduction of genetically modified foods into the food supply held steady at 26–27 percent, while opposition to the introduction of such foods fell from 58 percent to 46 percent over the period (Acosta 2014). However, public opinion polls since the 1990s show that today a majority of Americans—regardless of political party affiliation—consistently support GMO labeling legislation, a clear indication of broad public interest in having the right to know what is in the American food supply (Center for Food Safety n.d.). Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, argues that labeling genetically modified food is about providing consumers with information. “Safety is not the point. Almost all the labels required on food—such as ingredients and fat content—are informational. So is GMO labeling. The debate over GMO labeling is about consumers’ right to know what they are eating” (Puckett 2016). How have elected officials responded to the public’s desire for labeling of GMOs? In 2016, the Cornucopia Institute, a not-for-profit organization that strongly supports GMO labeling, released a report card on Congress in which it gave each member a letter grade based on where he or she stood on GMOrelated legislative issues since 2015. In total, 6 House members (out of 435) received an A+ on GMO-related legislation and 88 received an A or a B, while 196 representatives scored an F. Of the Republican representatives, 4 scored a B, 6 received a C, and 28 received a D. The highest-scoring representatives, dubbed by the Institute as “champions of GMO labeling,” were all Democrats, hailing from Hawaii, Maine, California (2), and New York. In the Senate, 9 senators received an A+ for their voting records on GMO-related legislation, 29 received an A or a B, and 47 received an F. Only 5 Republican senators earned as high as a B (Alaska, 2; Maine, 2; Kentucky, 1), while 1 earned a C and 5 earned a D. All other GOP senators received F grades.

88

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

The highest-scoring senators, designated as “GMO labeling champions,” were all Democrats or Democrat-aligned Independents, hailing from Connecticut, New Mexico, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Montana. Though the majority of congressional members did not receive high marks from supporters of GMO labeling, Congress did pass the first U.S. law specifically addressing GMOs and labeling when it passed the bipartisan but controversial Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, sometimes referred to by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama in July 2016. The bill was sponsored by 91 Republicans and 15 Democrats in the House, and the U.S. Senate voted 63–30 to approve a bipartisan compromise bill, the Roberts-Stabenow Biotech Labeling Act, introduced by Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Pat Roberts (R-KS). Senator Stabenow called the bill a “win for consumers and families. For the first time ever, consumers will have a national, mandatory label for food products that contain genetically modified ingredients” (Brasher 2016). Opponents of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, however, labeled it the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act because it allows the USDA to determine (1) which ingredients should be considered GMOs and (2) whether notifications of GMO packaging can be fulfilled through labels featuring pictures or a bar code that could be scanned by smartphones (rather than text, as organizations in favor of labeling prefer). The USDA is tasked with promulgating the specific GMO labeling regulations to be established by July 2018. Opposition to the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act also criticized the law for including measures that forbade states from issuing their own food labeling requirements for bioengineered foods. Republicans typically support pushing responsibilities down to the states, while Democrats typically support more federal control—but apparently not for GMO labeling.

Many Republicans . . .

• Believe the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 was sound legislation that struck a sound balance between industry interests and consumer interests • Believe the federal government should set labeling standards for GMOs, even though the typical GOP position is to support pushing regulations down to the state level • Believe genetically modified foods are safe, and environmental and public health concerns are unfounded • Believe genetically modified foods contribute to economic growth and agricultural efficiency

G enet ic a lly M o d i f i ed F o o d s

Many Democrats . . .

• Believe the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 prioritized corporate interests over public health and environmental considerations • Believe states should have the ability to pass their own GMO labeling standards • Believe federal laws pertaining to genetically modified foods should be more stringent • Believe food manufacturers that produce genetically modified foods should be required to include text labels stating that food is “produced with genetic engineering”

Overview

GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism, but other names for the process include Genetic Engineering and Genetic Modification. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally—for example, through the introduction of a gene from a different organism (that is, scientists take the gene for a desired trait in one plant or animal and insert that gene into a cell of another plant or animal). Genetic engineering was first developed in 1972 by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that GMOs can be patented, “giving large companies the incentive to rapidly develop GMO tools that could both be useful and profitable” (Rangel 2015). Calgene’s FLAVR SAVR tomato, the first genetically modified food, hit the supermarket shelves in 1994. Within the next two years, the first pesticide-producing crop and first herbicide-resistant crop were approved, and GMOs began their rapid rise. The top three GMO crops grown in the United States are soy, corn, and cotton. Based on USDA 2016 data, herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybeans went from 17 percent of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 to 94 percent in 2016; HT cotton expanded from about 10 percent of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 91 percent in 2014 (although it declined to 89 percent of total cotton acreage in 2016). The adoption of HT corn reached 89 percent of total U.S. corn acreage in 2016. Insecticide-resistant—or Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)—plantings of corn grew from about 8 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 1997 to 79 percent in 2016. Plantings of Bt cotton also expanded, from 15 percent of U.S. cotton acreage in 1997 to 84 percent in 2016. Around the world, 28 nations cultivate GMO crops, but the United States is the leading country in producing GMOs, followed by Brazil and Argentina. Currently, in the United States nine crops and GM seeds are commercially available. These include not only corn, soybeans, and cotton, but also canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, papaya, squash, potatoes, and apple. It has been estimated that 75 percent

89

90

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

The Big 6 Influence The “Big 6” agribusiness corporations that dominate the production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by virtue of their prominence in the world’s seed, pesticide, and biotech industries are Syngenta (based in Switzerland); Bayer and BASF (based in Germany); and Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, and DuPont (in the United States). Some people argue that these companies control the fate of food and farming and have unprecedented power over world agriculture. These companies have all fought against GMO labeling. The consolidation of agricultural power with these six highly competitive companies (some of which are reportedly negotiating mergers that could further centralize control) has left many farmers and consumers uneasy. Farmers worry that reduced competition in the marketplace is giving these companies too much control over the prices of seeds and chemicals, and consumers worry that further mergers will usher in a “new era of sterile crops soaked in dangerous pesticides.” Consolidation in the agribusiness industry also tends to concentrate political power, as giant firms lobby governments to shape the rules of the food system in ways that support their interests. Others are concerned that the spread of the industrial agricultural model is also likely to have devastating ecological effects. Sources MacDonald, James M. 2017. “Mergers and Competition in Seed and Agricultural Chemical Markets.” USDA Amber Waves, April 3. Accessed May 4, 2017. https://www.ers.usda .gov/amber-waves/2017/april/mergers-and-competition-in-seed-and-agricultural -chemical-markets/. Purdy, Chase. 2016. “Six Companies Are about to Merge into the Biggest Farm-Business Oligopoly in History.” Quartz, September 20. Accessed May 4, 2017. https://qz.com/786382 /monsanto-bayer-dupont-dow-chemical-and-syngenta-defend-their-coming-oligopoly-mon -dd-dow-syt/.

of processed foods on supermarket shelves—from soda to soup and crackers to condiments—contain genetically engineered ingredients. GM foods continue to be controversial, however, despite their ever-widening presence on supermarket shelves. A 2016 ABC News survey found that 52 percent of Americans believe GM foods are unsafe, and an additional 13 percent are unsure about them; 93 percent favor mandatory labels on genetically modified foods, with 57 percent of respondents indicating that they would use those labels to determine whether to avoid a product (Langer 2016). Proponents and opponents of GM foods offer the following arguments about the benefits of and concerns about genetically modifying food production and supply. Proponents of GM food insist that benefits of the technology are many and varied. They say GM food does the following: • Provides more nutrition • Enhances taste

G enet ic a lly M o d i f i ed F o o d s

• Creates disease- and drought-resistant plants that require fewer environmental resources (such as water and fertilizer) • Requires less use of pesticides • Increases supply of food with reduced cost and longer shelf life • Produces faster-growing plants and animals • Produces food with more desirable traits • Has the potential for creating medicinal foods that could be used as vaccines or other medicines • Lowers the price of food, which particularly benefits people on limited incomes and poor people around the world • Allows farmers to grow more crops on less land • Reduces greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activity, because of yield increases Opponents of GM food counter that, in fact, GM food does the following: • Provides less nutrition • Creates foods that can cause an allergic reaction or that are toxic • Can result in unexpected or harmful genetic changes • Runs the risk of GMO genes contaminating non-GMO plants and animals, threatening natural biodiversity • Further accelerates the shift in control of food production from traditional agriculture to biotechnology companies and industrial agriculture corporations, making it more difficult for people to abstain from certain foods for religious purposes • Contributes to soil erosion • Is an inefficient food model • Results in taxpayer subsidies to GM food operators Environmental organizations argue that by tampering with the genes of important crops and livestock, companies are putting profits over safety and are provoking unforeseen health, environmental, and socioeconomic consequences. On the other side of the argument, the biotechnology industry argues that GM foods are essential to feeding a world population that is constantly growing. Not only are environmentalists and biotech industries at odds over GM foods, but the science community is divided as well. The Union of Concerned Scientists (USC), for example, argues that more research needs to be done on the long-term effects of these new crops on the environment and on the people eating them (POV Staff 2002). The USC takes the position that the risks of genetically engineered foods have been exaggerated, but so have the benefits. They recognize the potential benefits of the technology, but they also support continued advances in molecular biology—the underlying science of genetic engineering (GE)—as well as independent scientific research on GE risks and benefits. They argue that there are better, more cost-effective options. UCS supports expanding research funding for public crop breeding programs and

91

92

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

incentives to develop and adopt agroecologically based farming systems, clearly identified GE food labeling laws, as well as a more rigorous approach to GE product approvals (Union of Concerned Scientists 2017). Biologists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), meanwhile, are in disagreement about the technology. A plant molecular biologist sees the fears over health risks as “bogus,” but a cellular biologist at the same school warned that a lot of “naïve science has been involved in pushing this technology.” The latter researcher also charged that “biologists who point out health or other risks associated with GM crops—who merely report or defend experimental findings that imply there may be risks—find themselves the focus of vicious attacks on their credibility, which leads scientists who see problems with GM foods to keep quiet” (Freedman 2013). A wide assortment of such scientific organizations as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, and the World Health Organization, however, find these concerns are unwarranted. These organizations insist that there is general consensus that GM foods are safe, and that there is “no solid evidence that GM foods pose a greater risk to consumers than their non-modified counterparts” (Emery and Reynolds 2015). The controversy over GMOs is worldwide. Total or partial bans on GMOs are in effect in 26 nations; significant restrictions on GMOs exist in about 60 other countries. In 2015, a majority of the European Union nations blocked the cultivation of new GMOs within their borders, and Russia and Bulgaria issued a ban on both cultivation and imports. Many of the nations that prohibited GMO cultivation continued to allow GMO products to be imported, however (GMO FAQ 2016; GMWatch 2016). Luis Acosta, senior legal information analyst for the Law Library of Congress, reported that compared to regulation in other countries, U.S. regulation of GMOs is mostly favorable to their development because of the economically important component that the biotechnology industry contributes to the U.S. economy. Between 1996 and 2012, U.S. farmers were the largest beneficiaries of higher incomes, garnering an estimated $53.2 billion in extra income from GMO crops (Brookes and Barfoot 2014). GMOs are regulated pursuant to health, safety, and environmental legislation governing conventional products. The U.S. approach to regulating GMOs is premised on the assumption that regulation should focus on the nature of the products, rather than on the process by which they were produced (Acosta 2014). Because genetic engineering of food and other products is a broad issue with a number of subtopics under its umbrella, several different agencies regulate the technology in the United States. Plant GMOs are regulated by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service under the Plant Protection Act. GMOs in food, drugs, and biological products are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act. GMO pesticides and microorganisms are regulated by the Environmental

G enet ic a lly M o d i f i ed F o o d s

Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. The form of regulation varies depending on the type of GMO involved. Many states have considered their own GMO regulation, with GM food labeling laws a particular focus. But, agribusinesses fought against mandatory labeling laws for GM foods—even though 64 other countries around the world and 89 percent of Americans voters are in support of it (Chow 2016). EcoWatch reported that at least 30 states introduced some type of GMO labeling legislation, and that 3 states actually passed GMO labeling mandates (Chow 2016). Vermont’s law required producers to disclose when products include genetically engineered ingredients, and it was set to go into effect July 1, 2016, with Connecticut and Maine measures contingent on bordering states’ adopting similar requirements. But the passage of the federal Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 preempted and voided all current and future GMO labeling laws by the states. The federal law has been referred to by critics as “Deny Americans the Right to Know,” or the DARK Act, because of its ambiguity. The stated purpose of the act is to regulate the distribution and labeling related to bioengineered foods, but the FDA said that the definition of bioengineering in the bill is too narrow and would not apply to many foods that come from genetically engineered sources (Lempert 2016). The act also gives producers labeling options: (1) plain words on a package’s label; (2) a symbol (which has yet to be designed, and which may or may not be universal across products); (3) a 1-800 number that consumers must call to get information on the product’s genetically modified ingredients; (4) or a QR code (a square symbol) that has to be scanned with a smartphone, which will take the consumer to a website for GMO information (Amelinckx 2016). Critics also assert that the law appears to contain no penalties for lack of compliance and no authorization to recall products that are not properly labeled (Lempert 2016). These shortcomings led Independent Senator (and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate) Bernie Sanders to condemn the bill as “confusing, misleading and unenforceable” (Sanders 2016). The USDA reports that the department has established a working group to develop a timeline for rulemaking and to ensure an open and transparent process for effectively establishing this new program. Professor Laura Murphy, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic at Vermont Law School, believes the new law is the opposite of transparency. “If Congress were really interested in providing consumers with information, it could have adopted Vermont’s on-package label that companies are already using across the country. Instead, Congress created a mechanism for companies to hide behind QR codes and trample on state efforts to provide their citizens with actual information. As if this weren’t bad enough, the federal law has a confusing definition of bioengineering that gives USDA the authority to determine how much of a product needs to be bioengineered before a label is required, and prevents even the food companies from certain types of disclosure” (Greenberg 2016.)

93

94

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

An influential factor in whether elected officials support mandatory labeling laws may be lobbying efforts. According to Govtrack Insider staff (2016), Grocery Manufacturers of America (the trade group that argued for the QR, for “Quick Response,” code approach and represents food companies, including Coca-Cola, Dole, and General Mills) and various chemical companies (including Bayer, Dow, and Syngenta) spent $8.5 million on lobbying the federal government in 2015. The bulk of their lobbying disclosure forms list “food labeling” and related legislation as a central focus of their discussions with legislators and government officials. Likewise, in 2015 Monsanto listed the Department of Agriculture (tasked with providing the specifics of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act) as a target of 10 of the lobbying firms representing the company. No other federal agency was subjected to as much lobbying from firms representing Monsanto. Companies like Whole Foods Market, General Mills, and Dannon had their own plans to provide information to consumers regarding the presence of GMOs in food products. After the GMO labeling law passed through Congress, Whole Foods announced its commitment to its own package labeling plan, stating that “our position has always been to support mandatory labeling of GMO foods through clear, on-package language, not QR codes or 1-800 numbers” (Kerner 2017). Republicans on Genetically Modified Food

The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act was originally introduced in April 2014 by Mike Pompeo (R-KS)—a representative of a state with an economy that revolves heavily around agriculture. Pompeo’s bill was sponsored by 34 Republicans and 3 Democrats. It passed the GOP-controlled House in July 2015, but it was never passed by the Senate. When Pompeo reintroduced it in March 2015, it was sponsored by 91 Republicans and 15 Democrats. In a press statement, Pompeo asserted that “the legislation takes an approach that is far better than a 50-state patchwork of GMO labelling laws,” and he offered his own assessment that “GMOs are safe and have a number of important benefits for people and our planet” (Govtrack Insider Staff 2016). The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act passed the House in July 2015 by a vote of 275–150, with 230 Republicans and 45 Democrats voting in favor and 12 Republicans and 138 Democrats voting against. After the bill passed, Jared Polis (D-CO) offered an amendment to change the title of the bill to “A bill to enact the ‘Deny Americans the Right to Know Act’ or the ‘DARK Act.’” It failed 87 to 337; 86 Democrats and 1 Republican voted for it and 241 Republicans and 96 Democrats voted against it. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act passed the Senate 63–30, with 42 Republicans and 21 Democrats voting for passage and 7 Republicans and 21 Democrats voting against. Though the bill was supported by a majority of Republicans, it was controversial within some sectors of the party. In a letter to President Obama, Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) called the legislation a “sham bill that pretends to offer disclosure but in truth has so many loopholes that it is meaningless.” Buchanan also stated, “Food labeling needs to be simple and clear. QR codes and telephone

G enet ic a lly M o d i f i ed F o o d s

numbers do not meet that definition. What mother shopping with her children is going to stop in the middle of the food aisle to call a company or go on a website to check the content of every product they would like to buy?” (Wheeler 2016). In the Senate, an agreement (the Stabenow–Roberts GMO bill) was reached between the parties after weeks of negotiation. According to Senator Pat Roberts, Republican from the agricultural state of Kansas, the legislation was necessary in order to address the threat of proliferating state laws on GM food labeling. “What we face today is a handful of states that have chosen to enact labeling requirements on information that has nothing to do with health, safety, or nutrition,” he said, calling those state laws a “wrecking ball” for the food supply (Kollipara 2016). Roberts wanted a voluntary labeling law, but the agreement reached required companies to disclose which of their products contain genetically modified ingredients. However, the Stabenow–Roberts compromise gave companies a range of options for disclosure. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) insisted that the bill constituted a victory for farmers and consumers: “I worked to ensure that any agreement would recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe, while also making sure consumers have the right to know what is in their food” (U.S. Senate Staff 2016). Senator Roberts stated, “From my perspective, it’s not the best possible bill, but it’s the best bill possible under the difficult circumstances we find ourselves in today” (Strom 2016). Republican Senator Ben Sasse of the farm state of Nebraska, however, voted against the measure because he opposed mandatory labels for products that have been shown to harm health. “I fear that this approach puts us on a path that will ultimately hurt Nebraskans by putting a liberal agenda ahead of sound science” (Johnson 2016). Some critics have asserted that money influenced Senator Roberts’s legislation. Govtrack Insider staff (2016) reported that according to OpenSecrets, Roberts received $945,201 in campaign funds from political action committees (PACs) and individuals tied to the agricultural services and products sector, more than he received from any other industry. His top agricultural donors work for ConAgra Foods (donations total $55,000), a company that, according to their press materials, “does not support mandatory labeling on a state by state basis.” It remains to be seen how the Trump administration will affect implementation of the GMO labeling law. On the campaign trail, Trump said he supported the use of biotechnology in food and opposed efforts to require mandatory labeling just because a food contains GMOs. Sonny Perdue, Trump’s Secretary of the USDA, is viewed generally as antiregulation, and President Trump has expressed plans to review and repeal regulations he considers burdensome to business and least critical to health and safety. Democrats on Genetically Modified Foods

The battle over GMO labeling was keenly observed in the Senate. When Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), Senate Agriculture Committee chair, introduced legislation in February 2016 that would set up a federal voluntary GMO labeling system, as well

95

96

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

as preempt state laws that would require GMO labeling, his proposal cleared the committee by a 14–6 vote, including support from three Democrats: Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND) and Amy Klobuchar (MN). But other Democratic senators were opposed to Robert’s bill. Harry Reid (D-NV) asserted that “this is just another case of the Republicans in the Senate trying to create an appearance of doing something without really doing anything at all.” Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) also criticized the bill, stating that “quite frankly, voluntary standards are no standards at all.” In March 2016, Senate Democrats managed to block Robert’s effort, forcing the Kansas Republican to seek a compromise between the parties. The compromise came in the form of the Stabenow–Roberts GMO bill, a bill that had no hearings, no public input, and no committee debate, and was rushed to be introduced (Roseboro 2016). The compromise required labeling of genetically modified foods, but it left the manufacturers with many options for disclosure. Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) spoke for many in his party when he said the bill is “not what’s in the interests of the American consumer, but what a few special interests want.” Stabenow defended the bill, however, stating that it would spare both consumers and food manufacturers from navigating “a confusing patchwork of 50 different rules in each state.” In July 2016, the Senate passed the bill 63–30. A large majority of Republicans supported the measure, but the Democrats were evenly split, with 21 for and 21 against. Did money influence Senator Stabenow’s compromise? According to OpenSecrets (2014), she received more contributions from the crop production industry than any other senator. In the 2012 cycle, the industry sent more than $346,000 to her campaign account, with PACs from the Dairy Farmers of America and Monsanto each giving more than $7,000. Overall though, the agricultural services and crop production industries, and the agribusiness sector as a whole, have heavily favored Republicans. Teri J. Walker Further Reading Acosta, Luis. 2014. “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States.” Library of Congress. Accessed April 27, 2017. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions -on-gmos/usa.php. Amelinckx, Andrew. 2016. “What You Need to Know About the New GMO Labeling Law.” Modern Farmer, August 8. Accessed April 27, 2017. http://modernfarmer .com/2016/08/gmo-labeling-law/. Brasher, Philip. 2016. “Roberts, Stabenow Reach Deal on GMO Labeling.” AgriPulse, June 23. Accessed April 27, 2017. https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/7169-roberts -stabenow-reach-deal-on-gmo-labeling. Brookes, Graham, and Peter Barfoot. 2014. “Economic Impact of GM Crops: The Global Income and Production Effects 1996–2012.” GM Crops & Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain 5 (1): 65–75. Accessed April 27, 2017. http://www.tandf​ online.com/doi/full/10.4161/gmcr.28098.

G enet ic a lly M o d i f i ed F o o d s

Center for Food Safety. n.d. “U.S. Polls on GE Food Labeling.” Accessed May 1, 2017. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge -food-labeling#. Chow, Lorraine. 2016. “8 Battleground States in the GMO Food Labeling Fight.” Eco​ Watch, January 29. Accessed April 27, 2017. http://www.ecowatch.com/8-battleground -states-in-the-gmo-food-labeling-fight-1882162099.html. Emery, Eugene C., Jr., and Mark Reynolds. 2015. “Sen. Donna Nesselbush: three quarters of processed foods have genetically modified organisms.” Politifact, March 22. Accessed April 27, 2017. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015 /mar/22/donna-nesselbush/sen-donna-nesselbush-three-quarters-processed-food/. Feinberg, Freddie. 2014. “Special Interests Heavily Involved in Farm Bill Maneuvering.” Opensecrets.org, January 30. Accessed May 1, 2017. https://www.opensecrets.org /news/2014/01/special-interests-heavily-involved/. Freedman, David H. 2013. “The Truth about Genetically Modified Food.” Scientific American, September 1. Accessed April 27, 2017. https://www.scientificamerican.com /article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/. GMO FAQ. 2016. “Where Are GMOs Grown and Banned?” Genetic Literacy Project. Accessed April 28, 2017. https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/where-are-gmos -grown-and-banned/. GMWatch. 2016. “Twenty-Six Countries Ban GMOs—Why Won’t the US?” Food Democracy Now (blog), August 16. Accessed April 28, 2017. http://www.fooddemocracynow.org /blog/2016/aug/16. Govtrack Insider Staff. 2016. “Senate to Vote on Blocking States from Requiring Labels on GMO Foods.” Govtrack Insider, March 15. Accessed May 1, 2017. https://govtrack​ insider.com/senate-to-vote-on-blocking-states-from-requiring-labels-on-gmo-foods -270f315920a9. Greenberg, Jonathan. 2016. “Obama Expands Monsanto Doctrine by Signing DARK Act And Invalidating Vermont GMO Labeling Law.” Huffington Post, August 11. Accessed May 1, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-signs-dark-act-to-invalidate -vermonts-landmark_us_57a644c7e4b0ccb023727b2d. Johnson, Nathanael, 2016. “Senate Passes GMO-Labeling Bill.” Grist.org, July 6. Accessed May 1, 2017. http://grist.org/business-technology/congress-passes-gmo-labeling-bill/. Kerner, Glenn S. 2017. “Food for Thought: The Federal GMO Labeling Law.” Food Safety Magazine, February/March. Accessed April 30, 2017. http://www.foodsafety magazine.com/magazine-archive1/februarymarch-2017/food-for-thought-the-federal -gmo-labeling-law/?EMID=. Kollipara, Puneet. 2016. “Opposition Stalls U.S. Senate Bill Aimed at Blocking GMO Food Labels.” Science, March 17. Accessed May 1, 2017. http://www.sciencemag.org /news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo-food-labeling-bill-us-senate. Langer, Gary. 2016. “Poll: Skepticism of Genetically Modified Foods.” ABC News, June 19. Accessed April 28, 2017. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1. Lempert, Phil. 2016. “Sorry Food Industry, the Historic GMO Food Labeling Bill Is Anything But.” Forbes, August 1. Accessed April 28, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites /phillempert/2016/08/01/sorry-food-industry-the-historic-gmo-food-labeling-bill-is -anything-but/#11a2ec406926. Meyer, Nick. 2016. “Election Primer 2016: Members of Congress Graded on GMO Stances in New Report.” March Against Monsanto. Accessed April 28, 2017. http:// www.march-against-monsanto.com/election-primer-2016-new-report-grades -members-of-congress-on-gmo-stances.

97

98

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

POV Staff. 2002. “Genetically Modified Foods.” PBS, July 9. Accessed April 27, 2017. http://www.pbs.org/pov/hybrid/genetically-modified-foods/. Puckett, Lily. 2016. “Why the New GMO Food-Labeling Law Is So Controversial.” Huffington Post, April 20. Accessed April 30, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com /teen-vogue/why-the-new-gmo-foodlabel_b_9738698.html. Rangel, Gabriel. 2015. “From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology.” Science in the News, August 9. Accessed April 28, 2017. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu /flash/2015/from-corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/. Roseboro, Ken. 2016. “GMO Labeling Efforts Reveal Best and Worst of Democracy.” Huffington Post, July 29. Accessed May 3, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken -roseboro/gmo-labeling-efforts-reve_b_11219534.html. Sanders, Bernie. 2016. “The Stabenow-Roberts GMO Bill Is Confusing, Misleading and Unenforceable. It Does Nothing to Make Sure Consumers Know What They’re Eating.” Twitter, July 6. Accessed May 1, 2017. https://twitter.com/sensanders/status /750712336109957120. Strom, Stephanie. 2016. “G.M.O. Labeling Bill Clears First Hurdle in Senate.” New York Times, July 6. Accessed May 2, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/business /gmo-labeling-bill-passes-first-hurdle-in-senate.html. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2017. “Genetic Engineering in Agriculture.” Accessed May 9, 2017. Accessed May 1, 2017. http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture /our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.WRHBndxOnIU. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. “Recent Trends in GE Adoption.” Accessed April 27, 2017. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops -in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption/. U.S. Senate Staff. 2016. “Stabenow Applauds Senate Passage of Mandatory, Nationwide GMO Labeling Legislation.” U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, July 7, 2016. Accessed April 27, 2017. https://www.agriculture.senate.gov /newsroom/dem/press/release/passage. Wheeler, Lydia. 2016. “House Republican Pushes Obama to Veto GMO Labeling Law.” The Hill, July 21. Accessed April 29, 2017. http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environ​ ment/288695-house-republican-pushes-obama-to-veto-gmo-labeling-law.

Grazing

At a Glance

The vast tracts of public lands that are used by ranchers for livestock grazing in the American West have long been the subject of bitter political conflicts that divide Democrats and Republicans. Support for less regulated grazing lands tends to fall along geographical and partisan lines, with Democrats tending to favor stricter regulation of grazing due to the environmental consequences of the practice, and Republicans tending to favor greater access to public lands in the western range and lower grazing permit fees for western ranchers. Yet partisan sorting of grazing policy is made complicated by the geographical divide that separates westerners and nonwesterners. Western Democrats, for instance, have historically been more likely to support less restrictive grazing policies than other members of their party further east, while nonwesterners from both political parties tend to be less sympathetic to the interests and desires of the livestock industry, which regularly frames federal regulation of rangelands as onerous. Many Democrats . . .

• Believe that higher grazing permit fees and stricter regulation of grazing on public lands place sensible limits on unfettered access to public lands and, thus, prevent harm to sensitive ecosystems located on those lands • Believe that higher grazing permit fees and stricter regulation of grazing on public lands undo harm of public lands that are already in poor condition due to the damage caused by livestock grazing • Believe that higher grazing permit fees and stricter regulation of grazing on public lands protect riparian zones—the areas ripe with vegetation that occur along waterways • Believe that higher grazing permit fees and stricter regulation of grazing on public lands restore freedom of movement for wildlife on public lands that are affected by fencing installed by ranchers • Believe that higher grazing permit fees and stricter regulation of grazing on public lands will lower taxpayer subsidies that accrue to western corporate

100

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

ranching interests, and will redistribute some of the fees back into the states and communities from which they are drawn Many Republicans . . .

• Believe that higher grazing permit fees and stricter regulation of grazing on public lands cause harm to the competitiveness of the livestock industry and ranchers who depend on subsidized permitting fees to make improvements—like fencing, pest control, and water delivery—to the public range • Believe that higher grazing permit fees and stricter regulation of grazing on public lands give the federal government too much control and influence over lands that would be better managed by states, counties, and local stakeholders

Overview

Grazing policy in the United States has a history dating back to the early 20th century, when regulations designed by U.S. Forest Service director Gifford Pinchot required that ranchers purchase permits before they could graze their livestock on national forest lands (Layzer 2016). Today, federal grazing policy is administered by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency created when president Harry S. Truman combined the Grazing Service and the General Land Office in 1946. Nearly a decade earlier, Congress had passed the Taylor Grazing Act (1934): major federal legislation dealing with access to federal public lands. This legislation, signed into law by Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt, was created in response to rampant and environmentally destructive overgrazing stemming from free access to public lands in the western range—as well as in response to violence that erupted among competing cattlemen in their quest for grazing resources (Clarke and McCool 1996). The Taylor Grazing Act, which gave Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes authority to establish grazing districts on over 80 million acres of public lands and to devise a permitting system for access to those lands, was introduced by Representative Edward Taylor (D-CO) and easily passed into law by a 265–92 vote with overwhelming Democratic support. Only 8 Democrats voted against the bill, while 258 Democrats voted in support of it. Meanwhile, only 5 Republicans voted in support of the Taylor Grazing Act, while 82 Republicans voted in opposition to it. Yet, problems with grazing on public lands did not cease with passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, because the BLM had become “captured” by western ranchers by the early 1940s (Clarke and McCool 1996). Agency capture occurs when agencies advance the interests of the stakeholders they have authority to regulate. Much of the interest and activism over grazing policy occurs in the American West and

G r a z i ng

so, without much interest from nonwesterners, western ranching interests could dominate grazing policy with help from their local members of Congress. This usually meant that ranchers successfully resisted efforts by the BLM to raise the cost of grazing permit fees, thus keeping the cost of grazing permits at a fraction of what they were on comparable private lands. The BLM finally—30 years after its creation—received a statutory mission with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, which made the retention of public lands a stated federal policy and required the BLM to manage lands based on the Multiple Use Doctrine. The Multiple Use Doctrine, criticized for its ambiguity, requires that federal lands be managed so that a variety of complementary activities can occur (e.g., preservation, recreation, scientific activities, etc.). When the FLPMA was voted on in the U.S. Senate, it passed by a vote of 78–11, with only Republicans opposing to the bill, most of whom came from the western states. The margin of victory was much closer in the House, with the bill passing 169–155. This time, the bill had an almost equal number of Democratic supporters (107) in comparison to Democrats opposed to the bill (106), while the 62–49 margin of Republicans favoring passage of the bill guaranteed its passage. It was signed into law by Republican president Gerald Ford. During the late 1970s, Democratic president Jimmy Carter’s efforts to reform grazing policy met head-on with the Sagebrush Rebellion, a populist movement that swept across the American West in the 1970s and early 1980s in a backlash against the rise of the environmental movement. Leaders of the Sagebrush Rebellion, including numerous conservative lawmakers and officials in the West, advocated for the transfer of federal lands to state control. Throughout the Carter years, the relationship between the federal government and the western states had grown antagonistic, so much so that when Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, a westerner from California, was campaigning for the presidency, he declared, “Count me in as a rebel” (Bump 2016). President Reagan signaled strong support for the ranching community by installing Robert Burford, a rancher from Colorado, to head the BLM and by nominating James Watt, former president of the conservative Mountain States Legal Foundation, to head the Department of the Interior. During those years, the fees paid by ranchers who used public lands for grazing were five times lower than fees charged on similarly situated private lands (Layzer 2016), and to this day much of the debate about grazing policy centers on the issue of grazing fees on public land. The debate over regulation of grazing on public lands in the United States remains one that elicits strong emotions. The most notable dispute that attracted widespread media attention in the 2010s involved a Clark County, Nevada, rancher named Cliven Bundy. Disavowing federal regulation of public lands and rejecting the legitimacy of the federal government’s claim to western public lands, Bundy refused to recognize the authority of the federal government to collect fees through the distribution of grazing permits. In fact, he stopped paying grazing fees in 1993. Bundy nevertheless continued allowing his livestock to graze on BLM

101

102

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Standoff at Bundy Ranch Cliven Bundy is a cattle rancher from Clark County, Nevada, who has come to be understood by some western ranching activists as a conservative folk hero, while his critics view him as nothing more than a scofflaw. For more than two decades, Bundy has been locked in conflict with the federal government and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over his unauthorized use of federal grazing land. The dispute began in 1993, when the BLM sought to protect the endangered desert tortoise by eliminating livestock grazing on thousands of acres of federal land. Since then, Bundy has refused to pay fines for using that land, claiming that “I have no contract with the United States government. . . . I was paying grazing fees for management and that’s what BLM was supposed to be, land managers, and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay” (Fields 2014). In response to Bundy’s accumulation of unpaid fees, the BLM began impounding Bundy’s livestock, which caused militiamen from all across the country to arrive in Nevada to support the rancher. Bundy’s supporters brandished firearms and blocked Interstate 15, causing BLM personnel to stand down and return Bundy’s cattle to him. Among Bundy’s most outspoken supporters was Nevada Republican assemblywoman Michele Fiore, who blamed the federal government for the standoff. As she explained, “Generally, when our federal government comes in armed, we are expecting a bigger problem, maybe terrorists crossing the border, not an unpaid bill” (Miller 2016). Bundy was arrested at the airport in Portland, Oregon, on February 10, 2016, after disembarking from a plane on his way to Burns, Oregon, where his sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy had orchestrated the takeover of the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge (Zaitz 2016). Ammon and Ryan Bundy had seized the wildlife refuge to protest the arrest of Dwight and Steven Hammond who were being held in federal prison after having been convicted on federal arson charges from setting fire on Bureau of Land Management land (Perkowski 2015). Cliven Bundy and his sons are currently being held in federal prison awaiting trail for conspiracy and weapons charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada stemming from their 2014 standoff with the federal government in Nevada. Sources Fields, Liz. 2014. “Civilian Militia Remains at Bundy Ranch after Standoff Ends,” ABC News, April 19. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-militia -remain-bundy-ranch-standoff-ends/story?id=23394097. Miller, Michael E. 2016. “Michele Fiore, the gun-toting, calendar-posing politician who negotiated the Ore. occupiers’ surrender.” Washington Post, February 11. Accessed April 15, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/11/michele-fiore -the-gun-toting-calendar-posing-politician-who-negotiated-the-ore-occupiers-surrender /?utm_term=.23b3dc204fba. Perkowski, Mateusz. 2015. “Judge Sends Oregon Ranchers Back to Prison.” Capital Press, October 7. Accessed August 8, 2017. http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007 /judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison. Zaitz, Les. 2016. “Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy Arrested by FBI in Portland.” The Oregonian, February 10. Accessed April 15, 2017. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016 /02/nevada_rancher_cliven_bundy_de.html.

G r a z i ng

land, accumulating up to $1 million dollars in unpaid fines and penalties owed to the federal government. In 2014, the BLM sought to take possession of Bundy’s livestock to recoup his delinquent fines, but these actions caused a group of militia members, property rights activists, and other supporters to mobilize in support of Bundy at his ranch in an armed standoff with the federal government (Botkin and Brean 2014). The federal government retreated in order to avoid a shoot-out, but Bundy was later arrested in February 2016 after arriving in Portland, Oregon, to attend the trial of his sons—who had fallen into legal trouble of their own after they participated in the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon, in the winter of 2016 (Zaitz 2016). The standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge brings into clear focus the conflicts that erupt over federal land management and ranchers in the West. The conflict began in 2001 after Dwight and Thomas Hammond, who owned grazing permits on BLM land, faced federal arson charges for lighting 139 acres of public land on fire after illegally slaughtering several deer on it (U.S. Department of Justice 2015). In 2006, during a fire ban that BLM had imposed because of the outbreak of fires caused by lightning strikes, the Hammonds started a backfire on land adjacent to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge; the fire they set eventually spread to public land (U.S. Department of Justice 2015). This arson conviction carried with it a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, which the Hammonds argued was unconstitutional; the trial judge agreed with them. When the case came to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015, however, the panel of judges reversed the lower court’s decision and required that a five-year mandatory sentence be imposed on the Hammonds. It was the Ninth Circuit’s decision that caused protestors to descend on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, arguing that the federal government had no constitutional authority over the refuge, because when a state is admitted to the Union, that state is admitted with all of the property under its jurisdiction as its own (called the Article IV Equal Footing Doctrine). If states retain control of land under their jurisdiction when admitted into the union, then, the protestors argued, the federal sentence that had been imposed on the Hammonds was without constitutional merit. Republicans on Grazing

Even though conflicts over grazing are influenced by geography, both Republicans and Democrats have articulated distinct positions on issues relating to grazing on public lands. Although political attitudes about livestock grazing have gone understudied, there is some empirical evidence, such as the study that explored attitudes among respondents in Idaho, which suggests that conservatives tend to be more supportive of grazing than liberals (Reyna, McNamee, and O’Neill 2014). In previous eras, however, Republicans were more supportive of strong federal range management. It was not until after the administration of Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, a famous conservationist, that Republicans began shifting their position in favor of more local control of public lands.

103

104

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Almost immediately after the Civil War, the Republican Party focused its attention on national economic development—and that meant opening the western United States to settlers for development. In the Republican Party platforms of 1872 and 1876, a portion of the document announced opposition to “further grants of the public lands to corporations and monopolies” and demanded “that the national domain be devoted to free homes for the people” (Republican Party Platforms 1876). With the turn of the century, the effect of overgrazing and unfettered access to public lands began taking its toll. That probably explains why Theodore Roosevelt charged in his 1901 State of the Union speech that public lands had been “denuded of surface vegetation by overgrazing” (Roosevelt 1901). Four years later, he pressed Congress to “take control of the open range, under reasonable regulations. . . . It is probable that the present grazing value of the open public range is scarcely more than half what it once was or what it might easily be again under careful regulation” (Roosevelt 1905). In 1906, Roosevelt sent a special message to Congress, calling for legislation that would give the Department of Agriculture the authority to write rules for the regulation of public lands and to collect grazing fees. In his 1907 State of the Union address, he warned that “destruction of the public range will continue until some such laws as these are enacted” (Roosevelt 1907). Roosevelt’s effort to seek congressional legislation to regulate public lands bore little fruit, and it was not until the Democratic-dominated governing coalition of the New Deal was in place that Congress acted to regulate western grazing. After the New Deal and passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, Republicans became highly critical of BLM land management. The Republican Party’s 1952 platform promised to eliminate “arbitrary bureaucratic practices [and] to define the rights and privileges of grazers and other cooperators and users . . . and to protect the public against corrupt or monopolistic exploitation and bureaucratic favoritism” (Republican Party Platforms 1952). After the election of Republican president Dwight Eisenhower, Republicans listed among their achievements the “improvement of western grazing lands through reseeding programs, water-spreading systems, and encouragement of soil-and moisture-conservation practices by range users.” The party also promised to “improve . . . grazing management” (Republican Party Platforms 1956). When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, Republicans promised to support the livestock industry by keeping grazing fees as low as possible. Their platform stated, “We recognize the need for appropriate multiple-use policy on federal range lands and retention of a fair and equitable grazing fee policy as has been established by the Reagan Administration” (Republican Party Platforms 1988). This support for ranchers extended into the administration of Republican George H. W. Bush, when the Republican Party reiterated its “commit[ment] to the multiple use of our public lands. We believe that ranching . . . on our public lands can be conducted in a way compatible with [its] conservation. . . . Our public

G r a z i ng

lands should not be arbitrarily locked up and put off limits to responsible uses” (Republican Party Platforms 1992). During the Clinton presidency, Republicans became harshly critical of Clinton’s grazing policies and used their criticism of his policies on the western range to generate political advantage during the 1994 midterm elections. In their 1996 platform, Republicans “condemn[ed] the Clinton Administration’s range war against this pillar [the livestock industry] of the western economy” (Republican Party Platforms 1996). The Republican Party platform specifically argued for a “thorough review” of public lands to determine which should be transferred to states, counties, and municipalities, while also arguing that “renewable rangeland should continue to be available under conditions that ensure both expanded production of livestock and protection of the rangeland environment” (Republican Party Platforms 1996). In 2000, Republicans renewed their “call for a review of lands owned by the national government” and advocated for the “transferring or sharing responsibility for managing those lands with state or local governments, while all levels of government should recognize existing rights to water, minerals, and grazing” (Republican Party Platforms 2000). If the transfer of public lands to western states sat high atop the Republican wish list, then the 2016 presidential election showed little movement on that front. Donald Trump’s victory suggested that public lands would remain under federal control for the time being. As a candidate in the Republican presidential primary, Trump was asked whether he supported transferring federal lands to the states; he responded, “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. . . . I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold” (Mitchell 2016). It became clear that Trump was sincere in his support for retaining federal lands when he nominated Ryan Zinke (R-MT), also a supporter of federal land retention, to lead the Department of the Interior. Trump’s actions do not mean that modern-day Republicans have lost interest in transferring federal lands to the states. Republicans, for instance, promised to “pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to the states . . . [because] residents of state and local communities know best how to protect the land where they work and live” (Republican Party Platforms 2016). In one of the first actions by the newly elected 2017 GOP-controlled Congress, Utah Representative Rob Bishop, one of the longest-serving supporters of federal land transfers on the Republican side, spearheaded changes to the U.S. House’s rules that would make it easier to transfer federal lands to state, local, and tribal governments. There have not yet been any dramatic departures specifically in the area of grazing policy since President Trump took office; grazing fees are still determined by the PRIA formula (Tanaka 1993) established in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. However, the administration sent signals that it will be more sympathetic to grazing interests

105

106

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

when it signed into law Congress’s reversal of Obama’s BLM Planning 2.0 rule, which required greater public and nonprofit participation in BLM’s long-term land use plans (Maffly 2017). Democrats on Grazing

Contemporary Democrats, influenced by the environmentalism of the 1960s and 1970s, tend to support stronger environmental protection of public lands, but their position has significantly evolved through the years. In almost all of their platforms from 1872 through 1904, the Democratic Party’s policy on western lands related to making them widely available to small landholders, but in 1908 the party for the first time dedicated a portion of its platform to the issue of grazing. At that time, the party announced its position that “the establishment of rules and regulations . . . in relation to free grazing upon the public lands . . . should be left to the people of the States respectively in which such lands may be situated” (Democratic Party Platforms 1908). During the New Deal, the Democratic Party’s position on federal grazing policy shifted to one that opted for strong federal regulation of the public range, in large part because the range had become overcrowded and also because unsustainable land use practices in the Midwest had caused national agricultural and ecological ramifications during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. When Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, he shortly thereafter signed into law the landmark Taylor Grazing Act, announcing in a statement that “authority to exercise these powers [to regulate grazing] is safeguarded against impairment by State or local action” (Roosevelt 1934). After the passage of this law, the Democratic Party, in its 1940 platform, boasted of “the incomparable development of the public land states under the wise and constructive legislation of this [Roosevelt] Administration” (Democratic Party Platforms 1940). The party also promised to continue “such policies, based primarily on the expansion of opportunity for the people, as will encourage the full development . . . of the great resources—mineral, agricultural, livestock, fishing and lumber—which the West affords” (Democratic Party Platforms 1940). Eight years later, the Democratic Party platform promised the expansion of “programs for . . . the improvement of grazing lands, public and private” (Democratic Party Platforms 1948), yet in 1956 the party warned against efforts “to transform grazing permits from a revocable license to a vested right” (Democratic Party Platforms 1956) and promised to reject any efforts to do so. By the 1960s, the Democratic Party began using language in its platform that reflected the broader pressures being placed on it by the increasingly powerful environmental movement. The 1960 Democratic Party platform, for instance, stated this: “Sound public policy must assure that . . . essential resources will be available to provide the good life for our children and future generations.” The platform specifically identified timber and grazing lands as being among the resources that “feel the press of enormously increased demands of a rapidly

G r a z i ng

growing population” (Democratic Party Platforms 1960). When Democrat Jimmy Carter became president in 1976, he confronted head-on the challenge of implementing the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA), which required that the federal government receive fair market value for use of land owned by the federal government. Carter took seriously the problem of the deteriorating range, but he also learned quickly that western ranchers were a formidable political force. That might explain why he agreed to sign into law a one-year moratorium on grazing fee increases while Congress considered how to design a new grazing fee formula. At the same time, he announced, “I believe it is unfair to provide a special subsidy at the public’s expense to those 5 percent of all livestock operators who use public lands, while the vast majority of operators use private lands at much greater expense” (Carter 1978). The Carter administration had hoped for a fee formula that would tie the activity of grazing on public lands to fair market value. However, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 passed by Congress opted instead for a formula (Tanaka 1993) that was closer in line with the interests of the livestock industry than those of the Carter administration. While the Republican Party had articulated policy positions in support of the livestock industry, the Democratic Party’s official position on grazing had become ambiguous throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Its 1984 platform warned that “grazing on our public lands should not impair our grassland resources” (Democratic Party Platforms 1984), but the party did not specifically address the issue of grazing after that. However, the approaches taken by presidents Clinton and Obama offer some clues as to how contemporary Democrats approach the issue of grazing on public lands. After President Clinton was elected in 1992, he nominated the popular Democratic Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt as Secretary of the Interior. By 1993, some scholars found empirical evidence that there was national support for higher grazing fees and more rigorous rangeland management (Brunson and Steel 1994). It was in this context that Clinton addressed grazing policy; his first budget included a provision that raised grazing fees. But opposition immediately formed among western governors and senators of both parties. Their opposition, which stemmed at least in part from unhappiness on the part of powerful ranching interests in their states, caused Clinton to remove the grazing fee hike from his budget proposal (Anderson and Binstein 1993). This conflict over grazing demonstrates how the political fault lines are not altogether clear when it comes to politics in the American West. New Mexico’s Democratic governor Bruce King, for example, called Clinton’s proposals to increase grazing fees “ridiculous” and promised that “we’re going to work hard to defeat it” (King 1993). Despite criticisms from fellow Democrats, the Clinton administration, through the efforts of Bruce Babbitt, next sought to double the cost of grazing fees administratively, but after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, the Clinton administration retreated from its plans to increase grazing fees and promised to allow Congress to address the issue (Cushman 1994). Even Clinton admitted in an interview with a Montana newspaper that the Department of Interior’s

107

108

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

efforts to raise grazing fees “gave the Republicans their little opening to claim that we were waging war on the West . . . the Interior Department made a mistake” (Clinton 1995). Obama’s election in 2008 made environmentalists hopeful that his presidency would bring about the broad public land reforms that they had long hoped for. During the early years of the Obama presidency, however, the administration focused instead on solving the severe economic challenges facing the country and on fulfilling the health care promises that the president had made during his campaign. When Republicans retook control of Congress in 2010, President Obama’s window of opportunity to reform public lands policy had closed, and he spent the remainder of his presidency fighting off Republican efforts to accelerate commercial grazing on public lands. A recent effort among Republicans came on July 14, 2016. With the support of Utah’s Republican governor Gary Herbert, Representatives Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Rob Bishop (R-UT) sought to protect part of Utah’s Bears Ears region, an area that is sacred to Native American tribes, in order to stave off the Obama administration’s effort to protect the area by designating it as a national monument. In the closing days of the congressional session, however, their legislation, called the Public Lands Initiative, failed to pass the House in time to be acted on in the Senate. What happened next demonstrates how Democratic presidents, in spite of legislative gridlock and opposition, are able to unilaterally wield executive power to cement their environmental legacies. Using his administrative power under the Antiquities Act of 1906, and much to the chagrin of Utah’s Republican congressional delegation, on December 28, 2016, President Obama designated 1.35 million acres of land in Utah as the Bears Ears National Monument. It remains to be seen whether that designation will have the effect on grazing that has critics of the designation worried (O’Reilly 2017). The election of Republican Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016, along with the GOP’s continued control of Congress, means that Democrats face daunting challenges on the issue of grazing and public lands. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), who was the ranking Democratic member of the House Natural Resources Committee when Trump took office, has been in the forefront in opposing Republican attempts to ease the transfer of federal public lands to state, local, and tribal governments. When, as one of its first actions in session, the Republican-controlled House passed a collection of rules, one of which made the transfer of federal lands easier, Rep. Grijalva declared the action “fiscally irresponsible” and claimed that it was a “flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people” (Shogren 2017). In the future, it is likely that western Democrats like Grijalva will have a prominent voice in shaping grazing policy, as they represent the environmental, tourism, and recreation interests that have come into greater conflict with the grazing interests that are seeking more access to the open range. Aaron J. Ley and Leah J. Boisclair

G r a z i ng

Further Reading Anderson, Jack, and Michael Binstein. 1993. “Western Politics Played Big Role in Clinton’s Grazing-Fee Decision.” Deseret News, April 15. Accessed March 13, 2017. http:// www.deseretnews.com/article/285683/WESTERN-POLITICS-PLAYED-BIG-ROLE​ -IN-CLINTONS-GRAZING-FEE-DECISION.html?pg=all. Botkin, Ben, and Henry Brean. 2014. “Militias ‘Mobilizing’ to Support Embattled Clark County Rancher in Clash with Federal Rangers.” Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 9. Accessed March 7, 2017. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/militias-mobi lizing-support-embattled-clark-county-rancher-clash-federal-rangers. Brunson, Mark W., and Brent S. Steel. 1994. “National Public Attitudes toward Federal Rangeland Management.” Rangelands 16 (2): 77–81. Accessed March 7, 2017. https:// journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/11198/1047. Bump, Philip. 2016. “That Time Ronald Reagan Joined a ‘Rebellion’—But Still Couldn’t Change Federal Land Laws.” Washington Post, January 4. Accessed March 7, 2017. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/04/even-sagebrush-rebel-ro nald-reagan-couldnt-change-federal-land-use-in-the-west/?utm_term=.3d958752aec8. Carter, Jimmy. 1978. “Public Lands Grazing Fee Moratorium Statement on Signing H.R. 9757 into Law,” July 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 13, 2017. http://presidency.proxied.lsit.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=31109&st=Graze&st1=Gra zing. Clarke, Jeanne Nienaber, and Daniel C. McCool. 1996. Staking out the Terrain: Power and Performance Among Natural Resource Agencies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Clinton, William J. 1995. “Interview with Jim Gransbery of the Billings Gazette in Billings, Montana,” May 31. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 13, 2017. http:// presidency.proxied.lsit.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=51430&st=Graze&st1=Grazing. Cushman, John H. 1994. “Administration Gives Up on Raising Grazing Fees.” New York Times, December 22. Accessed March 13, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/22​ /us/administration-gives-up-on-raising-grazing-fees.html. Democratic Party Platforms. 1908. “1908 Democratic Party Platform,” July 7. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws​ /index.php?pid=29589. Democratic Party Platforms. 1940. “1940 Democratic Party Platform,” July 15. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws​ /index.php?pid=29597. Democratic Party Platforms. 1948. “1948 Democratic Party Platform,” July 12. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29599. Democratic Party Platforms. 1956. “1956 Democratic Party Platform,” August 13. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=29601. Democratic Party Platforms. 1960. “1960 Democratic Party Platform,” July 11. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws​ /index.php?pid=29602. King, John. 1993. “West Governors Say White House Is Punishing Their Region.” Deseret News, October 3. Accessed March 20, 2017. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/313069 /WEST-GOVERNORS-SAY-WHITE-HOUSE-IS-PUNISHING-THEIR-REGION.html.

109

110

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Layzer, Judith. 2016. The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Maffly, Brian. 2017. “Utah Guv Hails President Trump’s Repeal of BLM Land-Planning Reforms.” Salt Lake Tribune, March 27. Accessed April 15, 2017. http://www.sltrib .com/news/5108616-155/utah-guv-hails-president-trumps-repeal. Mitchell, Thomas. 2016. “Where the Presidential Candidates Stand on Public Land Issues.” The Ely Times, February 5. Accessed March 13, 2017. http://www.elynews .com/2016/02/05/presidential-candidates-stand-public-land-issues/. Nelson, Robert H. 1984. “Why the Sagebrush Revolt Burned Out.” Regulation May/June: 27–35. Accessed March 13, 2017. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials /files/regulation/1984/5/v8n3-5.pdf. O’Reilly, Andrew. 2017. “Ranchers Spar with Obama over New National Monuments in Utah and Nevada.” Fox News, January 5. Accessed March 20, 2017. http://www .foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/05/ranchers-spar-with-obama-over-new-national -monuments-in-utah-and-nevada.html. Republican Party Platforms. 1876. “Republican Party Platform of 1876,” June 14. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 13, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=29624. Republican Party Platforms. 1952. “Republican Party Platform of 1952,” July 7. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=25837 Republican Party Platforms. 1956. “Republican Party Platform of 1956,” August 20. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838. Republican Party Platforms. 1988. “Republican Party Platform of 1988,” August 16. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=25846. Republican Party Platforms. 1992. “Republican Party Platform of 1992,” August 17. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=25847 Republican Party Platforms. 1996. “Republican Party Platform of 1996,” August 12. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/index.php?pid=25848 Republican Party Platforms. 2000. “Republican Party Platform of 2000,” July 31. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=25849. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “Republican Party Platform of 2016,” July 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 14, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117718. Reyna, Monica, Liza McNamee, and Samantha O’Neill. 2014. “Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission Statewide Survey.” Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) Technical Report 14-02-05. University of Idaho. Roosevelt, Franklin D. 1934. “Statement on Signing Bill for Regulation of Grazing on Public Lands,” June 28. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 13, 2017. http:// presidency.proxied.lsit.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14701&st=Graze&st1=Grazing. Roosevelt, Theodore. 1901. “First Annual Message,” December 3. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 13, 2017. http://presidency.proxied.lsit.ucsb.edu/ws/index .php?pid=29542&st=Graze&st1=Grazing.

G r a z i ng

Roosevelt, Theodore. 1905. “Fifth Annual Message,” December 5. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 13, 2017. http://presidency.proxied.lsit.ucsb.edu/ws/index .php?pid=29546&st=Graze&st1=Grazing. Roosevelt, Theodore. 1907. “Seventh Annual Message,” December 3. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 13, 2017. http://presidency.proxied.lsit.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29548&st=Graze&st1=Grazing. Shogren, Elizabeth. 2017. “U.S. House Changes Its Rules to Ease Federal Land Transfers.” High Country News, January 4. Accessed March 20, 2017. http://www.hcn.org /articles/u-s-house-changes-its-rules-to-ease-federal-land-transfers. Tanaka, John. 1993. “Grazing Fees on Public Rangelands.” Extension.org. Accessed July 4, 2017. http://articles.extension.org/pages/55904/grazing-fees-on-public-rangelands. U.S. Department of Justice. 2015. “Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison,” October 7, 2015. Accessed April 15, 2017. https://www.justice.gov /usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison. Zaitz, Les. 2016. “Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy Arrested by FBI in Portland.” Oregonian/OregonLive, February 10. Accessed March 7, 2017. http://www.oregonlive.com /oregon-standoff/2016/02/nevada_rancher_cliven_bundy_de.html.

111

Hazardous Waste Disposal

At a Glance

The period following World War II was one that saw a worldwide chemical revolution, setting the stage for fierce battles between Democrats and Republicans over the proper disposal of the waste generated by these chemicals. By the 1970s, Congress, with overwhelming bi-partisan support, passed broad federal statutes to regulate toxic and hazardous waste from the moment it is generated until it is finally disposed. As these statutes were implemented, however, divisions between the parties became evident. While both parties agree that toxic and hazardous waste requires federal regulation, they found themselves at loggerheads over the stringency of regulations and the mechanisms by which to achieve compliance with those regulations. This divide is still evident today. Democrats, for instance, tend to support strict liability standards for careless or accidental toxic waste discharges. Additionally, Democrats tend to argue in support of the “polluter pays” principle for funding federal hazardous waste cleanup programs, like Superfund, by imposing taxes on companies that produce chemicals, especially petroleum companies. Republicans, meanwhile, tend to support market-based regulations that promise these firms greater flexibility in meeting federal requirements. Republicans argue that the legal standards supported by Democrats cause litigation and raise the cost of hazardous waste disposal and cleanup. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe laws strictly regulating toxic and hazardous waste increase the costs of hazardous waste disposal and harm small businesses • Believe laws strictly regulating toxic and hazardous waste raise the possibility of endless litigation • Believe laws strictly regulating toxic and hazardous waste are slow, ineffective, and costly with respect to cleaning contaminated sites • Believe laws strictly regulating toxic and hazardous waste place too much power at the federal level—as opposed to the state level, where they claim

H a z a r d o us Wa s te Di s po s al

waste is better managed and decisions made about remediation are more effective Many Democrats . . .

• Believe laws strictly regulating toxic and hazardous waste minimize the threat of irreversible environmental contamination • Believe laws strictly regulating toxic and hazardous waste protect surrounding communities and vulnerable populations from being exposed to health hazards • Believe laws strictly regulating toxic and hazardous waste deter firms from carelessly disposing of hazardous waste • Believe laws strictly regulating toxic and hazardous waste should require polluters to pay for cleanup

Overview

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for enforcing the two most important federal statutes relating to the regulation of toxic and hazardous waste disposal: the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), otherwise known as the Superfund program. RCRA, which establishes federal standards for the management of hazardous waste from its generation to its final disposal, was passed with broad bipartisan support in 1976. RCRA defines hazardous waste as a solid waste that “causes[s], or significantly contribute[s] to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or . . . pose[s] a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of” (Public Law 94-580). After RCRA was proposed in the U.S. Senate by Senator Jennings Randolph (D-WV), it overwhelmingly passed 88–3 with only 3 Republicans voting against it. Representative Frederick Rooney (D-PA) proposed a version on the House side that also overwhelmingly passed on a 367–8 vote, with 251 Democrats and 116 Republicans supporting it. Of those opposed to the House bill, 7 were Republicans; only 1 Democrat opposed it. RCRA focuses on the issue of regulating the management and disposal of hazardous waste. CERCLA addresses the problem of the cleanup of hazardous waste spills, including the cleanup of abandoned waste sites. CERCLA, otherwise known as the Superfund program, reached the political agenda in the aftermath of the Love Canal disaster, a famous hazardous waste site that was discovered in New York’s City of Niagara Falls in the late 1970s, drawing the attention of Congress and Democratic president Jimmy Carter. In 1979, Congress began working on

113

114

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

legislation to keep another Love Canal scenario from occurring, but that work stalled until 1980, when a chemical spill in New Jersey caused James Florio (D-NJ) to urgently support passage of legislation. With Republican Ronald Reagan winning the presidential election of 1980, Congress worked with lame-duck President Carter to pass CERCLA in the December leading up to the new president’s inauguration. When Representative Florio introduced CERCLA in the U.S. House, it passed with overwhelming Democratic and Republican support by a margin of 274–94, despite considerable opposition from the chemical industry (Davis 1993). Voting in support of the bill were 195 Democrats and 79 Republicans, while 36 Democrats and 58 Republicans opposed it. Members of the Democratically controlled U.S. Senate, for their part, passed the House version of the bill by a margin of 78–9, with 44 Democrats, 33 Republicans, and 1 Independent voting in favor of the bill. Opponents of the bill could muster only 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans to vote against it, and on December 11, 1980, President Carter signed the bill into law, creating what is known today as EPA’s Superfund program. When uncontrolled hazardous waste sites are found to present a danger to human health and the environment, they are placed on what is called the National Priorities List (NPL). As of July 17, 2017, there are 1,336 sites on the NPL. A total of 393 sites no longer remain on the list since the Superfund program was established in 1980 (Environmental Protection Agency 2017). As part of listing a site on the NPL, EPA seeks to identify the parties, including lenders, responsible for funding cleanup efforts. This is a lengthy process that is often further slowed by litigation when parties deny responsibility for cleanup or shift responsibility onto others, including insurance companies. When Congress first created the Superfund program, it provided a funding mechanism drawn from a combination of taxes on chemical feedstock producers and general Treasury revenues that would be used to clean abandoned waste sites. The passage of Superfund meant the creation of a $1.6 billion fund; it was later increased to $8.5 billion when taxes were added to petroleum producers after the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) was passed in 1986 (Davis 1993). Less than a decade later, however, Republicans came to power in the House of Representatives in the aftermath of the 1994 Newt Gingrich-led Republican Revolution; they followed through on their promise to cut taxes, thereby allowing the oil tax funding of the Superfund program to lapse. These changes increased the burden on taxpayers to fund cleanups under the Superfund program, at the same time reducing the contributions of oil and chemical industries to this effort. The easy passage of statutes like RCRA and CERCLA should come as no surprise given how American public opinion comes down on the issue of toxic and hazardous waste. Contamination of soil and water by toxic waste has always ranked as an important environmental concern among Americans. When the Gallup organization began looking into this matter, its polling found that by the year 2000, 64 percent of Americans worried a “great deal” about toxic waste contamination.

H a z a r d o us Wa s te Di s po s al

Lois Gibbs and the Formation of the Love Canal Homeowners Association Not long after she and her family moved to the city of Niagara Falls, New York, Lois Gibbs grew concerned about the health of her children, who had begun suffering from rare illnesses (Greene 2013). In 1978, Gibbs discovered that the land beneath her son’s elementary school was contaminated with 21,000 tons of toxic chemicals, buried there by Hooker Chemical Company between 1920 and 1953 (Konrad 2011). After trying unsuccessfully to move her children to a different school, Gibbs turned to her neighbors to see if their families also had health problems (Greene 2013). Gibbs learned from these conversations that health issues were widespread in the area, and so in response she formed the Love Canal Homeowners’ Association (LCHA) in 1978 (Goldman Environmental Prize 1990). Through rallies, fundraisers, research, and protests, the LCHA fought to focus attention on the plight of area residents, and ultimately the LCHA sought to receive government assistance for residents to live elsewhere (Konrad 2011). As the leader of the LCHA, Gibbs also generated controversy when she was integrally involved in temporarily taking EPA officials hostage to bring the issue to President Carter’s attention (Goldman Environmental Prize 1990; Greene 2013). As a result of Gibbs’s and the group’s activism, the federal government agreed to purchase all 900 homes in Love Canal; the government also fined Occidental Petroleum, the parent company of Hooker Chemical, for its actions. In sum, the state and federal governments received over $200 million for cleanup and relocation costs (Konrad 2011). The LCHA’s activism is also credited with influencing passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980—also known as the Superfund program (Konrad 2011). After her efforts at Love Canal, Gibbs started the Center for Health, Environment and Justice in 1981 to offer education, technical, and organizational support to communities facing toxic waste issues and other environmental concerns (Goldman Environmental Prize 1990; Konrad 2011). Since its founding, the Center for Health, Environment and Justice has been involved in numerous environmental and hazardous waste campaigns, including helping nearly 10,000 grassroots groups in their efforts to mitigate and eliminate hazardous pollution (Konrad 2011). Gibbs herself has received numerous awards for her environmental activism, including honorary degrees from five universities (Konrad 2011). Sources Goldman Environmental Prize. 1990. “Lois Gibbs—1990 Goldman Prize Recipient.” The Goldman Environmental Prize. Accessed April 11, 2017. http://www.goldmanprize.org /recipient/lois-gibbs/. Greene, Ronnie. 2013. “From Homemaker to Hell-Raiser in Love Canal.” The Center for Public Integrity, April 16. Accessed April 11, 2017. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04 /16/12465/homemaker-hell-raiser-love-canal. Konrad, Kevin. 2011. “Lois Gibbs: Grassroots Organizer and Environmental Health Advocate.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (9): 1558–1559. Accessed April 11, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154230/.

115

116

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

That number has decreased in recent years, to 50 percent in 2012 according to one poll, but it nevertheless commonly ranks as the environmental problem, out of all the others, that worries respondents the most (Jones 2012). Pollsters have also examined public opinion over the Superfund program, which tends to be influenced by geography. A 2004 poll found that easterners, who deal with a greater concentration of Superfund sites, are more concerned about contamination than their counterparts from the South, the Midwest, and the West (Arora 2004). That same poll found that income also played a role in concern over the issue of toxic waste, with those making $30,000 or less more inclined to worry about it than those with higher incomes (Arora 2004). Republicans on Hazardous Waste Disposal

If it has become common among mainstream Republicans to support easing industry’s regulatory burden, then the official Republican Party’s support for reforming the Superfund program makes sense. Yet, it took some time for Republicans to adopt a distinct position on the problem of toxic and hazardous waste disposal. The first official party position on the issue came in the 1960 Republican Party platform, when the party boasted of strengthening federal water pollution enforcement, but at the same time warned that such initiatives were vulnerable to wasteful “pork barrel” spending and declared, “The construction of waste disposal plants should be made only when they make an identifiable contribution to clearing up polluted streams” (Republican Party Platforms 1960). With respect to environmental policy, the Nixon presidency sent conflicting signals about its commitment to environmental protection. In 1970, Nixon created the EPA by bringing several environmentally related agencies—including the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare’s Bureau of Solid Waste Management—under the control of a single administrator. Nixon saw the need for federal regulation of toxic wastes and pressured Congress to act, but his calls for legislation went unheeded. Nixon and other members of the GOP claimed that this inaction was due to the Democrats. In 1972, in fact, the Republican Party announced in its platform that “sweeping environment messages were sent to Congress in 1970, 1971, and 1972 covering . . . toxic waste substances, . . . solid waste management, . . . [and] many other environmental concerns. Almost all of these proposals still languish in the opposition Congress” (Republican Party Platforms 1972). It was not until 1976 that RCRA was signed into law by Republican president Gerald Ford. The most important shift in tone came during the Reagan years, when Republicans adopted distinct policy positions in support of greater consideration of costs during the process of formulating environmental regulations. By 1980, the Republican Party made hazardous waste disposal synonymous with private enterprise and argued that “clean air, water, waste disposal, mine reclamation, and leasing rules must be made rational and final to accelerate private investment” (Republican

H a z a r d o us Wa s te Di s po s al

Party Platforms 1980). That same year, Republicans adopted a plank in their platform noting the progress that had been made in achieving toxic waste control, while at the same time declaring that “it is imperative that environmental laws and regulations be reviewed and, where necessary, reformed to ensure that the benefits achieved justify the costs imposed” (Republican Party Platforms 1980). After his election in 1980, President Reagan wasted no time in nominating staunch conservatives to key positions in his cabinet, including officials who were committed to his vision of scaling back environmental regulations to unleash American private enterprise. Reagan nominated Anne Gorsuch to head the EPA, which was responsible for overseeing the nascent Superfund program that had been signed into law by lame-duck President Carter in the months prior to the inauguration. Not long after Gorsuch became EPA administrator, she was accused of mishandling Superfund monies and was subpoenaed; she refused to produce documents during Congress’s investigation of the Superfund program, and was held in contempt of Congress. The political pressure on Gorsuch eventually became so great that she resigned from her position as head of the EPA after less than two years on the job. After Gorsuch stepped down, Reagan nominated, with bipartisan support, the highly respected William Ruckelshaus, who had served as the first EPA administrator during the Nixon administration. Despite drawing criticism for the slow pace at which Ruckelshaus’s EPA was cleaning up hazardous waste sites, Reagan singled out the EPA’s work on Superfund implementation when he was asked to name his most important achievement in natural resource conservation. He also supported legislation that reauthorized the law (Reagan 1984), signing that bill in 1986. After the Reagan years, Republicans moderated their position on the toxic waste issue, promising to clean hazardous waste sites and develop long-term solutions to hazardous waste disposal. In the party’s 1988 platform, Republicans admitted that “toxic and hazardous waste production is increasing,” and they promised to “accelerate the pace of our national effort to clean up hazardous waste sites and to protect our groundwater” (Republican Party Platforms 1988). When Republican George H. W. Bush was elected president in 1988, he turned his attention to the issue of exporting hazardous waste to other countries. In 1990, President Bush signed the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, which prohibited the export of hazardous waste to other countries if it was found that the waste would be managed in environmentally unsound ways. In 1992, during the middle of his reelection campaign against Democratic candidate Bill Clinton, Bush signed legislation waiving federal sovereign immunity for violation of federal, state, and local laws relating to hazardous waste, fulfilling a promise that he declared “would make the Federal Government live up to the same environmental standards that apply to private citizens” (Bush 1992). The issue of hazardous waste cleanup emerged again four years later when Republicans promised to “legislatively overhaul the Superfund program to speed the clean-up of hazardous waste and more efficiently use Superfund dollars” (Republican Party Platforms 1992).

117

118

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Two years after Republicans had taken control of Congress, their 1996 platform focused on implementation of the Superfund program. They promised to fix the program, criticizing it for enriching trial lawyers and instituting what they called an “unfair liability scheme” (Republican Party Platforms 1996). That same year, Republicans for the first time devoted part of their platform to promoting the redevelopment of “brownfields”—contaminated industrial sites that can be cleaned up and reused for other productive purposes. They lauded state-level efforts to return contaminated sites to other productive uses and they promised to “remove disincentives in current Federal law in order to allow States to expand their innovative ‘brownfields’ programs” (Republican Party Platforms 1996). By 2000, Republicans were fully committed to expanding opportunities for states to facilitate brownfield cleanup. They specifically described efforts in Texas under then-presidential candidate and Texas Governor George W. Bush to restore 451 brownfield sites to productive use, and they committed the party to “replicate [his] success on the national level” (Republican Party Platforms 2000). In 2002, Congress passed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, which President Bush praised as a law that “gives protection against lawsuits to prospective buyers and others who didn’t create the brownfields but want to help clean them up and develop them. And it will help strengthen State cleanup programs, with more Federal funding and less Federal meddling” (Bush 2002). When Republicans drafted their 2004 platform, they described the outcome of the Bush administration’s policies: “The Bush Administration has restored more than 1,000 brownfields to usable condition, which is more than were restored in the previous seven years” (Republican Party Platforms 2004). Observers expect that the election of Republican Donald Trump in 2016 will bring potentially sweeping changes to the Superfund program. Trump, after all, was no stranger to the challenges that the Superfund program posed to developers, given his background in real estate. When the Trump administration submitted its first budget to Congress, it called for slashing the Superfund program by 30 percent (Klayman 2017). President Trump’s footprint on EPA’s Superfund program is yet to be determined, but with both houses of Congress currently controlled by Republicans he will have ample opportunities to shape U.S. hazardous waste policy. Democrats on Hazardous Waste Disposal

It was during the environmentally conscious years of the 1960s that Democrats adopted an official position on the issue of hazardous waste disposal. In the 1960 Democratic Party platform, for instance, Democrats promised to “step up research on pollution control, giving special attention to . . . disposal of chemical and radioactive wastes, some of which are now being dumped off our coasts without adequate knowledge of the potential consequences” (Democratic Party Platforms 1960). Two years later, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, arguably one of the

H a z a r d o us Wa s te Di s po s al

most influential books about the environment. Carson’s book shifted attention to the environmental risks associated with pesticides and other synthetic chemicals. The publication of Silent Spring created such a wave of public consternation about the issue that many state and federal policy makers felt they had no choice but to address the disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes. Three years after Silent Spring was published, Democratic president Lyndon Johnson recommended legislation to help states develop comprehensive programs for solid waste disposal and additional funding for research to draw insights about properly regulating toxic chemicals in order to reduce contamination (Johnson 1965a). His call for legislation culminated in the passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, which earmarked federal funding for more research and a technical assistance program for solid waste disposal. At the bill’s signing ceremony, President Johnson quoted from Silent Spring and promised to “halt pollution before it starts in new industries” (Johnson 1965b). Even though President Johnson had signaled the need for a national policy on solid waste disposal, Democratic Party leadership on the issue of toxic and hazardous waste disposal barely existed until President Jimmy Carter was elected to the presidency. President Carter signed into law the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), causing him to remark that “no further comprehensive federal legislation should be necessary” (Carter 1977). However, while the TSCA dealt with controlling the creation, production, and distribution of toxic and hazardous chemicals, the Love Canal crisis thrust the issue of cleaning abandoned toxic and hazardous waste sites onto the political agenda. In 1978, President Carter declared the Love Canal site in Niagara Falls, New York, a national disaster. The following year, he announced to Congress his concerns about “other accounts of improper disposal [that] describe shallow burial in steel drums which leak after years in the ground, dumping in open lagoons, and clandestine dumping in sewers and along our highways” (Carter 1979). Carter implored Congress to act on the problem of toxic waste spills and abandoned waste sites, and in their 1980 platform Democrats announced support for a “strong ‘super-fund’ law financed by government and industry” (Democratic Party Platforms 1980). At his 1980 State of the Union address, Carter warned that Love Canal and another site called Valley of the Drums in Kentucky “have highlighted the inadequacy of the existing laws and inability of governments at all levels to respond quickly and efficiently to these dangerous incidents” (Carter 1980). After passage of CERCLA, Democrats focused on stepping up enforcement and cleanup through the Superfund program. The 1984 Democratic Party platform admonished President Reagan for not enforcing CERCLA vigorously enough, and it promised to increase “Superfund resources to clean up all sites that threaten public health” (Democratic Party Platforms 1984). Although both Republicans and Democrats were critical about the slow cleanup of hazardous waste sites, the parties differed on the funding mechanism for the Superfund program. Democrats supported financing “through new taxes on the generation of hazardous wastes,

119

120

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

so companies have an economic incentive to reduce the volume and toxicity of their dangerous wastes” (Democratic Party Platforms 1984). That same year, Democrats painted a dire picture of the future in the event of Reagan’s reelection. They asserted that although “more and more [toxic waste sites] are being created constantly, the Reagan Administration is cleaning them up at a rate of only 1.5 per year” (Democratic Party Platforms 1984). In another section of that year’s party platform, Democrats devoted a section to the issue of hazardous waste disposal. They advocated for the expansion of RCRA, for new EPA standards for waste management, and for the treatment of hazardous waste before it could be disposed of. After the Reagan years, Democrats continued focusing on better enforcment of the Superfund program and holding waste producers responsible for toxic waste disposal and cleanup. Their 1988 platform promoted the idea of expanding recycling, and it promised that the part would “aggressively enforce toxic waste laws and require polluters to be responsible for future clean-up costs” (Democratic Party Platforms 1988). Four years later, Democrats promised to “clean up the environmental horrors at federal facilities, [and to] insist that private polluters clean up their toxic and hazardous wastes” (Democratic Party Platforms 1992). The election of Bill Clinton meant that, after 12 years of Republican leadership, Democrats now had an opportunity to directly oversee implementation of the Superfund program. In a 1993 speech, President Clinton explained the changes his administration would seek to the Superfund law, including making “the polluters pay more and the taxpayers pay less and . . . to get the money freed up so that we can use the money to clean up pollution. It’s all going to legal fees now, because people don’t want anything to happen” (Clinton 1993). When Republicans seized control of Congress in 1994, Clinton needed to pursue environmental policies in ways that were acceptable to this new Republican majority. One strategy adopted by the Clinton administration was to promote the redevelopment of brownfields by easing lender liability and by providing tax incentives for redevelopment. Yet, while the Clinton administration found common ground with Republicans on brownfield redevelopment, the president was locked into constant battles with the new Republican majority on funding the Superfund program at a level that would allow for effective cleanup. A particular point of contention between the two sides concerned whether funding for cleanup would come from general revenues, as Republicans desired, or from polluters, as the Clinton administration supported. In 1995, the Superfund tax on oil and chemical companies expired in the aftermath of the Republican takeover of Congress. In 2000, when the Superfund had begun showing signs of fiscal stress, the Clinton administration warned that financing CERCLA through general revenues “is contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle and would be unfair to the general public, who would be forced to pay for the irresponsible actions of polluters” (Clinton 2000). The 2000 Democratic Party platform reminded voters that “the Republican Congress . . . tried to make taxpayers pick up the tab for toxic wastes, and let

H a z a r d o us Wa s te Di s po s al

polluters who caused the problem and can afford to fix it off the hook. President Clinton and Democrats in Congress said no” (Democratic Party Platforms 2000). During the Bush presidency, however, the Superfund’s tax financing stream had completely run dry, and now the program was financed through general revenues, causing Democrats to promise to restore the tax on oil and chemical companies, (Democratic Party Platforms 2004). This “polluter pays” principle was reiterated in the party’s 2008 platform. It was during the Obama administration that the Flint water crisis caused issues of environmental justice to take center stage in debates over toxic waste cleanup. The crisis, in which a decision to source city water from the Flint River rather than Lake Huron caused high levels of lead to leach from city pipes into the local water supply, significantly impacted poor communities of color in Flint, Michigan (Southall 2016). That may explain why Democrats declared that “low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately home to environmental justice ‘hot spots,’ where air pollution, water pollution, and toxic hazards like lead increase health and economic hardship” (Democratic Party Platforms 2016). Due to these problems, Democrats committed part of their platform to the “hiring and training [of] workers from affected communities to clean up toxic brownfields and expand clean energy, energy efficiency, and resilient infrastructure” (Democratic Party Platforms 2016). However, President Obama’s legacy on toxic and hazardous waste disposal was somewhat thin, since he had been having to work with the Republican opposition. In 2010, Obama’s EPA unsuccessfully advocated for reinstating the oil tax to fund Superfund, which had run out in 2003, and in 2014, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) effort to reinstate the “polluter pays” tax also languished in Congress, meaning that the Superfund continues to draw its revenues from the general Treasury. Aaron J. Ley and Bridget Hall Further Reading Arora, Raksha. 2004. “Toxic Waste: Still Dirty Words to Americans?” Gallup, April 27. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/11476/Toxic-Waste-Still-%20Dirty-Words -Americans.aspx?g_source=superfund&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles. Bush, George H. W. 1992. “Statement on Signing Legislation Waiving Federal Immunity Relating to Solid and Hazardous Waste,” October 6. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=21579 &st=hazardous+waste&st1=. Bush, George W. 2002. “Remarks on Signing the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,” January 11. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 18, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=62694&st=Superfund&st1=. Carter, Jimmy. 1979. “Environmental Priorities and Programs Message to the Congress,” August 2. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www .presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=32684&st=love+canal&st1=.

121

122

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Carter, Jimmy. 1980. “The State of the Union Annual Message to the Congress,” January 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 18, 2017. http://www.presidency .ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33062&st=Superfund&st1=. Clinton, William. 1993. “Remarks on the Economic Program in St. Louis, Missouri,” February 18, 1993. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 18, 2017. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=47243&st=Superfund&st1=. Clinton, William. 2000. “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 4635—Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2001,” June 19. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 18, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=74835&st=Sup erfund&st1=. Davis, Charles E. 1993. The Politics of Hazardous Waste. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Democratic Party Platforms. 1960. “1960 Democratic Party Platform,” July 11. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29602. Democratic Party Platforms. 1980. “1980 Democratic Party Platform,” August 11. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=29607. Democratic Party Platforms. 1984. “1984 Democratic Party Platform,” July 16, 1984. The American Presidency Project, online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29608. Democratic Party Platforms. 1988. “1988 Democratic Party Platform,” July 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29609. Democratic Party Platforms. 1992. “1992 Democratic Party Platform,” July 13. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29610. Democratic Party Platforms. 2000. “2000 Democratic Party Platform,” August 14. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=29612. Democratic Party Platforms. 2004. “2004 Democratic Party Platform” July 27. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=29613. Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform,” July 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Superfund: National Priorities List.” Accessed July 25, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl. Johnson, Lyndon. 1965a. “Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty,” February 8. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=27285&st=waste+disp osal&st1=. Johnson, Lyndon. 1965b. “Remarks in the Hospital at the Signing of the Clean Air Act Amendments and Solid Waste Disposal Bill,” October 20. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid =27316&st=waste+disposal&st1=. Jones, Jeffrey M. 2012. “Worry about U.S. Water, Air Pollution at Historical Lows.” Gallup, April 13. Accessed April 6, 2017 http://www.gallup.com/poll/153875/Worry

H a z a r d o us Wa s te Di s po s al

-%20Water-Air-Pollution-Historical-Lows.aspx?g_source=%22toxic+waste%22&g _medium=search&g_campaign=tiles. Klayman, Ben. 2017. “Trump Budget Would Slash Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites by 30 Percent.” Reuters, March 16. Accessed March 17, 2017. http://www.reuters.com /article/us-usa-trump-budget-superfund-idUSKBN16N2ZF. Reagan, Ronald. 1984. “Interview with Representatives of the Scripps-Howard News Service,” October 25. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 18, 2017. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=39315&st=Superfund&st1=. Republican Party Platforms. 1960. “1960 Republican Party Platform,” July 25. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=25839. Republican Party Platforms. 1972. “1972 Republican Party Platform,” August 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=25842. Republican Party Platforms. 1980. “1980 Republican Party Platform,” July 15. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=25844. Republican Party Platforms. 1988. “1988 Republican Party Platform,” August 16. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=25846. Republican Party Platforms. 1992. “1992 Republican Party Platform,” August 17. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=25847. Republican Party Platforms. 1996. “1996 Republican Party Platform,” August 12. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=25848. Republican Party Platforms. 2000. “2000 Republican Party Platform” July 31. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index .php?pid=25849. Republican Party Platformss. 2004. “2004 Republican Party Platform,” August 30. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=25850. Rosenbaum, Walter A. 2017. Environmental Politics and Policy. 10th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press. Southall, Ashley. 2016. “State of Emergency Declared over Man-Made Water Disaster in Michigan City.” New York Times, January 17. Accessed May 8, 2017. https://www .nytimes.com/2016/01/18/us/obama-flint-michigan-water-fema-emergency-disaster .html.

123

Hydraulic Fracturing (“Fracking”)

At a Glance

For both Democrats and Republicans, hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” for natural gas is an environmental issue creating alliances that cross party lines and cause divisions within each party. There is no one Democratic perspective or Republican position. Instead, each party expresses differing perspectives on the extent to which the extraction technique should be regulated, who should make the regulatory decisions, what safety precautions to take, and what prevention or recognition of environmental harms is needed. Both parties agree on the energy benefits that natural gas can bring to the country and the jobs it can create, but they differ on whether these benefits are worth the potential environmental risks. In addition to divisions within each national party, Democrats and Republicans express differences at both the state level and the federal level. Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo banned fracking in the state of New York in 2014, while Democratic governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, which is home to one of the largest natural gas deposits in the Marcellus Shale, a layer of sedimentary rock that extends from upstate New York down into Ohio and West Virginia, supported fracking throughout the state. In the Senate, New York senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand expressed support for the technique in the state, even as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders strongly opposed it (Campbell 2014; Henry 2016). On the Republican side, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey called for a one-year ban on fracking in order to conduct an investigation into possible environmental harms. Governor John Kasich of Ohio signed legislation allowing fracking in the state’s parks and forests, but he later reversed his position and opposed horizontal drilling for fracking on public lands (Rowland 2014). In contrast, governors Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) and Rick Perry (Texas) and Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) all expressed support for fracking in their 2016 presidential campaigns (Foran 2014). Overall, natural gas extraction is an issue that both parties must address at every level of government. States where fracking occurs have direct economic and employment benefits, making decisions to restrict fracking a challenging

Hy d r a u lic F r a c tur i ng ( “ Fr a c k ing ”)

one for their constituents. These are also the areas most at risk for environmental harms, leading to calls for further research and regulatory oversight. Many Democrats . . .

• Believe fracking promotes energy independence for the United States • Believe fracking reduces dependence on other fossil fuels such as coal and oil • Believe fracking can cause significant environmental damage such as water contamination, earthquakes, and poor air quality • Believe fracking should be subject to additional research to find out more about short-term and long-term impacts on the environment Many Republicans . . .

• Believe fracking helps create more jobs in the United States • Believe fracking should be regulated by the states instead of localities or federal agencies • Believe fracking decrease dependence on oil from overseas • Believe fracking can be an environmentally responsible extraction approach that helps reduce energy prices for consumers and meets the country’s energy needs

Overview

Hydraulic fracturing, also knowing as fracking, involves drilling holes deep into the Earth and then pumping high-pressured water into the rock below the surface to force out the natural gas contained in the rock. It was invented by the Halliburton company in the 1940s (New York Times Editorial Board 2009). Approximately 10 percent of fracking in the United States occurs on public lands, with the majority of fracking taking place on state or private land, making these lands subject to the laws of the state (Davenport 2016). Supporters of fracking argue that it has created jobs, reduced energy costs, and helped further energy independence in the United States. Opponents argue that fracking is under-regulated, causes such environmental harms as contaminated drinking water, and leads to more frequent earthquakes. Public support for fracking has declined in recent years. The Gallup polling organization, for example, found 51 percent of people surveyed opposing it in 2016, compared to 40 percent in 2015. In a March 2016 Gallup poll, Republicans reported the greatest decline in fracking support, from 66 percent in 2015 to 55 percent in 2016. Independents supported fracking at 34 percent and Democrats at 25 percent (Swift 2016).

125

126

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), two agencies with responsibilities for offshore hydraulic fracturing, point to California’s coast as support for the safety of fracking. In her statement on her research analyzing 23 offshore drilling platforms in California from 1982 to 2014, BOEM director Abigail Ross Hopper emphasized that fracking has minimal impact when conducted according to permit requirements (Cama 2016a). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) echoes BOEM’s sentiment and says that when conducted properly, fracking can be done without contaminating groundwater or surface water (U.S. Geological Survey 2016). Advocates of fracking also emphasize the financial impact both for the country and for individual consumers. With the increase in natural gas and petroleum production, the United States is now the leading country for energy production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (U.S. Energy Administration 2016). Writing for a publication of the Brookings Institution, Hausman and Kellogg report that “The recent shale gas boom (“fracking”) in the United States has been beneficial to the economy, dropping natural gas prices 47 percent compared to what the price would have been prior to the fracking revolution in 2013, and has improved the economic well-being of consumers $74 billion per year” (Hausman and Kellogg 2015). For consumers, average prices of natural gas declined 60 percent between 2008 and 2012, with families saving an estimated $32 billion since 2012 with lower energy bills. Low-income families who spend a large portion of their paychecks on energy can have significant savings (Wall Street Journal Staff 2016). Opponents of fracking express concerns over the environmental harms and risks associated with this form of energy extraction. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2016 report entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources” discusses concerns over potential groundwater contamination from fracking fluids, and the report calls for further research and risk assessments with enhanced environmental protections (Environmental Protection Agency 2016). The USGS has noted how the heightened risk of earthquakes correlates with an increase in drilling activity and injection of fracking fluids, particularly in the Barnett Shale formation. A higher frequency of earthquakes has been connected to fracking in eight states, including Arkansas, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas (Kuchment 2016). Support for and opposition to fracking do not break down exclusively by party affiliation, and there are meaningful differences on this issue—not only between Republicans and Democrats, but also within the parties themselves. Democrats on Fracking

Within the Democratic Party, there is a wide range of opinions both in support of fracking and in opposition to it. Variation exists between state and federal actors,

Hy d r a u lic F r a c tur i ng ( “ Fr a c k ing ”)

among members of Congress, and among governors throughout the country, with some expressing strong support and some implementing fracking bans. Early on, environmentalists expressed concern over the process of fracking: specifically, serious risks to water contamination and air quality. In 2002, during the George W. Bush administration, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) proposed a federal regulation of fracking and called for an EPA study on possible dangers to drinking water. The Senate voted it down 78–21 (Soraghan 2015). The Obama administration expressed strong support for natural gas extraction in the United States as part of its so-called “all of the above” energy policy. This approach called for environmentally responsible boosts to domestic oil and gas production in concert with increased investment in clean, renewable energy options. Obama’s first secretary of the interior, Ken Salazar, set the tone early when he said, “Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are two technological innovations that have helped improve U.S. energy efficiency and security . . .’ [Hydraulic fracturing] is creating an energy revolution in the United States alone” (Anderson 2013). Former Obama secretary of energy Steven Chu argued that it is “a ‘false choice’ to say that the country must decide between inexpensive natural gas and preserving the environment,” because fracking is an energy extraction method that could be done safely (Gearino 2013). Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) attempted another congressional action of oversight. On March 18, 2015, Casey introduced the “FRAC Act,” also known as Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act,” to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill received two committee hearings, but never made it to the Senate floor for a vote (Soraghan 2015). To make it easier to launch fracking operations [FRAC Act, S.785 (2015)], the FRAC Act called for an end to the regulatory exemptions that Vice President Dick Cheney had put in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Meanwhile, Republican efforts to keep fracking regulations in state hands met with little enthusiasm from Democrats, especially in states where environmental issues rank high among voter concerns. Instead, Democrats were more likely to share the perspective of Sierra Club president Allison Chin, who claimed that “no state has adequate protections in place. Even where there are rules, they are poorly monitored and enforced. Thanks to the multiple federal exemptions, we can’t even count on the federal government to keep us safe! . . . If drillers can’t extract natural gas without destroying landscapes and endangering the health of families, then we should not drill for natural gas” (Sierra Club Staff 2012). In early 2015, President Obama released an EPA report defending fracking. The report found no evidence of fracking causing water pollution (Crooks 2016). A final version of this EPA report in 2016, however, published a different conclusion (Davenport 2016). In “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States,” EPA concluded that in some cases drinking water may be contaminated by fracking, such as with spills of hydraulic fluid, in low water availability areas, when inadequately treated hydraulic wastewater is discharged to surface water, or

127

128

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

through faulty disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits (Environmental Protection Agency 2016). League of Conservation Voters legislative representative Madeline Foote said, “This report acknowledges what far too many communities across this country know to be true—fracking is a threat to our clean drinking water.” Scott H. Segal, a lobbyist for the fossil fuel firm Bracewell LLP, responded, “Even the new statement is still consistent with the finding that contamination attributable to shale development is neither widespread nor systemic . . . but evidence of contamination is highly anecdotal and often overblown by the exaggeration often associated with litigation. The vast majority of third-party professional organizations and governmental officials have found shale development to be highly consistent with environmental protection and energy policy objectives” (Davenport 2016). President Obama’s secretary of energy appointee, Ernest Moniz, and his second appointed Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell both echoed Obama’s support for fracking. Moniz said, “We are producing more natural gas in the United States than ever before which is helping to increase our economic competiveness and significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Of the natural gas consumed in the United States in 2011, about 95 percent was produced domestically. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent statistical arm of DOE, predicts that U.S. natural gas production will increase by 44 percent from 2011 to 2040, growth that will be almost 100 percent attributable to shale gas production” (Moniz 2014). As some states and localities began to discuss bans or limitations on fracking, Secretary Jewell responded, “I would say that is the wrong way to go. . . . I think it’s going to be very difficult for industry to figure out what the rules are if different counties have different rules.” Understanding that communities may cite concerns over the fracking process and fluids used to break the shale in order to extract the oil or gas, Jewell felt this was due to widespread misinformation. When the state of New York decided to ban fracking due to an assessment of environmental risks, Jewell said, “I think that localized efforts or statewide efforts in many cases don’t understand the science behind it, and I think there needs to be more science” (Cama 2015). Though opposed to fracking bans, Secretary Jewell supported additional safety regulatory efforts. These regulations applied primarily to well construction on federally owned or tribal land, and they required liquid wastes generated during the fracking process to be contained in sealed tanks rather than the currently used open pits. Companies also had to disclose—within 30 days after their fracking was finished—the chemical ingredients they had used. Most existing regulations for drilling wells are decades old, and they lack the technical complexity applicable to modern-day fracking operations. Jewell hoped the new regulations would improve safeguards and protocols for natural gas development. These changes were not without criticism from within the party, however. House Democrats such as Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) called the regulations the “lowest common

Hy d r a u lic F r a c tur i ng ( “ Fr a c k ing ”)

denominator,” and environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) felt that the proposed regulations did not go far enough (Schor 2015). Prior to running for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton expressed support for fracking. While attending Senator Harry Reid’s seventh National Clean Energy Summit in 2014, she said, “There are challenges here to be sure. But the boom in domestic gas production is an example of American innovation changing the game, and if we do it right, it can be good for both the environment and our economy” (Elliott 2014). In 2016, however, Clinton’s rhetoric toward fracking changed. Faced with a formidable primary challenge from Senator Bernie Sanders, a fierce critic of fracking, Clinton asserted in a primary debate against Sanders that the regulations her administration would impose would be so stringent that “I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. So first, we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless [strict] conditions . . . are met” (Clinton 2016). Republicans on Fracking

In 2005, President George W. Bush worked with Congress to secure passage of a large energy bill called the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of natural gas company Halliburton, requested that a provision be inserted in the bill exempting the fracking drilling process from EPA regulation (New York Times Editorial Board 2009). Subsequent attempts to remove the nicknamed “Halliburton loophole” have not been successful. In January 2015, for example, New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand introduced legislation to close the loophole. All but one Republican senator and eight Democrat senators voted against her proposed amendment. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a Republican, praised the amendment’s defeat, calling the vote a “collective step in the right direction for the U.S. Senate and hardworking Americans” (Soraghan 2015). The 2016 Republican Party platform expresses support for domestic energy development—particularly, hydraulic fracturing—and emphasizes its belief that states can effectively regulate the industry (RNC Committee 2016). During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump agreed with Secretary Clinton on local support of fracking. In an interview with a Denver television station, he said, “I’m in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it. I mean, there’s some areas, maybe, that don’t want to have fracking, and I think if the voters are voting for it that’s up to them” (Schor 2016). This position of allowing local decision making sets Trump apart from many congressional

129

130

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Republicans and industry supporters who feel that local bans threaten energy production in the United States and that states should be the final decision makers (Cama 2016b). At a subsequent campaign stop in Pittsburgh before an audience of energy industry executives, Trump expressed his support for fracking by promising that “The shale energy revolution will unleash massive wealth for America . . . and we will end the war on coal and the war on miners” (Davenport 2016). Once Donald Trump took office in January 2017, Republicans began to pursue reversal of many of Obama’s environmental regulations under a little-known provision of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) as part of their “Roadmap to Repeal” strategy. This CRA provision allows Congress to reverse any regulations within 60 legislative days with a simple majority vote in both the House and Senate. Prior to February 4, 2017, this provision had been used only once in history to nullify a new rule (Lipton 2017). Lobbyists from an oil and gas energy group named the Western Energy Alliance, along with the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reached out to Republican members of Congress to repeal a rule proposed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) that would have required companies to prevent the release of gas through flaring or leaks and would have eliminated 180,000 tons per year of methane. President Obama’s administration had proposed the rule to target methane because the substance is a significant factor of global warming. If implemented, the rule would have also increased federal revenue by an estimated $10 million per year because energy companies pay only for the gas they contain and sell. Final action on the proposed methane rule was expected by the Senate in late February 2017, but President Trump’s executive order on March 28, 2017 (Trump 2017), called for the DOI to review and consider rescinding this rule along with several other fracking and energy-related Obamaera regulations (Lipton 2017). In March of 2017, EPA repealed a related Obamaera rule requiring oil and gas companies to provide information regarding methane emissions on their sites and facilities (Follett 2017). At the state level, Republicans have taken different approaches, with efforts for greater oversight, bans, local control, or expansion of natural gas permits. In September 2015, Florida’s House proposed HB 191 to place a moratorium on fracking while research and regulations are developed. It also called for disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracking process and for preemption of local government bans on oil and gas extraction. The final vote of 73–45 against the bill involved 7 Republicans joining 38 Democrats in opposition (Ritchie 2016). Sarasota Republican Greg Steube explained that he voted no because “[the costs] may outweigh the benefits. . . . I’ve got concerns when it comes to the environment and I think we need to do everything to protect it. That’s why I voted against it.” After a series of attempted amendments, the bill ultimately died in the Senate Environmental Preservation and Conservation committee in March 2016 (Florida Senate 2016). In Ohio, presidential candidate John Kasich advocated a new tax on fracking to help reduce the income tax for state residents. He also put a moratorium in place for injecting drilling wastes within five miles of a well site, in order to conduct a

Hy d r a u lic F r a c tur i ng ( “ Fr a c k ing ”)

study on possible connections to the recent spike in earthquakes. Ohio is in a different position than Florida, as it is a recipient state of waste produced by neighboring fracking states. Additionally, Ohio’s Republican attorney general advocated imposing steep fines on the industry and supported calls for disclosure of chemicals used in drilling injections (Associated Press Staff 2012). The state of Texas echoed a sentiment similar to Ohio’s, with its legislature calling for disclosure of fracking chemicals (Loftis 2012). In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie recommended a one-year ban on fracking. A representative from Republicans for Environmental Protection (now called ConservAmerica), David Jenkins, summarized the differing Republican perspectives when he said, “I think when you get to the state level, Republican governors and legislatures are being a little more in tune to local concerns. . . . It is a little closer to the action, and they have to proceed cautiously . . . if the gas industry wants to maximize potential of shale gas, they need to do it right. It doesn’t take but a few legitimately proven horror stories to make that a tough political situation for gas companies” (Associated Press Staff 2012). Following the 2016 election, Republicans obtained control of the leadership in the House, the Senate, and the White House. President Trump’s campaign position differed from that of rank-and-file Republicans, making the country’s future federal policy on natural gas extraction unknown. Democrats are also divided, and they may support Republican efforts to expand fracking or they may join with those pursuing restrictions. As the natural gas industry expands, both parties will continue enacting policies that they feel serve their interests and those of their constituents. Elizabeth Wheat Further Reading Anderson, Lindsey. 2013. “Former Interior Secretary Lauds U.S. Energy Improvements during NMSU’s Domenici Conference.” Las Cruces Sun-News (NM), September 18. https://business.nmsu.edu/lcsn-former-interior-secretary-lauds-u-s-energy-improve​ ments-during-nmsus-domenici-conference/. Associated Press Staff. 2012. “Fracking Divides GOP Party.” Governing the States and Localities, March 6. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.governing.com/news/politics /ap-fracking-divides-gop-party.html. Cama, Timothy. 2015. “Interior Secretary Criticizes Fracking Bans.” The Hill, January 2. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/228385 -interior-secretary-criticizes-fracking-bans. Cama, Timothy. 2016a. “Feds Clear California Offshore Fracking.” The Hill, May 27. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/281543 -feds-clear-california-offshore-fracking. Cama, Timothy. 2016b. “Trump Rattles Industry with Fracking Position.” The Hill, August 3. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment /290186-trump-rattles-industry-with-fracking-position. Campbell, Jon. 2014. “Most Democrats ‘Have Supported Fracking,’ Schumer Says.” Poughkeepsie Journal, May 5. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.poughkeepsiejournal

131

132

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

.com/story/tech/science/environment/2014/05/05/democrats-supported-frac​ king-schumer-says/8745909/. Clinton, Hillary. 2016. “Hillary Clinton Vows to Stringently Regulate Fracking as President,” Speech, March 6. CNN Election Central. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016/03/full-video-cnn-democratic -debate-from-flint-michigan/. Crooks, Ed. 2016. “Clinton and Sanders Talk Tough on Fracking.” Financial Times, March 7. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/0c38f9ce-e481-11e5 -bc31-138df2ae9ee6. Davenport, Coral. 2016a. “Donald Trump, in Pittsburgh, Pledges to Boost Both Coal and Gas.” New York Times, September 22. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www.nytimes .com/2016/09/23/us/politics/donald-trump-fracking.html?_r=0. Davenport, Coral. 2016b. “Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water.” New York Times, December 13. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/reversing-course-epa-says-fracking-can -contaminate-drinking-water.html. Elliott, Daryl. 2014. “NCES 7.0 Summary Report (+Full Speeches from Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid).” Clean Technica, September 8. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/08/nces-7-0-summary-report-full-speeches -hilary-clinton-harry-reid/. Energy Policy Act. 2005. Public Law 109–58, 42 U.S.C. §15801. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States.” Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://cfpub .epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990. Florida Senate. 2016. “Regulation of Oil and Gas Resources,” S. 191, 2016 Leg. (Fla.). Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2016/0191/?Tab =BillHistory. Follett, Andrew. 2017. “Trump’s EPA Repeals an Obama Methane Rule.” Daily Caller, March 3. Last modified March 3, 2017. Accessed April 13, 2017. http://dailycaller .com/2017/03/03/trumps-epa-repeals-an-obama-methane-rule/. Foran, Clare. 2014. “In 2016, Republicans Will Have Fracking on Their Side.” The Atlantic, June 12. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive /2014/06/in-2016-republicans-will-have-fracking-on-their-side/445215/. FRAC Act, S. 785, 114th Cong. (2015). Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www .congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/785/actions. Gearino, Dan. 2013. “Obama’s Former Energy Secretary Says Fracking Can Be Done Safely.” Columbus Dispatch, September 17. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.dispatch .com/content/stories/business/2013/09/17/chu-natural-gas-energy-conference.html. Hausman, Catherine, and Ryan Kellogg. 2015. “Welfare and Distributional Implications of Shale Gas.” Brookings, Spring. Last modified 2015. Accessed February 14, 2017. https:// www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/welfare-and-distributional-implications-of-shale-gas/. Henry, Devin. 2016. “Fracking Fight Looms for Democrats.” The Hill, June 17. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283826-fracking -fight-looms-for-democrats. Kuchment, Anna. 2016. “Drilling-Induced Earthquakes May Endanger Millions in 2016, USGS Says.” PBS Newshour. Last modified March 28, 2016. Accessed April

Hy d r a u lic F r a c tur i ng ( “ Fr a c k ing ”)

13, 2017. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/drilling-induced-earthquakes-may -endanger-millions-in-2016-usgs-says/. Lipton, Eric. 2017. “G.O.P. Hurries to Slash Oil and Gas Rules, Ending Industries’ 8-Year Wait.” New York Times, February 4. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www.nytimes .com/2017/02/04/us/politics/republicans-oil-gas-regulations.html. Loftis, Randy Lee. 2012. “Texas’ New Fracking Disclosure Law Doesn’t Shed Light on Everything.” Dallas News, August 6. Accessed April 13, 2017. https://www.dallas​ news.com/news/news/2012/08/06/texas-new-fracking-disclosure-law-doesnt-shed -light-on-everything. Moniz, Ernest. 2014. “Driving Innovation through Federal Investments.” Statement of Dr. Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, 113th Congress, 2d Sess. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://energy.gov/articles/energy-secretary-ernest-monizs-statement-senate-com mittee-appropriations-driving-innovation. New York Times Editorial Board. “The Halliburton Loophole.” New York Times, November 2. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue3 .html. Ritchie, Bruce. 2016. “Despite Some Republican Dissent, House Easily Passes Fracking Bill.” Politico (Florida edition), January 27. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www .politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/01/despite-some-republican-dissent-house -easily-passes-fracking-bill-030607. RNC Committee. “Republican Platform 2016.” Committee on Arrangements for the 2016 Republican National Convention. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://prod-cdn-static .gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf. Rowland, Darrel. 2014. “Kasich Reverses on Fracking in State Parks.” Columbus Dispatch, February 19. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories /local/2014/02/18/Reps-call-for-investigation-into-ODNR-fracking-plan.html. Schor, Elana. 2015. “GOP Hits Back at Fracking Rules.” Politico, March 19. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/interiors-fracking-rules-ready -for-launch-116241. Schor, Elana. 2016. “Trump Agrees with Clinton on Fracking Debate.” Politico, July 29. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07 /donald-trump-hillary-clinton-fracking-226459. Sierra Club Staff. 2012. “Thousands Gather for Stop the Frack Attack Rally.” Compass (blog), July 30. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://blogs.sierraclub.org/compass/2012/07 /thousands-gather-for-stop-the-frack-attack-rally.html. Soraghan, Mike. 2015. “Hydraulic Fracturing: Senate Votes to Keep ‘Halliburton Loophole’; Regulation Stays with States.” E&E News, January 29. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060012514. Swift, Art. 2016. “Opposition to Fracking Mounts in the U.S.” Gallup, March 30. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190355/opposition-fracking-mounts .aspx. Trump, Donald J. 2017. “Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 28. https:// www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/presidential-executive-order -promoting-energy-independence-and-economi-1. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2016. “United States remains largest producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons.” May 23. Accessed July 24, 2017. https:// www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26352.

133

134

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

U.S. Geological Survey. 2016. “Hydraulic Fracturing (‘Fracking’) FAQs.” Department of the Interior. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/10132 /3826. Wall Street Journal Staff. 2016. “Clinton Against American Energy.” WSJ.com, March 7. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-against-american -energy-1457397667.

Hydroelectric Energy

At a Glance

Hydroelectric power is an important component of America’s total energy infrastructure, and it has been so since the great dam-building era that began with the New Deal in the 1930s and continued through the 1960s. However, though it is a renewable resource of long standing, “water does not get as much attention as wind and solar in most states, or by the federal government” (Daigneau 2013). There is evidence, however, that both Republicans and Democrats are turning their attention to and supporting hydropower. For example, the bipartisan Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 was explicitly crafted to increase the United States’ hydropower capacity in an effort to expand clean-power generation and spur domestic job creation. “As the country’s largest source of renewable energy,” explained one Senate committee, “hydropower allows us to avoid approximately 200 million metric tons of carbon emissions each year” (U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 2013). The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act was unanimously supported by both the House and the Senate and was signed into law by Democratic president Barack Obama. In fact, support for hydroelectric power has been one of the few energy policy areas in which Democrats and Republicans have managed to find common ground in the 21st century. In addition to the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act, laws such as the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, supported by congressional Republicans and signed by Obama in 2013, have shown that when it comes to hydropower, the parties are able to bridge divides that keep them apart in other policy areas. The Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act streamlined the approval process for small hydropower facilities in order to increase private investment in such projects. Republican Representative Scott Tipton (R-CO) who sponsored the legislation, said that it was necessary because “large-scale federal and non-federal projects are hindered by excess litigation, regulation and arbitrary requirements. Bureaucracy is exactly what we did away with in my hydropower legislation. We need to apply similar thinking to larger projects as well” (Cline 2014). Congress

136

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

overwhelming supported the hydropower bills, with the Senate voting 100–0 on both bills. In the House, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act also won unanimous consent, and only seven House Democrat members voted against the Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act (Cline 2014; GovTrack 2013). The federal government has also used policy incentives, such as tax credits and loan guarantees, which both Democrats and Republicans support, to stimulate the deployment of renewable energy—especially hydropower. As former representative Mary Bono (R-CA) noted, “Republican opposition to renewables is not unanimous. In fact, Republicans have supported renewables that are readily available in their state or district—proving that, once again, all politics is local. In the Midwest, the support for renewable fuels is clearly bipartisan” (Bono 2015). Many Republicans . . .

• Support hydroelectric power but focus more on economic development and job creation than on the clean energy aspects of the technology • Often support tax incentives and loan guarantees for renewable energy companies • Question the need for federal subsidies or mandates to promote renewable energy • Support streamlining licensing processes for small hydropower projects • Embrace an all-of-the-above energy policy with a focus on fossil fuels • Prefer to rely on markets and new technologies to improve energy efficiency Many Democrats . . .

• Support hydroelectric power as an energy alternative with clear environmental, economic development, and job creation benefits. • Tend to focus on and support wind and solar energy more than hydroelectric • Support tax incentives and loan guarantees to encourage investment in green technologies • Promote America energy independence • Express concerns that the detrimental environmental effects of dams, such as alteration of natural river ecosystems and diminished fish populations, are not always adequately considered in hydroelectric operations

Overview

Hydroelectric energy is a clean renewable power source that uses the Earth’s water cycle to generate electricity. There are three types of hydropower facilities:

Hy d r o e l ec tr ic E ner g y

impoundment, diversion, and pumped storage. The most common type of hydroelectric power plant is an impoundment facility, which uses a dam to store river water in a reservoir. Water released from the reservoir flows through a turbine, spinning it, which in turn activates a generator to produce electricity. But hydroelectric power does not necessarily require a large dam; some power plants, such as diversion facilities, use a small canal to channel the river water through a turbine. In the United States, hydroelectric power is more than a century old. The first dam to use hydraulic reaction turbines to generate electricity was a facility on the Fox River in Appleton, Wisconsin. The Fox River dam, which began operations in 1882, marked the beginning of a multidecade explosion of dam building. “From 1905 through the 1930s, several large, iconic dams, including the famous Hoover and Roosevelt dams in the West, were constructed. During that time, nearly 40 percent of the nation’s electricity came from hydropower” (Daigneau 2013). The Federal Power Act of 1920, also known as the Federal Water Power Act, was the earliest effort to coordinate hydroelectric projects in the United States. It encouraged the development of hydroelectric projects, such as dams and reservoirs, and established the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to coordinate hydroelectric projects under federal control, including licensing and relicensing power projects. Subsequent amendments in almost every decade expanded FPC’s jurisdiction and responsibilities. (In 1977, Congress reorganized the FPC as Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC, an independent government agency in the Department of Energy (DOE), regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil; it also licenses and inspects private, municipal, and state hydroelectric projects. The massive dam projects that emerged during the New Deal marked the beginning of a roughly four-decade era in which dams, and especially “multipurpose” dams with both irrigation and hydroelectric components, sprang up all across the country under the direction of the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As one environmental policy study noted, “When World War II arrived and these great dams poured cheap and plentiful electricity into shipyards and airplane factories up and down the West Coast, they . . . came to be regarded as linchpins of national security. By the end of the war, the Bureau of Reclamation had largely completed its metamorphosis from ally of the western family farm to titan of electric power and urban water use. At the war’s close, in fact, the Bureau of Reclamation ranked as the single largest producer of power on the planet” (Hillstrom 2010). In the late 1950s and 1960s, however, America’s bipartisan appetite for major water projects, including major hydroelectric dams, encountered growing resistance. Part of this was due to the simple fact that it became harder for the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to find economically viable places for dam projects, since all the best ones had already been developed. But massive water projects also increasingly ran afoul of the emerging environmental movement, which placed a high value on wilderness conservation. “By the 1960s,”

137

138

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

stated one environmental policy scholar, “publicity campaigns by the Sierra Club and fish and wildlife protection groups against water projects had redefined [America’s] water resource agencies from Progressive heroes to environmental villains, mindlessly destroying the landscape for short-term, economic, political, and bureaucratic purposes” (Andrews 1999). As a result of this changing political environment, several hydroelectric dam projects that would have been easily greenlighted in the 1940s or 1950s were actually stopped in the 1960s due to public pressure, including proposed hydropower operations on the Yukon, Trinity, and Cumberland rivers (Hillstrom 2010). As of 2016, hydroelectricity accounts for approximately 7 percent of total energy production (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2017). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the nation’s largest producer of hydropower. It operates 75 power plants with 356 hydroelectric generating units, producing nearly onethird of the nation’s total hydropower output (USACE 2017). The Bureau of Reclamation, which is based primarily in the American West, is the second largest producer in the United States. Reclamation operates 53 hydroelectric power plants and accounts for 15 percent of the country’s annual hydropower output. Of hydropower generation nationwide, 52 percent is owned by the USACE, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal entities. The other 48 percent is owned by private and public utilities, municipalities and others. According to FERC, which regulates nonfederal projects, these entities operated 1,623 hydropower facilities in every region of the United States in 2017 (National Hydro Association 2017). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was the first omnibus energy legislation enacted in more than a decade. This act was not specifically directed at hydroelectric power; rather, it addressed energy production in the United States in general, including (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil and gas; (4) coal; (5) Tribal energy; (6) nuclear matters and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels, including ethanol; (8) hydrogen; (9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives; (11) hydropower and geothermal energy; and (12) climate change technology (Environmental Protection Agency 2017). In 2009, the DOE’s Water Power Program invested in upgrades to the nation’s existing hydropower facilities with funding from of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was passed by Democrats and signed into law by Democratic president Barack Obama over the unified opposition of Republicans. These upgrades offered both communities and utilities the opportunity to make hydropower even more cost-effective and productive. In order to provide for a long-term, collaborative working relationship, prioritize similar goals, and align ongoing and future renewable energy development efforts between the Department of the Interior (through the Bureau of Reclamation), the U.S. Department of Energy (through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy), and the Department of the Army (through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), the agencies signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Hydropower in 2010. The MOU’s stated mission is to help meet the country’s need for reliable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable hydropower. In April

Hy d r o e l ec tr ic E ner g y

2012, the three agencies published a two-year progress report to document the MOU’s achievements, stating that they have succeeded in the majority of their efforts for greater development and utilization of clean, reliable, cost-effective, and sustainable hydropower generation in the United States. In 2015, the MOU was extended for five years with a goal of doubling renewable energy generation from hydropower by 2020 and improving federal permitting processes for clean energy (Bureau of Reclamation 2017). In 2016, DOE released its Hydropower Vision report, which established an ambitious roadmap to usher in a new era of growth in sustainable domestic hydropower over the next half century. The report stated that “U.S. hydropower could grow from 101 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in 2015 to nearly 150 GW by 2050. Under this scenario, $209 billion in savings from avoided global damages from greenhouse gas emissions is possible, including $185 billion from continuing to operate the existing hydropower fleet through 2050. With this deployment level, more than 35 million average U.S. homes could be powered by hydropower in 2050” (U.S. Department of Energy 2014). Advocates of hydroelectric power describe it as clean, safe, reliable, efficient, flexible, cost-effective, renewable, and sustainable. In fact, the National Hydropower Association claims that hydroelectric facilities eliminate 225 million metric tons of carbon pollution in the United States each year—equal to the output of approximately 42 million passenger cars (NHA 2017). Associated water reservoirs, meanwhile, can serve as recreation areas for fishing, boating, rafting, camping, hiking, and other activities. Nonetheless, hydropower is not without its negative impacts. Some of the arguments that have been leveled against hydroelectric dams are that they are expensive to build, vulnerable to terrorist attack, and subject to failure due to natural disasters, and that they result in a loss of natural ecosystems and scenery (Maehlum 2014). Some critics do not even consider hydropower to be a renewable energy source. John Seebach, senior director of federal river management with the conservation group American Rivers, stated that hydropower comes with some “pretty significant environmental baggage” (Daigneau 2013). He pointed out that large dams may block migrating fish from reaching their spawning grounds and that dam reservoirs impact flows, temperatures, and silt loads of rivers and streams, factors that have drastically reduced fish populations (Daigneau 2013). Every state benefits from hydroelectric power. The hydropower industry employs approximately 300,000 workers “from project development to manufacturing to facilities operations and maintenance” (NHA 2017). The top 10 hydropowergenerating states are Washington, Oregon, New York, California, Alabama, Tennessee, Montana, Idaho, North Carolina, and Arizona. The state of Washington is the largest producer of hydropower in the nation, and since 2007, the state has relied on this resource for approximately 75 percent of its electricity. New York is the largest hydropower producer in the Northeast, with more than 300 hydrogeneration stations producing 80 percent of all renewable energy. “While the hydropower growth rates in the state remained relatively constant in the past 25 years,

139

140

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Hydropower Industry Touts Public Support for Hydroelectric Investment In 2014, the National Hydropower Association (NHA), a hydroelectric industry group, released the results of a poll it had commissioned from Princeton Survey Research Associates International to gauge public support for hydropower. According to the NHA, the results of the poll underscored broad and bipartisan support, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents supporting specific prohydroelectric initiatives. Specifically, • 77 percent of respondents favored federal investment in research and development into emerging hydropower technologies, • 77 percent favored federal government reinvestment of revenue from governmentowned hydropower facilities to modernize and upgrade these facilities, • 74 percent favored hydropower receiving the same credits and incentives as other renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and • 69 percent approved of changing federal regulations so it takes less time to relicense an existing dam or retrofit a current dam to produce electricity. Source NHA (National Hydropower Association). 2014. “Broad Public Support: Hydropower Enjoys Broad Public Support.” Accessed April 17, 1017. http://www.hydro.org/why-hydro/poll/.

the last few years have seen an uptick given the emergence of new technologies as well as government’s increased focus on renewable energy” (Nakon 2017). Republicans on Hydroelectric Energy

The Federal Power Act of 1920, which regulated the interstate activities of the electric power and natural gas industries and coordinated national hydroelectric power activities, was sponsored by Representative John Esch (R-WI) from the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The act was immediately amended in 1921 by the Jones–Esch Act to ensure that water power development would not occur in the national parks or monuments. Both acts were signed into law by Democratic president Woodrow Wilson. For the remainder of the 20th century, Republicans were broadly supportive of hydroelectric projects, wherever those projects might be. For most GOP lawmakers, the economic and political benefits of dams—and especially dams capable of both generating energy and aiding agriculture with irrigation—were self-evident. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which addressed energy policy in general, was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. In the House, 208 Republicans and 41 Democrats supported the bill, with 22 Republicans and 160 Democrats opposed. In the Senate, 49 Republicans and 35

Hy d r o e l ec tr ic E ner g y

Democrats supported the bill, while 5 Republicans and 7 Democrats opposed. The act changed U.S. energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types—including hydropower. Since that time, Republicans have generally been broadly supportive of wellestablished energy sectors, from oil and natural gas to hydroelectric. This support has taken the form of continued championing of subsidies for those industries to encouraging further hydro development. In 2013, with the passage of the Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, Representative Scott Tipton (R-CO), who introduced the bill, stated, “This new law provides a tremendous opportunity for clean, renewable energy production in Colorado and across the nation. It will create jobs right here at home, and provide a supply of reliable and affordable power, lowering energy costs. I’m honored that I was able to lead the charge for this commonsense effort that received broad and bipartisan support at the local, state and national levels. Hydropower is the cheapest and cleanest source of electricity available through modern technology, and a key component of the all-of-the-above energy platform that I continue to strongly support. With the signing of the Hydropower and Rural Jobs Act into law, we have made headway in the effort to establish American energy independence and put people back to work” (Tipton 2013). In 2015, the bipartisan Energy Policy Modernization Act was introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA). Among the act’s many provisions, it increased the federal government’s renewable energy mandate from 7.5 percent to 15 percent, reinstated hydropower as a renewable energy, extended hydropower incentives to the year 2025, and removed assorted regulatory barriers to hydropower permitting (Gutin 2015). The bill received an overwhelming bipartisan vote when it passed out of committee and was supported by both Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV). When speaking to the Senate, Murkowski highlighted “the vast potential that hydropower would bring to our nation, if we were able to fully utilize hydropower as a clean, renewable energy resource, by fixing the broken federal regulatory process” (Murkowski 2016). Several environmental groups voiced concerns, however. “Several provisions in this bill . . . we believe could cause detrimental effects to public health and our environment. For example, there is no need to exempt hydropower facilities from regulations that have worked for a century” (GovTrack 2016). The bill was introduced in 2015 and passed by both chambers in 2016, but the bills never underwent reconciliation that would have sent a signable bill to President Obama’s desk for his signature. In 2016, the Republican Party platform stated, “We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower.” In 2017, according to the GOP-controlled House Committee on Natural Resources, Republicans in Congress support expanding the use of hydropower and consider it an essential part of an all-of-the-above energy approach to improve the environment and meet

141

142

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

the country’s energy needs. The GOP also stated that they are working to make all hydropower officially recognized as a renewable energy source by any legal or regulatory standard established by the federal government (House Committee on Natural Resources, 2017). After his inauguration in January 2017, Republican president Donald Trump issued a 50-item list of infrastructure priorities, including two that particularly focused on hydropower. Trump asserted that many of the USACE hydro plants are operating at 80 percent efficiency, when the industry standard is 99 percent. In order to increase the production of clean energy and stop wasting billions of dollars of revenues, turbines need to be replaced—creating 550 jobs, at an estimated cost of $4 billion. Trump also expressed support for a new hydroelectric project in New York’s Lake Champlain–Hudson River region, saying that it would bring as much as 1,000 megawatts of clean, renewable power to the New York metro area and create 1,000 jobs, at a cost of $2.2 billion that would be privately funded (Trump 2017). Democrats on Hydroelectric Energy

In their 2004 Party platform, Democrats claimed that the Republican energy policy was nothing more than “government by big oil, of big oil, and for big oil.” The Democratic platforms in 2008 and 2012 continued to charge that Republican energy policy would make their Big Oil donors even richer at the expense of the middle class. Democrats vowed to cut tax subsidies for Big Oil while promoting job growth in the clean energy sector. Such steps, asserted Democrats, would both cut the deficit and increase jobs and growth in America. Democrats further stated that they would use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, as well as invest in energy-independent technologies that would reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. In Obama’s 2009 State of the Union address, the new president focused on clean energy, stating, “We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century . . . and we will double this Nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next 3 years. But to truly transform our economy, to protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.” In 2009, DOE announced that it would receive up to $32 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding to modernize the existing hydropower infrastructure, increase efficiency, and reduce the environmental impact of hydro operations, as well as to support the deployment of turbines and control technologies to increase power generation and environmental stewardship at existing nonfederal hydroelectric facilities (Energy.gov Staff 2009). In his 2011 State of the Union address, Obama continued to frame hydroelectric power as an integral part of the country’s renewable energy future: “By 2035,

Hy d r o e l ec tr ic E ner g y

A Democrat Discusses the Complex Environmental Factors Associated with Hydropower In 2017, U.S. Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), stated his support for hydroelectric power, even as he acknowledged that the technology has some negative impacts on the environment. “Hydroelectric power is among the most mature generating technologies providing substantial, virtually carbon-free, baseload energy at low cost to our manufacturing sector and to residential and commercial consumers. It is an important asset we need to maintain. At the same time, it also has major impacts on fish and wildlife populations, water quality, water supply management, and other important physical and cultural resources if poorly operated or sited. For example, there are numerous examples of hydroelectric dams devastating lands and waters sacred to Native American Tribes. This should not happen. While hydroelectric power licensees depend on rivers for free fuel, those rivers belong to all Americans, not just those who sell or buy the power generated from it. We must understand more fully the challenges facing the hydropower industry and the rivers the industry relies upon before we update our policies. Our goal should be to maintain the fundamental principles of balance in the process so that we maximize the benefits of hydroelectric power and expand it where it is most appropriate to do so.” Source Democrats, Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2017. “Pallone Touts Modernizing Our Energy Infrastructure at Hydroelectric Power Hearing.” Press Release, March 15. https:// democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/pallone-touts-moder nizing-our-energy-infrastructure-at-hydroelectric-power.

we will generate 80 percent of our electricity from a diverse set of clean energy sources—including renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower; nuclear power; efficient natural gas; and clean coal.” In 2013, Obama signed into law two hydropower bills: the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act and the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act. These laws are aimed at improving conditions for domestic hydropower development by streamlining the federal regulatory process requirements for certain types of hydroelectric projects. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA)—at the time, the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce—voted against the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, “because it would exempt small conduit hydropower development from being covered by the National Environmental Policy Act. Despite repeated attempts by my Democratic colleagues to remove this exemption during committee markup and again with an amendment on the House floor, it remained in the bill” (Graeber 2012).

143

144

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

In Obama’s final State of the Union address, he abandoned his previously stated support for an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy policy—one that blends the use of emerging and established energy resources for the American people and the American economy (Luthi 2016) Likewise, the Democrats struck the all-of-the-above language from the 2016 party platform and replaced it with “We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century.” As Democratic National Committee platform member Bill McKibben said on Twitter after the panel agreed to end its support for “all of the above” (Richardson 2016), “No more all of the above. No more bridge to the future. Sun and wind are now above natural gas.” In the end, most policy analysts believe that Obama’s legacy on energy policy will likely be most noted for its emphasis on advancing renewable energy, including hydropower, and associated steps to address climate change. Teri J. Walker Further Reading Andrews, Richard N. L. 1999. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bono, Mary. 2015. “Is Renewable Energy Part of the ‘All of the Above’ Strategy?” The Hill, March 3. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy -environment/234400-is-renewable-energy-part-of-the-all-of-the-above. Bureau of Reclamation. 2017. “HydroPower Program.” U.S. Department of the Interior. January 30. Accessed April 26, 2017. https://www.usbr.gov/power/. Cline, Regina. 2014. “Hydropower in U.S. Gets Boost from New Laws: Will Congress Do More?” Energy and Environment (blog), January 30. Accessed April 26, 2017. https:// www.bna.com/hydropower-us-gets-b17179881735/. Compton, Matt. 2012. “President Obama Describes an All-of-the-Above Strategy for Energy.” White House Press Release. February 23, 2012. Accessed April 26, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/02/23/president-obama-describes -all-above-strategy-energy. Daigneau, Elizabeth. 2013. “Hydropower a Renewable Energy or Not?” Governing, September. Accessed April 24, 2017. http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation -infrastructure/gov-hydropower-renewable-energy.html. Energy.gov Staff. 2009. “Obama Administration Announces Up to $32 Million Initiative to Expand Hydropower.” U.S. Department of Energy, June 30. Accessed April 16, 2017. https://energy.gov/articles/obama-administration-announces-32-million-initiative -expand-hydropower. Energy.gov Staff. 2016. “Hydropower Vision: A New Chapter for America’s 1st Renewable Electricity Source.” U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed April 27, 2017. https://energy .gov/eere/water/articles/hydropower-vision-new-chapter-america-s-1st-renewable -electricity-source. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Renewable Fuel Standard Program.” Accessed July 24, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/statutes-renewable -fuel-standard-program. Flavin, Ron. 2014. “The US Department of Energy’s 2014 Budget Request: Implications for Renewable Energy Funding.” RenewableEnergyWorld.com, March 5. Accessed April

Hy d r o e l ec tr ic E ner g y

24, 2017. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/03/the-us-department -of-energys-2014-budget-request-implications-for-renewable-energy-funding.html. GovTrack. 2013. “H.R. 267 (113th Congress): Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013.” Accessed July 24, 2017. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr267 GovTrack. 2013. “H.R. 678 (113th Congress): Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act.” Accessed July 24, 2017. https://www .govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr678. GovTrack. 2016. “S. 2012 (114th Congress): North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016.” Accessed July 24, 2017. https://www.govtrack.us/congress /bills/114/s2012/summary. Graeber, Daniel, 2012. “The Strange Case of U.S. Hydropower Legislation.” Oilprice.com, March 15. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Hydro​ electric/The-Strange-Case-of-U.S.-Hydropower-Legislation.html. Gutin, Ori. 2015. “Comprehensive Bipartisan Energy Bill Gets Closer to Vote: The Energy Modernization Act of 2015 Reported Out of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.” EESI (Environmental and Energy and Study Institute), August 5. Accessed May 5, 2017. http://www.eesi.org/articles/view/bipartisan-energy-bill-gets-closer-to-vote. Hillstrom, Kevin. 2010. U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: A Documentary History. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Holt, Mark, and Glover, Carol. 2006. “Energy Policy Act of 2005: Summary and Analysis of Enacted Provisions Report.” Congressional Research Service Report. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://www.circleofblue.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/CRS-Summary -of-Energy-Policy-Act-of-2005.pdf. House Committee on Natural Resources. 2017. “All-of-the-above energy approach.” Accessed May 5, 2017. https://naturalresources.house.gov/energy/. Luthi, Randall. 2016. “Unearthing an All-of-the-Above Energy Approach: The Next President Must Recover What Obama Abandoned.” Washington Times, February 3. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/3/randall -luthi-unearthing-an-all-of-the-above-energ/. Maehlum, Mathias Aarre. 2014. “Hydroelectric Energy Pros and Cons.” Energy Informative. Accessed April 24, 2017. http://energyinformative.org/hydroelectric-energy -pros-and-cons/. Munson, Dick, 2017. “3 Republican Governors Embrace Clean Energy’s Economic Promise.” Renewable Energy World, February 1. Accessed April 27, 2017. http://www .renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/02/3-republican-governors-embrace-clean -energy-s-economic-promise.html. Murkowski, Lisa. 2016. “Sen. Murkowski Promotes Use of Hydropower as Senate Considers Bipartisan Energy Bill.” U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and National Resources, February 2. Accessed April 26, 2017. https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index .cfm/2016/2/sen-murkowski-promotes-use-of-hydropower-as-senate-considers -bipartisan-energy-bill. Nakon, Edward. 2017. “New York Hydropower and Its Sustainability.” Renewable Energy World, April 7. Accessed April 27, 2017. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc /articles/2017/04/06/new-york-hydropower-and-its-sustainability.html. National Hydropower Association. 2017. “FAQ.” Accessed April 21, 2017. http://www .hydro.org/policy/faq/. Newshour Staff. 2015. “Increasing Hydropower Hits a Bipartisan Sweet Spot.” PBS NewsHour, February 11. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/increasing -hydropower-hits-bipartisan-sweet-spot/.

145

146

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Richardson, Valerie. 2016. “Democrats Strike ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy from Platform: Climate Groups Push Party Left.” Washington Times, July 25. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/25/democrats-strike-all-of-the -above-energy-policy-fr/. Siciliano, John. 2016. “Republicans to Rally Around Renewable Energy in D.C.” Washington Examiner, September 19. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://www.washingtonexaminer .com/republicans-to-rally-around-renewable-energy-in-dc/article/2602138. Tipton, Scott. 2013. “Tipton’s Hydropower and Jobs Act Signed into Law.” Press Release. August 9. Accessed April 26, 2017. https://tipton.house.gov/press-release/tipton%E2 %80%99s-hydropower-and-jobs-act-signed-law. Trump, Donald. 2017. “Priority List: Emergency and National Security Projects.” https://www .documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416 -1-Reduced.html. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2016. “Hydropower: Renewable, Reliable Energy for America.” Strong Point, February 9. Accessed April 23, 2017. http://www.usace .army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/budget/strongpt/fy17sp_hydropower_08feb2016 .pdf?ver=2016-06-14-075517-880. U.S. Department of Energy. 2014. “Federal Incentives for Water Power.” Water Power Program, April. Accessed April 25, 2017. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/06/f16 /Federal%20Incentives%20for%20Water%20Power.pdf. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2017. “Monthly Energy Review—March.” Accessed April 2, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf. U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 2013. “Hydropower Improvement Act.” Accessed April 26, 2017. https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm /hydropower-improvement-act. White House. 2012. “Fact Sheet: All-of-the-Above Approach to American Energy.” Press Release, Office of the Press Secretary, March 7. Accessed April 26, 2017. https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/07/fact-sheet-all-above -approach-american-energy.

Indoor Air Pollution

At a Glance

Indoor air pollution includes chemical, biological, and physical (i.e., toxic particles) contaminants that accrue inside and directly around the buildings where humans live, work, and play. Sources of indoor air pollutants are plentiful. They include but are not limited to tobacco smoke, radon, mold, and pesticides, to name a few (Environmental Protection Agency 2017a). The numerous sources of indoor air pollutants, along with the propensity for contemporary humans to stay indoors, have been cited in scientific risk studies as key reasons why indoor air pollution is a greater threat to human health than outdoor air pollution (Environmental Protection Agency 2017b). In addition, efforts to save the outdoor environment have resulted in negative externalities relating to indoor air quality. For example, energy-efficient homes help to conserve energy, but such homes are also more prone to indoor air pollution because they leave little opportunity for bad air to escape. Despite these factors, current Democratic and Republican platforms do not directly address the issue of indoor air quality. Many Democrats . . .

• Believe maintaining and extending existing building codes is an important component of improved indoor air quality (For example, Democrats hold that Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) standards should be reviewed to ensure there is sufficient air recovery from indoor air pollutants.) • Believe home appliances are a key component of indoor air quality (Highlighted in this area is the aim to make renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, a priority energy source over gas energy in American homes. Gas appliances can cause a buildup of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and formaldehyde. Appliance standards relevant to indoor air pollution may include improved ventilation hoods for indoor gas stoves.) • Believe it is important to make the cleanup of existing “brownfields”— industrial and commercial buildings and sites with air, soil, or water contamination issues—a priority

148

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Many Republicans . . .

• Believe air quality, including indoor air quality, has improved steadily over the years • Believe increased regulatory controls to reduce indoor air pollution are unnecessary The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not been regulating air quality according to congressional intent. Therefore, many Republicans feel the EPA needs to be constrained from regulating such air pollutants as the carbon dioxide produced from smoking cigarettes indoors. Instead of EPA oversight, many Republicans favor sole reliance on U.S. congressional oversight, especially with respect to ambient air quality. In order to increase American energy independence and economic growth, all existing energy sources should be utilized—including such sources as coal, which contribute to both indoor and outdoor air pollution.

Overview

Indoor air pollution has been cited as an underappreciated cause of human illness, because most people spend the great majority of their time in indoor settings (Sundell 2004). A report by the American Lung Association, for example, estimated that people spend as much as 90 percent of their time indoors (American Lung Association 2017). Any structure where humans reside is at risk of producing or retaining indoor air pollution. Although many indoor air problems are primarily associated with older buildings, the problem can also be present in newer construction. Tobacco smoke, gas stoves, wood-burning stoves, paint products, pesticides, mold from excess humidity, and toxic fumes emanating from household cleaners and paints are all examples of indoor air pollutants. Importantly, there is also evidence that any outdoor air pollution surrounding a building structure can affect the indoor air quality of that structure, whether the structure in question is a home, school, office building, or retail store (Leung 2015). To complicate matters further, the health effects of indoor air quality on humans can be immediate and/or future-oriented, resulting in considerable difficulty for researchers trying to pinpoint human health problems (American Lung Association 2017). Although modern Republicans do not express concern about the health effects of the environment as frequently as Democrats do, it was Republican president Richard Nixon who presided over the first major wave of environmental regulation in the United States. During the early 1970s, Nixon created the EPA and signed several other landmark pieces of environmental legislation, including the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act gave the EPA authority to set clean air standards, and

I nd o o r Ai r P o ll ut io n

although the standards tend to focus predominantly on outdoor pollution, specific parts of the act do address toxic chemicals that can be a pollution problem both outdoors and indoors. Lead-based paint is one example. For instance, with respect to lead, the EPA regulates air quality standards based on lead particles that accumulate in the air. Currently, the primary standard is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter. State governments have been delegated authority to monitor such levels, and inherent in this criterion is a margin of safety due to the variability of human responses to the pollutant (Environmental Protection Agency 2017c). EPA’s role in abatement of radon, a chemical gas that seeps out of the earth into buildings and is the second-leading cause of lung cancer after smoking, includes the development of a partnership with the American Lung Association and others. This collaborative effort resulted in the Federal Radon Action Plan being officially introduced in 2011. The action plan addresses testing and monitoring of radon in homes and businesses, as well as public awareness and building code standards for new building construction (Environmental Protection Agency 2017d). Another important turning point with respect to indoor air pollution in the 1970s was the energy crisis, in which the United States experienced oil shortages that triggered a surge in energy prices. For the first time, Americans were encouraged to live in energy-efficient homes, a trend that continues. Energy efficiency is thought to be important because it helps reduce energy waste in general, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions that are likely to perpetuate climate change. However, as is the case with many environmental endeavors, energy efficiency comes with trade-offs. For example, energy-efficient homes are more conducive to the creation of indoor air pollution because they retain contaminated air for longer periods of time, a phenomenon that has clear public health implications. In 1976, Republican president Gerald Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which included amendments addressing numerous types of indoor air pollutants. Importantly, the act covered such known indoor air carcinogens as radon gas, asbestos insulation, and formaldehyde, and it gave the EPA considerable enforcement authority to reduce the public health impact of these substances. Of particular concern was asbestos exposure in schools and occupational settings. Indeed, asbestos cleanup and employee training about asbestos in the workplace are still taking place under the purview of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Initially, TSCA was a product of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality and was set to be enacted in 1971. However, partisan controversy over the EPA’s intervention in private business practices due to chemical screening requirements delayed passage of the bill until 1976 (U.S. Library of Congress 2013). In 1987, the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works held hearings that further increased public awareness of the problem of indoor air pollution. The hearings devoted special attention to such indoor pollutants as cigarette smoke and carbon monoxide from gas stoves, both of which were thought to be particularly troublesome for lower-income individuals living in urban multiunit

149

150

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

housing. In a Senate hearing during the late 1980s, deputy EPA administrator James Barnes called indoor air pollution “sick building syndrome. This diagnosis sparked a new round of congressional debate about whether the Clean Air Act needed to be strengthened to address indoor pollution more effectively (Shabecoff 1987a). Another modern-day theme relevant to indoor air pollution stems from public health observations. For example, public health reports indicate that lower-income children—and in particular, minority children from lower-income homes—are increasingly diagnosed with asthma (American Lung Association 2017). Asthma is a health condition that can produce swollen and tightened airways, making it difficult for a person to breath. The condition can range from mild to life-threatening. The exact cause or causes of asthma are still unknown, but potential causes include consistent exposure to a variety of indoor air pollutants, such as secondhand tobacco smoke, mold, dust, and household chemicals (Illinois Department of Health n.d.). Democrats on Indoor Air Pollution

Neither the Democratic Party platforms nor the Republican Party platforms have historically included statements directly pertaining to indoor air pollution. However, the 2016 Democratic Party platform does indicate intent to advocate for “clean coal.” At first blush, the term clean coal seems like an oxymoron. However, it has become standard lingo for traditional “fossil fuel” energy production practices that purport to limit or eliminate harmful pollutants in the air or water, despite the fact that environmentalists and many scientists believe “clean coal” is a myth (Nijhuis 2014). The terminology used to frame political party platforms is not trivial or accidental. Therefore, it could be said that, in using the words clean and coal together, Democratic Party officials hedged their election bets on environmentalists’ continued allegiance to their party while at the same time hoping for continued support from the coal industry. Regarding indoor air pollution, continued dependence on coal—even coal extracted or used in more technologically advanced ways—could have sobering consequences, since coal is frequently described as “the dirtiest of energy sources” (Nijhuis 2014). Similarly, in 2009 Democratic president Barack Obama asserted that the EPA would limit carbondumping from coal-burning power plants (Nijhuis 2014) and that the United States would continue to promote the development of green energy sources. But while coal consumption did steadily decline during Obama’s two terms in office, it remained an important part of America’s overall energy picture. Where coal may affect indoor air quality the most is in rural communities (U.S. domestic and globally) and in developing countries worldwide. For example, it has been estimated that about 450,000 premature deaths occur among residents of rural China due to indoor air pollution from using coal for heating and cooking indoors (Zhang and Smith 2007). Meanwhile, in such rural areas of the United

I nd o o r Ai r P o ll ut io n

States as Appalachia, residents are more likely than urban Americans to use coal for cooking and heating, and this use of coal creates poor indoor air quality. Within the scope of U.S. congressional activity, Democratic members of Congress tend to debate about air pollution within the context of scientific consensus, and Democratic-affiliated interest groups follow suit. For example, Emily Davis of the National Resources Defense Council decried Republican Lamar Smith’s (R-TX) comment that EPA science “supporting Ambient Air Quality Standards is somehow secret science.” According to Davis (2014), “EPA standards have been extensively reviewed by independent authorities.” Whereas scientific data can be telling, research methodologists know that just because data has gone through a scientific process does not mean it is totally devoid of subjective interpretation. Congressional debate surrounding indoor air pollution has not always resulted in partisan stalemates, however. Although the Indoor Air Quality Act of 1991 was introduced in the U.S. House, no further consideration took place and the bill died. However, the bill was passed in the Senate on a bipartisan basis, with one roll call vote of 88 yeas to 7 nays (Democratic Senator George Mitchell of Maine was the primary sponsor). Among other directives, the bill charged the EPA director with the creation of a research and development arm dedicated to studying the causes, detection, and remediation of polluted indoor air (Congress.gov 2017). Included in the required actions of the bill was the creation of a published list of indoor air pollutants (Congress.gov 2017). Three Democratic senators and two Republican senators cosponsored the bill. In addition, House and Senate congressional committees, including the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, were involved in the bill’s creation (Congress.gov 2017). In 1993, Mitchell used EPA estimates to argue for a different version of the bill. He argued that “costs to society from indoor air pollution are literally in the tens of billions of dollars per year, that includes medical costs, increased sick leave and reduced productivity” (Borcover 1993). Likewise, in the 110th Congress of 2007, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) was included as a cosponsor of a predominantly Democratic-backed bill to make federal buildings greener and more energy-efficient. Despite the challenges of enacting indoor air quality regulations at the federal level, indoor air quality laws been successfully enacted at the state government level. For example, in 1994 Illinois enacted an Indoor Air Quality Act that addresses the problem of indoor air pollution via monitoring guidelines from an advisory council (Bayless 2008). The Democratic Party tends to agree with the Republican Party about the importance of American jobs—but within the context of the economy, this is where the similarity ends. Many Democrats believe “green” jobs serve a dual purpose. Green jobs can improve the national economy as a whole and save the environment at the same time. In fact, entire industries were created around the Democrats’ “green” theme. Relative to indoor air pollution, for example, private companies offer asbestos, mold, and lead abatement services, as well as radon mitigation and general

151

152

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

indoor air monitoring services. Construction companies also specialize in building energy-efficient homes, often according to federal and state regulations. Indirect industries include organizations that specialize in abatement certification in accordance with EPA standards. The Democratic Party has been broadly supportive of all of these developments and trends. Republicans on Indoor Air Pollution

Since the 1970s, many Republicans have called for an “appropriate” balance between environmental protection and efforts to boost the national economy. The 1980 Republican Party platform underscored a turning point for Republican support of environmental concerns. Republicans had previously endorsed new environmental regulation under Republican rule, but the 1980 platform denounced much of the environmental regulation that occurred under Jimmy Carter’s administration, as well as Carter’s bids to set the United States on a greener energy course. By 1980, many Republicans had come to feel that federal interventions to save the environment were both overzealous and unacceptably burdensome to American industry and the U.S. economy. Ironically, the 1972 Republican Party platform endorsed the first rendition of the Clean Air Act. In 1980, however, Republicans vowed to loosen what they perceived as overly strict regulatory requirements that had become attached to the act. Subsequent Republican Party platforms have been skeptical of environmental regulations, including those focused on reducing or controlling indoor air pollution. For example, the 2016 Republican Party platform endorsed the use of coal as an economically efficient energy source. Unlike the Democratic Party, many Republicans have concluded that the costs associated with environmental regulation are not necessarily worth the benefits. Instead, streamlining regulation in the name of efficiency was thought to be in order. Importantly, Republican president Ronald Reagan publicly denounced initial attempts at passing the Indoor Air Quality Act because he believed existing clean air regulation was sufficient, according to the New York Times (Shabecoff 1987b). Although the Indoor Air Quality Act passed only in the Senate, the Indoor Radon Abatement Act exists with amendments today. Yet, OSHA expressed concerns in 2008 over the permissiveness of the act. According to OSHA, the tendency for radon to build up inside American homes has actually continued to increase since the original enactment of the Indoor Radon Abatement Act, because local building codes do not always require radon-resistant construction (OH&S.com Staff 2017). As a result, the enforcement of radon-related regulations has been inconsistent at best because it is more expensive for construction companies to comply. Nonetheless, most Republicans continue to express concern over regulation overload at the federal level. In what is often construed by environmental critics as a Republican attempt to be politically expedient, modern-day Republicans stress the importance of devolution of air and water pollution regulation to the states,

I nd o o r Ai r P o ll ut io n

thereby effectively taking some of the political fallout away from the party. Republicans argue, though, that in effect this regulatory preference reflects the intent of the original TSCA. Section 18 of TSCA as it was originally enacted gives American states the authority to formulate their own relevant laws, as long as the strictness of those laws is equal to or greater than that of the federal law. Ultimately, Republican Party platforms are different from their Democratic counterparts because they emphasize improvements in environmental conditions over the years and free market solutions. For example, Republican Party members tend to support cap and trade programs that give private companies financial incentives for conserving energy and impose financial penalties for emitting pollution. In essence, the polluter pays if the pollution is over an allotted amount, and the assumption is that companies will obey this allotment because company decision makers are economically rational. Sara J. Reed Further Reading American Lung Association. 2017. “Indoor Air Pollution: An Introduction for Health Professionals.” American Lung Association. Accessed April 2, 2017. http://bit.ly/2plqKiv. Armentano, D. 1998. “The Second-Hand Smoke Charade.” Cato Institute, September 28. Accessed April 22, 2017. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/secondhand -smoke-charade. Bayless, Robert L. 2008. “Indoor Air Quality Laws.” Legislative Research Unit, Illinois General Assembly, correspondence. Accessed August 3, 2017. http://www.ilga.gov /commission/lru/48.IndoorAirQuality.pdf. Borcover, Alfred. 1993. “Bill Proposes Study of Indoor Air Pollution.” Chicago Tribune, December 12. Accessed May 7, 2017. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-12-12 /business/9312120190_1_indoor-air-pollution-indoor-contaminants-lung-cancer. Congress.gov. S.455 Indoor Air Quality Act of 1991: 102th Congress (1991–1992). Accessed April 23, 2017. https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/455. Conserve Energy Future. 2017. “Understanding Noise Pollution.” Accessed April 28, 2017. http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-and-effects-of-noise-pollution.php. Davis, E. 2014. “Air Pollution Deaths Should Not Be a Partisan Issue (Op-Ed).” LiveScience. com, March 28. Accessed April 25, 2017. http://www.livescience.com/44449-air -pollution-is-not-partisan.html. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017a. “The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality.” Last modified February 28, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq /inside-story-guide-indoor-air-quality. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017b. “Health, Energy Efficiency and Climate Change.” Last modified May 10, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/health-energy -efficiency-and-climate-change. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017c. “Summary of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (1970).” Accessed April 26, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/summary clean air act. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017d. “The National Radon Action Plan—A Strategy for Saving Lives.” Last modified April 20, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/radon/national -radon-action-plan-strategy-saving-lives.

153

154

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Illinois Department of Public Health. n.d. “Asthma.” Accessed April 25, 2017. http://www .dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/diseases-and-conditions/asthma. Leung, D. 2015. “Outdoor-Indoor Air Pollution in Urban Environment: Challenges and Opportunity.” Frontiers in Environmental Science, January 15. Accessed April 28, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00069. Mudarri, D. 2010. “Building Codes and Indoor Air Quality.” Accessed May 5, 2017. https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/building_codes_and_iaq .pdf. Nesbit, J., and Cimons, M. 2015. “Carbon Dioxide Inside Can Be Harmful Too.” U.S. News and World Report, November 6. Accessed April 22, 2017. https://www.usnews.com /news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/11/06/carbon-dioxide-inside-can-be-harmful-too. Nijhuis, M. 2014. “Can Coal Ever Be Clean?” National Geographic, April. Accessed April 22, 2017. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/coal/nijhuis-text. OH&S.com Staff. 2008. “20 Years After Radon Abatement Act, Exposure Getting Worse.” Occupational Health & Safety.com, June 14. Accessed April 29, 2017. https://ohs​ online.com/articles/2008/06/20-years-after-radon-abatement-act-exposure-getting -worse.aspx. Shabecoff, P. 1987a. “Congress Is Told Indoor Air Pollution Is Grave Threat.” New York Times, April 25. Accessed April 30, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/25/us /congress-is-told-indoor-pollution-is-grave-threat.html. Shabecoff, P. 1987b. “Reagan Opposes Indoor Clean-Air Bill.” New York Times, November 27. Accessed April 23, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/21/us/reagan-opposes -indoor-clean-air-bill.html. Stockton, N. 2016. “Smog Rejoices as Republicans Take LA’s Top Air Quality Agency.” Wired, March 11. Accessed April 29, 2017. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/smog -rejoices-republicans-take-las-top-air-quality-agency/. Sundell, J. 2004. “On the History of Indoor Air Quality and Health.” Indoor Air 14 (Suppl. 7); 51–58. Accessed April 25, 2017. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600 -0668.2004.00273.x/full. U.S. Library of Congress. 2013. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements, by Linda-Jo Schierow. Congressional Research Service. RL31905. U.S. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). n.d. “Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste.” Accessed April 27, 2017. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets /radwaste.html. World Future Fund. n.d. “S. 656—Indoor Air Quality Act.” Accessed April 25, 2017. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Indoor%20Air%20Documents /S656-FINAL.htm. Zhang, Junfeng (Jim) and Smith, Kirk R. 2007. “Household Air Pollution from Coal and Biomass Fuels in China: Measurements, Health Impacts, and Interventions.” Environmental Health Perspectives 115 (2007): 848–855. Accessed April 25, 2017. doi: 10 .1289/ehp.9479. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892127/pdf/ehp0115 -000848.pdf.

Logging on Public Lands

At a Glance

In general, Republicans and Democrats agree that logging in our national forests is a necessity, but the two parties differ on many aspects of sustaining this renewable resource of timber. For example, they differ on the extent to which the U.S. national forests should be opened up to logging, which harvesting methods should be used, and who should control the national forests. Republicans and Democrats also differ on the economic and environmental benefits of logging, on the support each party receives from the logging industry and environmental advocacy groups, and on the motivations and interests of various stakeholders. Many Republicans . . .

• Want to open up public lands for logging • Favor increased logging in national forests • Believe increased logging will produce more jobs and growth in revenues • Support aggressive tree removal and such widespread logging practices as clear-cutting • Believe increased logging produces a healthier forest • Favor state control of logging policy in the national forests • Tend to support the logging industry over environmental groups • Want to slim down and streamline environmental reviews of timber contracts on public lands Many Democrats . . .

• Favor a decrease in logging activities in the national forests • Believe logging can be harmful to water quality and harmful to fish and wildlife habitat • Believe increased logging jeopardizes recreation areas • Assert that heavy logging decreases employment in tourism and other industries

156

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

• Support the idea that healthy forests require thinning, but do not support clear-cutting • Favor federal government control over logging policy in national forests • Tend to support environmental groups over the logging industry • Support adequate environmental reviews and public participation in crafting timber-cutting policies in national forests and other public lands

Overview

Logging in America dates back to the 1600s, when colonists from Europe first settled in the New World. The clearing of trees to produce “vacant” land for such purposes as crop or grazing lands, road or building construction, or creation and production of wood and paper products for various industries and private use has a long history. Lumber felled from these forests through logging operations has been, and continues to be, essential to the U.S. economy as both a domestic business and a global one. Logging operations are no longer conducted solely on privately owned forested lands, but in the country’s specially designated national forests and other publicly owned lands as well. Unlike national parks (and specially designated wilderness areas), national forests and most other public lands are open to such commercial activities as logging. As logging expanded to meet timber demand from the fastgrowing nation and moved from private forests to national forestlands, concern about sustaining these forests for future generations grew. In 1876, Congress created the office of Special Agent in the U.S. Department of Agriculture “to assess the quality and conditions of forests in the United States.” In 1891, Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act, which authorized President Benjamin Harrison to designate public lands in the West as “forest reserves.” These “reserves” were managed by the Department of the Interior until 1905, when President Theodore Roosevelt transferred their care to the Department of Agriculture’s newly named U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service was charged with caring for the newly renamed “national forests” as well as some other public lands. Gifford Pinchot, who served as the first chief of this new agency, summed up the mission of this new Forest Service: “to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run” (U.S. Forest Service n.d.). The national forests were originally envisioned as working forests with objectives to improve and protect the forest, secure watershed protections, and furnish a continuous supply of timber for citizens. Prior to World War II, the Forest Service focused on these objectives along with forest restoration and wildfire prevention and suppression. After World War II, there was an increased demand on forest resources, especially for timber due to the postwar housing boom. This led to the practice of clear-cutting, in which every tree within a designated area was cut down to maximize timber company efficiency and revenue. But when logging

L o g g i ng o n P ub lic L a nd s

levels became so high that they began to clash with recreational and environmental values (such as wildlife habitat preservation), government was under pressure to respond. This clash eventually led, in the 1960s and 1970s, to the passage of numerous laws regarding the management of national forests. To combat the Forest Service’s historical focus on logging, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSY) of 1960 was passed to ensure that all possible uses and benefits of the forests would be considered, including recreational activities and wildlife. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 required that all branches of government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that significantly affects the environment. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 outlined policies and procedures for national forest land management planning. As of 2016, there are 21 different statutes that influence and impact the Forest Service’s mission. The Forest Service mission has expanded to the following: “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations” (U.S. Forest Service 2008). Management now focuses on ecosystem management and sustainability, but also includes ecological restoration and protection, research and product development, fire hazard reduction, and the maintenance of healthy forests. As of 2016, there are 751 million acres of forestland in the United States. Of those lands, 56 percent are classified as “private,” whether owned by companies or individuals, and 44 percent are designated as “public” land controlled by federal, state, or local governments. According to the Northern Research Station (2008), the federal government controlled 76 percent of these public forest lands in 2008, with states controlling 21 percent and local governments controlling 3 percent. Today, the Forest Service controls about 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands. The Forest Service is divided into nine broad geographic regions; managers of these regional forests use timber sales as one of the ways to achieve their objectives. Trees are harvested in a number of ways, depending on project goals and types of trees in the forest. The most controversial method is clear-cutting, where most or all trees in an area are uniformly cut down; arguments ensue about deforestation, environmental harm, and the ugly appearance of lands that have undergone clear-cutting. Some argue that the true objective of clear-cutting is not to harvest timber, but to regenerate a forest with healthier trees—and that in a “true clearcut all trees greater than two inches in diameter are cut, as opposed to a commercial clearcut, where only marketable trees are removed” (Quadro n.d.). Other proponents argue that clear-cutting is the most efficient way to harvest and replant trees, as well as the most financially sound method (Pennybaker n.d.). Less controversial harvesting options for thinning of trees include seed, shelterwood, patchcut, group selection, and single-tree selection. Logging supporters argue that thinning of trees lowers the fire risk not only to the forest itself and the wildlife within, but

157

158

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

also to the nearby communities. Some scientists argue that wildfires are a natural phenomenon of forest life and create rich soil, greater biodiversity, and a healthier forest (Palmisano 2014). Other controversies surrounding logging operations include whether the federal government or the state government should have more control in regulating logging operations. Differences in opinion also exist in the extent of the governmental review process for logging operations, and which stakeholders should be involved in policy making. Opponents of state control assert that diminished federal regulation typically results in shorter review processes, a decrease in input from nonindustry stakeholders, and a greater likelihood of rampant deforestation. Differences in opinion also center on economic benefits. Logging advocates argue that reviving the logging industry will create more jobs, which in turn will stimulate the economy, especially in rural areas where logging is concentrated. Advocates purport that money from the logging industry will increase tax revenue for local communities, but opponents claim that the federal government loses money from commercial logging in the national forests because, in effect, it subsidizes industry by building and maintaining roads and other infrastructure used by loggers (Taxpayers for Common Sense n.d.). Opponents also argue that heavy logging has a tremendous negative impact on outdoor recreation and tourism, which have emerged as important sources of revenue for many communities in and around national forests and other public lands. There are also arguments over road building in the national forests. Proponents contend that logging improves the road systems for transportation purposes, making it easier to transport wood for building construction and paper products. Opponents contend that roads create barriers for wildlife migration, increase erosion and sedimentation, remove the cover to assist in rainfall and runoff and therefore increase the chances of flooding, and can also increase invasive species due to logging traffic. There is much focus on the environmental impact of logging. Proponents believe that thinning of trees positively impacts tree growth and regeneration, wildlife habitats, and species composition, and that it helps build resistance to insects and disease as well as reducing forest vulnerability to catastrophic fires. Opponents claim logging negatively impacts aquatic systems and soils; decreases wildlife, biodiversity and habitats; and increases tree disease, invasive species, flooding, and severe fire risk. Others argue that logging contributes to global warming because when trees are felled they release the carbon they are storing into the atmosphere, where it mingles with greenhouse gases from other sources (Scheer and Moss 2012). It is estimated that forest degradation contributes up to 20 percent of the world’s global carbon emissions (Denchak 2017). Logging continues to be a major industry in the United States. While logging activity was reduced in the 1970s and 1980s due to environmental impact concerns, there appears to be a renewed interest in increasing logging in the national forests. In many cases, though, logging policies and regulations in national forests

L o g g i ng o n P ub lic L a nd s

EarthJustice and Tom Waldo Earthjustice is a nonprofit environmental law organization with headquarters in San Francisco, California. It also maintains 13 regional offices and employs more than 100 attorneys across the United States. The organization has three goals: (1) to protect our natural heritages, (2) to fight for healthy communities, and (3) to strengthen clean energy and a healthy climate. It represents every client free of charge. Earthjustice protects wild areas, including our national forests, through litigation. Tom Waldo is a senior staff attorney in the Litigation Department in Earthjustice’s Alaska office. According to the organization, Waldo litigates a wide range of cases in state and federal courts and administrative agencies to protect Alaska’s public lands, wildlife, and air and water resources. Mr. Waldo has dedicated more than 25 years to protecting old-growth forests in Alaska. Tom Waldo joined the Earthjustice team in 1989, and he has been working on roadless area protection and old growth habitat issues in the Tongass and Chugach National Forests and other public forestlands ever since. When legal battles challenging the Roadless Rule went to court, Tom Waldo argued many of those cases on behalf of environmental groups. In 2015, he argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was successful when the court struck down a Bush administration exemption of the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Rule. In 2016, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by the State of Alaska to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Rule. Tom Waldo has been influential in protecting old-growth forests from logging not only in Alaska, but also across the United States. In addition to his victories in the courtroom, he has been a highly visible advocate for preserving old-growth forests from logging. Sources Earthjustice. 2016a. “Focus Area: Wild Lands.” Accessed February 27, 2016. http://earthjustice .org/the-wild/wild-lands. Earthjustice. 2016b. “Tom Waldo: Staff Attorney.” Accessed February 27, 2016. http://earthjustice .org/about/staff/tom-waldo.

and other public lands have become caught up in the political polarization that is evident in so many other public policy areas in the 21st century. Generally speaking, Republicans are advocates for the timber industry and for state stewardship of national forests and other public lands, while Democrats are much more likely to support forest conservation ideas and continued federal management. Republicans on Logging

Overall, Republicans tend to support increased logging in the national forests, clear-cutting, streamlining of government procedures, and state control over logging activities. Republican presidents have varied in their policy stance on the national forests and logging. When concern about logging and our national forests

159

160

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

began, Benjamin Harrison authorized the creation of forest reserves and Theodore Roosevelt added 99 million acres to the forest system. In 1976, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Alpine Lakes Area Management Act, protecting 393,000 acres in Washington State. Though Ronald Reagan revised forest planning regulations to require Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for forest plans, many of his administration’s policies were unpopular with Democrats and environmental groups. Other Republican presidents pushed for policies that were more favorable to development and increased logging or policies that decreased environmental protections and public involvement in shaping forest management regulations, or they favored state control over forest policy. During the 1950s, for example, President Dwight Eisenhower requested a 90 percent increase in funding for construction of new logging roads in the national forests. In 1973, the the Nixon administration called for a substantial increase in construction lumber from the National Forests to meet anticipated market needs (but budget constraints to contain inflation put a stop to the proposed increase (Fedkiw 1998). Yet, Nixon also signed into law the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires that any federal action with potential impacts on the environment be accompanied by an EIS, and the Endangered Species Act, which affects the volume of timber felled due to the protection of habitat. The Healthy Forests Initiative, signed by George W. Bush in 2003, reduced environmental protections and public involvement in forest management policies, allowed the Forest Service to avoid consultation with other federal agencies on logging projects, and increased access to the national forests and other federal lands for timber companies. In 2005, also under the Bush administration, the Department of Agriculture adopted a new rule establishing a process by which governors could petition for adjustments to management requirements for National Forest System–inventoried roadless areas within their respective states (Federal Register Staff 2005). This rule allowed governors 18 months to propose to the Agriculture Department which national forest land should be left untouched and which should be opened for other uses; thus giving states more control over how federal lands are managed. From the perspective of many environmental groups and Democrats, the most notorious decision made by the George W. Bush administration regarding federal logging policy came at the very outset of Bush’s presidency. In 2001, the George W. Bush administration delayed all federal rules and regulations that had been put in place in the last days of the Clinton administration, including the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (the Roadless Rule). This rule protected 58.5 million acres of national forest by placing a ban on all logging, road building, and development in those areas. The Roadless Rule included most of the Tongass National Forest, a 17-million-acre temperate rain forest in southeast Alaska. In 2003, the Bush administration exempted Tongass from the Roadless Rule.

L o g g i ng o n P ub lic L a nd s

Several court battles over the Roadless Rule ensued over the years, and in July 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down the Bush administration’s exemption of the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Rule. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources chair Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who had introduced legislation (S.631) in March 2015 to exempt National Forest System land in the state of Alaska from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, reacted negatively to this ruling. She contended that the ruling would cut off access to 9.5 million acres and stifle “renewable energy projects, needed electronic transmission lines, mining operations, and other economic proposals” (Fossen 2015). As Murkowski further explained, “The Roadless Rule may make sense in the Lower 48, where there are existing roads and utility lines on national forest lands, but in Alaska—where there is very little, if any, existing infrastructure—it simply makes no sense and is actually counterproductive. Our inability to access our abundant resources has meant a bleak economic future for many communities” (Murkowski 2015). In 2016, the state of Alaska asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, however, thus keeping Tongass under the protection of the Roadless Rule. Alaska’s assistant attorney general Cori Mill expressed disappointment with the Court’s decision: “In Southeast Alaska, the Roadless rule sets aside so much land from timber harvest and road construction in support of mineral development, power projects, and geothermal development that the economy of Southeast is likely to suffer” (Westmoreland 2015). In 2015, Republicans introduced two bills that “would suspend or weaken several federal environmental laws and clear the way for the timber industry to dramatically increase commercial logging across U.S. national forests” (Loki 2015). Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR), who represents a district that includes the Ouachita National Forest, introduced the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015 (H.R. 2647), a pro-industry bill designed to streamline the process by which the federal government manages commercial logging projects and to eliminate public participation in federal decisions about forest management (Loki 2015). The bill would also require plaintiffs to pay for the Forest Service’s legal expenses if they lost the case, thereby deterring people from filing a lawsuit against the agency. Representative Westerman stated in a press release that this bill “strengthens forest management standards while reducing the overreach of the federal government and extreme environmental groups” (Westerman 2015). The bill passed the House by a vote of 262–167, with all dissenting votes coming from Democrats except for one—Ed Whitfield (R-KY). The 243 Republicans were joined by 19 Democrats in supporting the bill. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced a similar bill in the U.S. Senate, called the National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act of 2015 (S. 1691), but no action on the bill was taken. Barrasso framed his bill as an effort to establish a reliable and

161

162

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

predictable timber supply from the National Forest System. Like H.R. 2647, the Senate bill excluded public participation, reduced environmental safeguards, and made filing a lawsuit against the Forest Service more difficult and costly. Senate Bill 1691 also contained a provision allowing for “clear-cutting up to 5,000 acres of national forests with limited environmental review on the impacts these operations would have on water and land quality” (Loki 2015). Also in 2015, Republicans introduced three separate bills crafted to give states more control over national forests within their borders. Republican Don Young, Alaska’s only representative in the House, introduced the State National Forest Management Act of 2015 (H.R. 3650), which authorized states to select and acquire certain National Forest System lands to be managed and operated by the state for timber production and other purposes under the laws of the state. The bill would allow any state to assume control of up to 2 million acres of the national forest system to be managed primarily for timber production. Thus, a state would be able to auction off the lands to private ownership or for mining, logging, and drilling. A similar bill, the Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act (H.R. 2316), sponsored by Raúl Labrador (R-ID), would allow state governors to assign up to 4 million acres of national forest land as “forest demonstration areas,” whereby logging would not have to comply with any federal water, air, or endangered species restrictions. According to Labrador, the bill’s purpose was to generate dependable economic activity for counties and local governments containing National Forest System land, by establishing a demonstration program for local, sustainable forest management. The third bill, the Utah Test and Training Range Encroachment Prevention and Temporary Closure Act (H.R. 4579), was introduced by Representative Chris Stewart (R-UT). According to the Wyoming Wildlife Federation (2016), “This bill essentially would turn over what the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance estimates to be 6,000 miles of road right-of-ways on U.S. public lands to counties in Utah, opening the door for road construction and development in protected wilderness areas.” Democrats on Logging

Democrats tend to stand in opposition to increased logging in the national forests, as well as to clear-cutting, proposals to reduce environmental considerations in granting timber-cutting permits, and proposals to give states increased control over logging activities. The party’s proconservation stance dates back to the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Wilderness Act, which prohibited logging in newly created wilderness areas. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter issued a directive for federal agencies to “use maximum speed in updating land management plans on selected lands with the objective of increasing the harvest of mature timber departure from

L o g g i ng o n P ub lic L a nd s

the current nondeclining even-flow policy” (Nelson 1995). But only one year later, Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which established federal protections for more than 100 million acres of federal land in Alaska. The battle between loggers and environmentalists intensified in the 1990s, with the Clinton administration caught in the middle. In 1993, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat who had actively courted proenvironment constituencies during his 1992 presidential campaign, held a timber summit in Portland, Oregon, to reach a compromise between the timber industry and environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest. His opening remarks included this statement: “Together we can move beyond confrontation to build a consensus on a balanced policy to preserve jobs and to protect our environment” (Clinton 1993). The summit resulted in the Northwest Forest Plan, which is best known for protecting the spotted owl, but it also focused on preserving habitat, biodiversity, and ecological health—while allowing logging to continue in some national forestlands in the region. But two years later, after Republicans gained control of Congress, Clinton reluctantly signed an emergency appropriations bill that included a GOP provision called the Salvage Logging Rider. This rider allowed increased logging of healthy trees in the national forests under the pretense of salvage. Clinton stated in 1996 that he erred in signing the Salvage Logging Rider and that it should be repealed; the Department of Agriculture then issued a directive to limit the scope of the Logging Rider. Clinton also committed to protecting threatened species and to slowing the logging permitted in old-growth forests. In 2000, President Clinton designated the Giant Sequoia National Monument to protect giant sequoias threatened by logging in California’s Sequoia National Forest. The designation of a national monument protects land or historical places; presidents use the designation through the Antiquities Act. By the end of his presidential tenure, Clinton had placed over 3 million acres of federal land off-limits to development by declaring them “national monuments.” One of Clinton’s last acts as president came in early 2001, when his administration issued the Roadless Area Conservation Policy directive. This so-called Roadless Rule ended virtually all logging, road building, and coal, gas, oil, and other mineral leasing in 58 million acres of unspoiled and undeveloped national forests lands in 39 states. In March 2009, Democratic president Barack Obama signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, designating 2 million additional acres of public land as exempt from logging and other forms of commercial use and development. The bill was sponsored by Rush Holt (D-NJ) and cosponsored by nine other Democrats and one Republican. This bipartisan bill passed in the House 394 to 13, with all 13 nays cast by Republicans. It also passed the Senate 77 to 20—again with all nays coming from the Republicans. After the passage of the bill, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated that “this bipartisan bill will protect and improve America by land and by sea. As one of the most important conservation efforts in decades, it will benefit all 50 states—from public lands throughout America, the waterways that connect them and out to our oceans . . . Americans

163

164

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

can enjoy more than 2 million acres of wilderness, more than 1,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers, thousands of miles of new national trails, and three new units of the National Park Service” (Reid 2009). In Obama’s first presidential campaign, he said he would be “proud to support and defend” the Roadless Rule (Matzner 2009), but some believe there were mixed signals about the Obama administration’s stance on logging in national forests. In May 2009 the Obama administration responded to a series of court battles and conflicting court orders by announcing that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack would personally review all proposed development in designated roadless areas, thus shifting the review process away from the Forest Service. In July 2009, Vilsack approved the Orion North timber sale in Tongass National Forest near Ketchikan, Alaska, even though the sale would necessitate the construction of two miles of road in a designated roadless area (Golden 2009). Both Alaskan senators—Republican Lisa Murkowski and Democrat Mark Begich—supported this decision, stating that it was good news for the state timber industry and for the ailing southeast Alaska economy. In 2012, the Obama administration finalized a rule governing the management of the national forests and grasslands, establishing guidelines for many activities— including logging, recreation, and renewable energy development. The Obama Planning Rule moved the Forest Service on a path toward prioritizing ecological sustainability over traditional commodity production (Tuholske and Armus 2012). Vilsack said the rule was created to enhance the nation’s water supplies while maintaining woodlands for wildlife, recreation and timber operations (Eilperin 2012). The Center for Biological Diversity, however, stated that the Obama administration’s planning rule did not provide sufficient protections for wildlife in national forests. “Today’s rule is a step up from the Bush administration’s rule, but its protections are still a far cry from Reagan-era regulations that the Forest Service has been trying to weaken for 12 years,” said Taylor McKinnon, Wildlands Program Director at the center. “Our publicly owned national forests should be a safe haven for wildlife. In the face of unprecedented global climate change and other threats to species, the Forest Service should be trying to strengthen, not weaken, protections for wildlife on our public lands” (McKinnon 2012). Aside from presidential actions, congressional Democrats sponsor and vote on legislation pertaining to logging. The Timber Innovation Act of 2016 (S. 2892) was a bipartisan bill introduced by these Democratic senators: ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Maria Cantwell (Washington), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), and Debbie Stabenow (Michigan); they were joined by Republican senators Mike Crapo (Idaho) and Steve Daines (Montana). This legislation would help accelerate research and development—and, ultimately, construction—of wood buildings in the United States, promoting the use of wood, rather than concrete and steel, for constructing tall buildings. Cantwell indicated that this bill was the first of a series of bills she planned to introduce “to foster the construction of more efficient buildings and to bring additional economic growth

L o g g i ng o n P ub lic L a nd s

to our state.” Senators Klobuchar, Stabenow, Daines, and Crapo echoed the economic sentiment. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress have generally opposed GOP efforts to expand logging in national forests and on other public lands. In response to Republican Bruce Westerman’s 2015 introduction of the Resilient Federal Forests Act (H.R. 2647), which would speed up environmental reviews for logging plans, Representative Niki Tsongas (D-MA) charged that “this bill irresponsibly chips away at the environmental safeguards of the National Environmental Policy Act and places tremendous burdens on American citizens seeking to participate in the public review process of Forest Service projects” (Tsongas 2015). However, some Democrats representing rural districts with extraction-based economies supported the bill. For example, Representative Kurt Schrader (D-OR) defended the legal provisions of the bill, stating, “We must reform this legal gotcha game by forcing these groups to focus on legitimate substantive claims of impropriety that they feel they can win on” (Schrader 2015). For its part, the Obama Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy which “strongly opposed” HR2647. In December 2015, Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) helped defeat the introduction of a pro-logging rider (nicknamed “Clearcuts for Christmas” by many environmental groups) to the omnibus appropriations bill. The rider would have eliminated environmental analysis for many logging projects and decreased public participation. During the Senate debate over the 2016 fiscal budget, Lisa Murkowski, Alaska’s Republican senator, introduced Senate Amendment 838, a budgetary amendment to Senate Concurrent Resolution 11, which seeks to “establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to the disposal of certain Federal land” (GovTrack 2015). In other words, the amendment would fund state efforts to take over, sell, and transfer federal land to private interests. The amendment, which was nonbinding and purely symbolic, because resolutions do not have the force of law, passed by a vote of 51–49 along a near party line. These amendments are used to bring attention to the party stance on issues. Democratic senators unanimously opposed the measure, with Republicans favoring the measure. Teri J. Walker Further Reading Clinton, Bill. 1993. “Remarks on Opening the Forest Conference in Portland Oregon, April 2.” The American Presidency Project. Accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.presidency​ .ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=46396. Denchak, Melissa. 2017. “Global Climate Change: What You Need to Know.” National Resources Defense Council. February 23. Accessed July 25, 2017. https://www.nrdc​ .org/stories/global-climate-change-what-you-need-know. Eilperin, Juliet. 2012. “Administration Issues Major Rewrite of Forest Rules.” Washington Post, January 26. Accessed June 1, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national​

165

166

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

/health-science/administration-issues-major-rewrite-of-forest-rules/2012/01/26 /gIQAnquvTQ_story.html. Federal Register Staff. 2005. “Special Areas; State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management: A Rule by the Agriculture Department on 05/13/2005.” USDA—Forest Service. Federal Register. Accessed June 1, 2016. https://www​ .federalregister. gov/documents/2005/05/13/05-9349/special-areas-state-petitions-for-inventoried -roadless-area-management. Fedkiw, John. 1998. “Policy Issues and Management Conflicts Challenge Multiple-Use Planning and Management During the 1970’s.” In Managing Multiple Uses on National Forests, 1905–1995: A 90-year Learning Experience and It Isn’t Finished Yet. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Accessed August 1, 2017. http://www.foresthistory​ .org/ASPNET/Publications/multiple_use/ chap4.htm. Fossen, Matt. 2015. “Federal Court Blocks Logging in Largest National Forest, Alaska Officials Fuming.” Fox News, July 31. Accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.foxnews.com​ /politics/2015/07/31/court-locks-down-largest-national-forest-from-logging-alaska​ -officials-fuming.html. Goad, Jessica, and Christy Goldfuss. 2013. “Chart: Obama Has Protected Fewer Public Lands Than Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.” ThinkProgress.org, January 10. Accessed June 1, 2016. https://thinkprogress.org​ /chart-obama-has-protected-fewer-public-lands-than-ronald-reagan-george-h-w-bush -bill-clinton-and-bc28c0940201#.x06qa0ift/. Golden, Kate. 2009. “Ketchikan Mill Is Awarded Orion North Timber: Deal Marks First Timber Sale in Roadless Area Under Obama.” Juneau Empire, July 15. Accessed May 31, 2016. http://juneauempire.com/stories/071509/loc_463956344.shtml#.V03Vsu SVSXd. GovTrack Staff. 2015. “S.Amdt. 838 (Murkowski) to S.Con.Res. 11: To Establish a Spending-Neutral Reserve Fund Relating to the Disposal of certain Federal Land.” Senate Vote #106 in 2015. Accessed May 3, 2016. https://www.govtrack.us/congress​ /votes/114-2015/s106. Guardian Staff. 2016. “House Republicans Seek to Open Up National Forests to Mining and Logging.” The Guardian, February 24. Accessed May 3, 2016. http://www.theguardian​ .com/us-news/2016/feb/24/house-republicans-open-national-forests-mining-logging​ -oregon-militia-malheur-wildlife-refuge. Hanson, Chad. 2015a. “Clearcuts for Christmas? Pro-Logging ‘Rider’ Bill in Congress Would Allow Clearcutting in Our National Forests.” Earth Island Journal, December 7. Accessed June 1, 2016. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead​ /clearcuts_for_christmas/. Hanson, Chad. 2015b. “Destructive ‘Clearcuts for Christmas’ Logging Rider Defeated.” Earth Island Journal, December 17. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://www.earthisland .org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/destructive_clearcuts_for_christmas _logging_rider_defeated/. Hartmann, Thom. 2015. “Billions of Dollars Lost in Obama’s ‘Logging of Our National Forests for Votes’ Program.” Thom Hartmann Program, June 20. Accessed May 16, 2016. https://www.thomhartmann.com/users/telliottmbamsc/blog/2015/06/billions-dollars -lost-obama’s-“logging-our-national-forests-votes”. Holmer, Steve. n.d. “A Conservation History of the National Forests.” Unified Forest Defense Campaign. Accessed May 2016. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content​ /uploads/legacy/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/a-conservation-history-of-the.pdf.

L o g g i ng o n P ub lic L a nd s

John Muir Project. 2015. “Help Stop Destructive Logging Bills in Congress!” Accessed April 16, 2016. http://johnmuirproject.org/2015/08/help-stop-destructive-logging-bills-in -congress/. Klinkenborg, Verlyn. 2013. “The Gradual Selling of American the Beautiful.” New York Times, February 9. Accessed June 1, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10 /opinion/sunday/the-gradual-selling-of-america-the-beautiful.html. Landler, Mark, and Julie Turkewitz. 2016. “With 3 California Sites, Obama Nearly Doubles Public Land He’s Protected.” New York Times, February 12. Accessed June 1, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/us/obama-california-national-monument.html. Loki, Reynard. 2015. “The GOP’s Shocking Attack on America’s National Forests.” Alternet.org, August 27. Accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.alternet.org/environment /two-gop-bills-seek-pillage-us-national-forests-corporate-profit. MacCleery, Doug. n.d. “Re-Inventing the United States Forest Service: Evolution from Custodial Management, to Production Forestry, to Ecosystem Management.” FAO Corporate Document Repository. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010 /ai412e/AI412E06.htm. Mapes, Jeff. 2015. “Is a Deal on Federal Timber Policy in the Offing? House GOP Hopes So as It Passes New Logging.” The Oregonian, July 9. Accessed June 1, 2016. http://www .oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/07/is_a_deal_on_federal_timber_po.html. Martinson, Erica. 2016. “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Alaska’s Challenge to Forest Service ‘Roadless Rule.’” Alaska Dispatch News, March 28. Accessed May 31, 2016. http://www.adn.com/environment/article/supreme-court-wont-hear-alaskas-roadless -rule-challenge/2016/03/28/. Matzner, Franz. 2009. “Will the Obama Administration ‘Support and Defend’ the Roadless Rule?” NRDC (blog), July 17. Accessed June 3, 2016. https://www.nrdc.org/experts /franz-matzner/will-obama-administration-support-and-defend-roadless-rule. McKinnon, Taylor. 2012. “Obama’s Forest Service Weakens National Forest Wildlife Protections.” Press Release. Center for Biological Diversity, March 23. Accessed June 1, 2016. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2012/national-forests-03 -23-2012.html. Murkowski, Lisa. 2015. “Sen. Murkowski: Roadless Rule Makes No Sense for Alaska. Introduces Bill Exempting Tongass, Chugach National Forests from Roadless Rule.” Republican News/U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, March 4. Accessed June 23, 2016. http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm /republican-news?ID=d3c6a786-d206-4658-8607-f2c90c86c630. National Geographic Staff. 2016. “Deforestation: Modern Day Plague.” National Geographic. Accessed April 11, 2016. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment /global-warming/deforestation-overview/. Nelson, Robert H. 1995. Public Lands and Private Rights. The Failure of Scientific Management. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. New York Times News Service. 1973. “Nader at Loggerheads with Nixon Panel over National Forests Use.” Bangor Daily News, January 4. Accessed June 1, 2016. https:// news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19730104&id=wuAzAAAAIBAJ&sjid =nzgHAAAAIBAJ&pg=794,963927&hl=en. Northern Research Station. 2008. “Who Owns America’s Forests? Forest Ownership Patterns and Family Forest Highlights from the National Woodland Owner Survey.” NRSINF-06-08. U.S. Forest Service. Accessed May 3, 2016. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs /inf/NRS-INF-06-08.pdf.

167

168

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Palmisano, Joseph. 2014. “Logging in National Parks and Forests: A Contentious Debate.” Law Street Media, October 3. Accessed May 12, 2016. http://lawstreet​ media.com/issues/energy-and-environment/should-logging-be-encouraged-in -national-parks-and-forests-under-hr-1526/. Pennybaker, Harrison. n.d. “What Are Some Advantages & Disadvantages of Clear Cutting?” Sciencing. Updated April 24, 2017. Accessed March 30, 2017. http://sciencing .com/advantages-disadvantages-clear-cutting-8481691.html. PBS Staff. 2008. “Roadless Rule 101.” NOW, February 22. Accessed March 27, 2016. http:// www.pbs.org/now/shows/408/rules.html. Quadro, Tony. n.d. “Clearcutting: Good or Bad?” Westmoreland Woodlands Improvement Association. Accessed December 27, 2016. http://wcdpa.com/westmoreland-wood​ lands/Clearcutting.html. Reid, Harry. 2009. “Reid Statement on Passage of Most Important Wilderness Protection Bill in Decades.” United States Senate Democrats, January 15. Accessed November 17, 2016. https://democrats.senate.gov/2009/01/15/reid-statement-on-passage-of-most -important-wilderness-protection-bill-in-decades/#.WC3gLMmVSXc. Scheer, Roddy, and Doug Moss. 2012. “Deforestation and Its Extreme Effect on Global Warming.” EarthTalk, November 13. Accessed May 24, 2016. http://www.scientific​ american.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/. Scott, Gary. 2010. “The Presidents and the National Parks.” The White House Historical Association. Accessed June 1, 2016. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the -presidents-and-the-national-parks. Share, Alison. 2013. “H.R. 1526: Limiting Judicial Review of Forest Management.” Loose Leaf: The Official Blog of American Forests (blog), September 24. Accessed July 21, 2016. https://www.americanforests.org/blog/h-r-1526-limiting-judicial-review-of-forest -management/. Sierra Forest Legacy Staff. n.d. “Logging Impacts.” Accessed April 7, 2016. http://www .sierraforestlegacy.org/FC_FireForestEcology/FFE_LoggingImpacts.php. SitNews Staff. 2009. “Orion North Timber Sale Awarded to Pacific Log and Lumber.” SitNews: Stories In The News. Ketchikan, Alaska, July 21. Accessed June 1, 2016. http:// www.sitnews.us/0709news/072109/072109_ktn_mill.html. Tankersley, Jim. 2009. “Obama Administration Supports a Timeout on Road Building in National Forests.” Los Angeles Times, May 29. Accessed May 15, 2016. http://articles .latimes.com/2009/may/29/nation/na-forest-roads29. Taxpayers for Common Sense. n.d. “Congressional Subsidies for Private Logging.” Accessed August 1, 2017. http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/congressional-subsidies-for -private-logging. Tsongas, Niki. 2015. “Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015.” The-Constituent.com, July 9. Accessed August 5, 2016. https://the-constituent.com/resilient-federal-forests-act-of -2015-by-representative-niki-tsongas/speech/52986. Tuholske, Jack, and Molly Armus. 2013. “Just Like Its Predecessors, the 2012 Forest Planning Rule Is Challenged in Court.” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, May 24. Accessed June 1, 2016. http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/topten/just-like-its-predecessors -the-2012-forest-planning-rule-is-challenged-in-court/. U.S. Forest Service. 2008. “The Fully Managed, Multiple-Use Forest Era, 1960–1970.” Accessed April 16, 2016. http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/first_cen tury/sec7.htm.

L o g g i ng o n P ub lic L a nd s

U.S. Forest Service. n.d. “Our History.” Accessed April 2016. http://www.fs.fed.us/learn /our-history. Wapner, Paul. 2001. “Clinton’s Environmental Legacy.” Tikkun Magazine, March/April. Accessed June 1, 2016. http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/clintons-environmental-legacy. Westerman, Bruce. 2015. “Westerman Applauds Passage of Resilient Federal Forests Act.” Press Release, July 9. Accessed June 23, 2016. https://westerman.house.gov /media-center/press-releases/westerman-applauds-passage-resilient-federal-forests-act. Westmoreland, Charles L. 2015. “Tongass Exemption to Roadless Rule Overturned.” Juneau Empire, July 30. http://juneauempire.com/state/2015-07-29/tongass-exemption -roadless-rule-overturned. Wyoming Wildlife Federation. 2016. Accessed May 27, 2016. http://wyomingwildlife.org /archive/.

169

Marine Pollution and Protection

At a Glance

Regardless of party affiliation, people are concerned about clean water and the health of the oceans. Both Republican and Democrat presidents have supported protecting the ocean and have declared some marine areas as national monuments—areas that are now partially or fully protected from drilling or commercial fishing. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, many congressional members, especially from coastal states and the Great Lakes region, support ocean health. For example, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 was a bipartisan bill that banned the tiny plastic beads that are used as an abrasive in health and beauty products. These tiny beads slip through wastewater treatment plants and become concentrators of harmful chemicals in the food web of the oceans and the Great Lakes. The bill was cosponsored by 32 Democrats and 5 Republicans, all from coastal states or the Great Lakes region, and it was passed with unanimous consent. President Obama signed it into law. Ocean Champions, a political advocacy organization dedicated to protecting the oceans and their wildlife, endorse and support congressional members whom they consider ocean champions. In the 115th Congress, of the 27 senators they endorsed, 2 were Republicans (Maine and Ohio), and of the 43 representatives, 6 were Republicans—all from coastal states. Though both parties express support for ocean health, there is considerable variance between Democrats and Republicans about federal responsibility toward marine protection, including how strict the regulations governing business and industry should be. The parties also disagree on supporting international treaties on ocean policy. Whereas conservatives express concerns about whether national sovereignty and national security are diminished by such agreements, liberals tend to focus on the importance of cooperative involvement in protecting the health of the oceans. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe in reducing regulatory burdens on businesses and industries • Support dilution—the belief that diluting a pollutant will minimize its toxicity or effect—as the solution

M a r i ne P o ll ut i o n a nd P r o te c t i o n

• Believe that federal funding responsibility for protecting the ecological health of the world’s oceans should be reduced • Oppose international treaties regarding ocean policy Many Democrats . . .

• Believe the federal government should assume primary responsibility for reducing marine pollution and protecting coastal areas and oceans • Support federal funding to combat ocean pollution • Work toward international agreements on ocean policy • Do not believe that dilution is the solution

Overview

Marine pollution is an environmental, economic, health, and aesthetic problem that affects not only the United States, but all regions around the world. For a long time, people assumed that—because the oceans are so vast and deep—no matter how much trash or chemical matter was dumped into the oceans, the consequences would be minimal. The underlying thought was that the oceans had an unlimited capacity to mix and disperse wastes. But this assumption has proved to be wrong, and the oceans have suffered because of it, especially as global economic activity and expansion have accelerated. Dilution may have worked for small populations, but many experts say that it is not a viable solution for the world’s current population and cannot render pollutants harmless (Reilly 2017). In 2011, a scientific panel issued a report to the United Nations, indicating that the health of the world’s oceans may be much worse than previously thought (Gronewold 2011). Ocean pollution comes from a number of sources. Aside from the actual dumping of pollutants, waste, plastics, or litter into the ocean, much marine pollution is caused by industrial discharges or runoff from farms or cities. Studies have uncovered traces of detergent pollution in Arctic and Antarctic waters, indicating that coastal runoff is much more pervasive and widespread than many had assumed (Gronewold 2011). Other common human-made pollutants that reach the ocean include pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, oil, and sewage, as well as plastics and other solids such as foam, glass, and metal. Industrial waste, accidental oil spills, mining activities, and underground storage leaks also contribute to marine pollution. Mine processing wastes, also known as tailings, which can contain as many as three dozen dangerous chemicals, are routinely dumped in our waterways, including the oceans (Cardiff et al. 2012). Ocean pollution negatively impacts marine mammals, organisms, and plants, as well as birds and animals that depend on the ocean for food or the coastlines for nesting grounds. Ocean pollution harms and kills marine mammals (including both fish and aquatic life) not only directly, but also by destroying reefs and other vital habitat and the fragile balance of the ecosystem. Studies indicate that

171

172

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

“marine mammals are suffering dramatic rises in devastating illnesses, such as nervous and digestive system problems, liver disease, contaminant-induced immunosuppression, endocrine system damage, reproductive malformations, and growth and development issues. Worse yet is the alarming growth in cancer cases” (Bohle 2008). Since fish and shellfish harvested from the ocean are an important part of the food chain in many parts of the world, ocean contamination affects human life, causing a variety of health issues. High mercury levels found in fish, for example, have been linked to a wide range of severe human health problems, from birth defects to crippling neurological damage. According to BlueVoice, an ocean conservation organization founded in 2000 by Hardy Jones and Ted Danson, “Of all cultures, the Inuit people of the Arctic have been most strongly affected by ocean contamination. They are faced with the dilemma of giving up their traditional ways of eating or consuming animals [because of the] high concentrations of toxic chemicals” (BlueVoice Staff n.d.). Not only do people draw sustenance from the ocean in terms of food, but also they play and work in the ocean. Oceans make possible such recreational activities as swimming, sailing, and scuba diving. When storm waters carry pollutants into the oceans, beaches close due to risk of illnesses and infections. Surfers, divers, and waders can contract various illnesses, ranging from skin rashes to respiratory illnesses to dysentery. Many coastal communities rely on tourism for their economic vitality, so marine pollution can negatively impact their economic fortunes in significant and long-lasting ways. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. The environmental movement of the 1960s brought with it increased concern about uncontrolled ocean dumping and other forms of water pollution. These concerns led to sweeping amendments to FWPCA, which came to be known as the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA). The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s surface waters, including its lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and coastal areas. In that same year, Congress also passed the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The 1972 MPRSA declared it is the policy of the United States to regulate the dumping of all materials that would adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. Four federal agencies have responsibilities under the MPRSA: the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Both 1972 laws were passed in a bipartisan manner, supported by the administration of Republican president Richard Nixon as well as in the Democratic-controlled Congress. In 1988, under the Republican Reagan administration and a Democratic Congress, the bipartisan Ocean Dumping Ban Act was passed. This act amended portions of the MPRSA (which is now referred to as the Ocean Dumping Act), banning ocean dumping of municipal sewer sludge and industrial waste (with limited

M a r i ne P o ll ut i o n a nd P r o te c t i o n

exceptions) by phased target dates, with a complete ban in place by 1991. Since that time, additional laws and policies pertaining to ocean protection have been put in place, including ones prohibiting ocean dumping of high-level radioactive wastes, radiological, chemical and biological warfare agents, and medical waste. Proponents of ocean dumping argue that it poses less risk to human health than land disposal or incineration, especially if sites are properly chosen and designed, and that it is a beneficial economical alternative for some states. In 2010, for example, a Republican candidate for Oregon’s Fourth Congressional District named Arthur B. Robinson stated, “Wastes dumped into the deep ocean will soon reach the bottom, where they are less hazardous than nearly any other place on Earth. Most materials will remain there: marine organisms are rare in the deep ocean, food chains are long, and few materials will be carried back to mankind. And that is what waste disposal is all about” (Wilson 2010). This view on dispersion encapsulates the long-held belief that oceans have high assimilative capability—the capacity to absorb significant pollution without suffering appreciable damage. But Congress intended the CWA and other federal pollution regulations to end the idea that “dilution is the solution to pollution” (Cohen 2002). Though this may have been their intention, however, a loophole in federal marine pollution policy exists called “mixing zones”—special dilution areas approved for nearly every discharge where state water quality standards don’t apply (Cohen 2002). Proponents believe that if a pollutant is diluted enough, the intensity of the pollution is reduced to the point that it is no longer harmful. But critics of this approach point out that dilution does not work for chemicals that bioaccumulate; these persist through the food chain and increase in each successive organism (Reilly 2017). Opponents of ocean dumping argue that it may be economical for some states, but there is still a huge cost in transporting waste out to the depths of the ocean. Opponents also argue that oceans do not “contain” the pollutants, as proponents believe; to the contrary, they assert that there is considerable scientific evidence about the harmful effects of chemicals and other pollutants on marine life and human life. They argue that the ocean is not infinite—trash ends up somewhere. A visible example of this is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch—a collection of marine debris so vast that it spans the western coast of North America to Japan and can be seen from space. “Some say it is estimated to be twice the size of the United States, but more observations and studies need to be conducted” (Cheng 2013). In 2011, a national poll by The Ocean Project (TOP) revealed that three-fourths of Americans strongly agree that the health of the oceans is essential to human survival. Of those surveyed, 80 percent reject the idea that the oceans are so large that human activity cannot cause lasting damage to them. Despite those results, however, only 19 percent of respondents reported that damage to the oceans is an extremely serious problem, and only 24 percent regarded pollution of coastal waters as a serious problem. People viewed air pollution and toxic waste treatment and disposal as more serious environmental issues (Brylske 2017).

173

174

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Republicans on Marine Pollution

Among environmental historians, the 1970s is commonly referred to as the environmental decade. It was during that decade that Earth Day was established, the Environmental Protection Agency was created, and numerous important environmental laws were passed, including the CWA and the MPRSA. President Nixon vetoed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, but the Democraticcontrolled Congress overrode his veto. Nixon supported efforts to raise water quality, but Congress had attached a $24 billion price tag, which Nixon believed was extreme and fiscally irresponsible. Though Earth Day was established under the Nixon administration, it was the brainchild of Wisconsin Democratic senator Gaylord Nelson (Nelson Institute Staff n.d.). During the 1970s, the issue of environmental protection was not one that stirred deep partisan divisions. In fact, there existed a broad bipartisan consensus in Washington that federal regulations to protect the environment were necessary and proper. But during the 1980s the Reagan administration focused on a probusiness ideology and sought to reduce what it described as the stranglehold of regulations that were hampering economic growth. President Reagan’s appointments to the Department of the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency took strong stands to reduce the “regulatory burden” on industry. Between 1980 and 1983, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lost one-third of its budget and one-fifth of its staff (Vig and Kraft 2006). There was considerable public backlash to these developments, however, and when both his Interior secretary (James Watt) and his EPA director (Anne Gorsuch) became embroiled in other controversies, Reagan replaced them with more moderate personnel. After trash slicks covered the shorelines of New York and New Jersey in the summer of 1988, eliciting considerable public outrage, Congress passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act. After voting for the bill, John H. Chafee (R-RI) stated, “It is unfortunate that it takes a situation like we have with medical waste washing up on our beaches, to capture the attention of the American public and of Congress. But perhaps it is a blessing in disguise, since it has resulted in our action today to put a halt to the ocean dumping of sludge” (Specter 1993). President Reagan praised the legislation in his signing statement as well, declaring that the law “represents a significant step toward a cleaner and safer environment” (Reagan 1988). One of the most challenging events of the presidency of Republican George H. W. Bush took place only two months after his inauguration. In March 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, unleashing almost 11 million gallons of oil into relatively pristine Alaskan waters. The spill resulted in severe ecological and economic damage to the sound and its fishing- and tourism-dependent communities. A few months later, in the summer of 1989, two more tankers spilled oil into coastal waters. These disasters motivated a Democratic-controlled Congress to investigate the causes of recent oil spills and

M a r i ne P o ll ut i o n a nd P r o te c t i o n

develop guidelines to prevent and clean up pollution. President Bush signed the Oil Pollution Act on August 18, 1990. This law streamlined and strengthened EPA’s ability to prevent and respond to catastrophic oil spills. Presidents often use their power under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to proclaim national monuments on federal lands, thus protecting specific areas. While originally intended to protect areas that contain historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest, the act has been used more broadly to swiftly designate areas for preservation purposes without congressional involvement or legislative approval. There are currently four marine monuments, all concentrated in the Pacific Islands region. Though these monuments do not specifically address ocean pollution, they protect ocean health by limiting or banning such activities as commercial fishing and drilling within their boundaries. Using the Antiquities Act, President George W. Bush protected over 300,000 square miles of ocean in order to strengthen Pacific ecosystems. In 2006, he set aside 139,797 square miles of the Pacific Ocean, establishing the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, later named Papahaˉnaumokuaˉkea—the first of four marine protected areas he would create in the Pacific. In 2009, he designated three additional areas of the Pacific Ocean as marine national monuments (the Mariana Trench, Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll). These designations placed heavy restrictions on recreational fishing in these areas, but Bush did not approve a ban on fishing across the entire marine monument complex (American Sportfishing Association n.d.). In 2014, President Obama added roughly 300,000 square miles to the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. Like President Bush, he supported strengthening Pacific ecosystems and used an executive order to expand the marine protected area. This expansion angered the Republican majority in Congress, however. Congress member Doc Hastings (R-WA), the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, was quick to denounce Obama as an “Imperial President” who is “intent on taking unilateral action, behind closed doors, to impose new regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape” (Golden 2014). Hastings, in his statement to the House Committee on Natural Resources, said, “The economic consequences of this decision will be grave, further eroding the U.S. seafood industry and harming the well-being of the U.S. territories.” In August 2016, Obama more than quadrupled the size of the Papahaˉnaumokuaˉkea to 582,578 square miles of land and sea in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. One month later, he created the first national marine monument in the Atlantic Ocean: the 4,913-square-mile Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. Today, ocean advocates believe that Obama’s National Ocean Policy will likely be “deep-sixed” by the Trump administration (Helvarg 2016). This policy, considered by many Republicans to be the “Obamacare of the Ocean,” was launched by President Obama in 2010 to encourage closer cooperation between federal agencies and better coordination of offshore ocean uses at the state and regional levels.

175

176

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

In 2017, Republicans introduced the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017 and the Sensible Environmental Protection Act of 2017; both were cosponsored by a majority of Republicans, though two or three Democrats also joined. Each of these bills would reduce or eliminate the permits required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters. These bills are in line with Republican views of reducing regulations on businesses. Democrats on Marine Pollution

Democratic president John F. Kennedy, who served in the Oval Office from January 1961 until his assassination in November 1963, was a yachtsman and a lover of the sea. When it came to conservation, in fact, some observers felt that the only issues that regularly caught Kennedy’s attention were marine-related ones (Brinkley 2012). As a member of the U.S. Senate, he cosponsored the Cape Cod National Seashore bill with his Republican colleague Leverett Saltonstall, a bill that would preserve the natural and historic values of a portion of Cape Cod for the inspiration and enjoyment of people all over the United States. It was eventually passed during Kennedy’s last months in the Senate, so he was able to sign it into law himself as president. In June 1961, Elbert N. Carvel, the Democratic governor of Delaware, tried to hinder the creation of the Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge—considered one of the preeminent stopover sites for migratory shorebirds in the fall and spring. Kennedy wrote him a threatening letter, demanding that he “retract his objections” (Brinkley 2012). In 1963, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the president established Prime Hook—located on the west shore of Delaware Bay—as a national wildlife refuge. He also championed the Wilderness Bill that would eventually be signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964. This legislation supported expanding bird sanctuaries and advocated the creation of new protected national seashores at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Padre Island, Texas, and Point Reyes, California (Brinkley 2012). Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson signed several laws crafted to improve water quality and reduce pollution, including the Water Quality Act of 1965. The Water Quality Act developed water quality standards for watersheds and waterways crossing state boundaries and created the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to set standards where states failed to do so. As Johnson stated, “There is no excuse for a river flowing red with blood from slaughterhouses. There is no excuse for paper mills pouring sulfuric acid into the lakes and the streams of the people of this country. There is no excuse—and we should call a spade a spade—for chemical companies and oil refineries using our major rivers as pipelines for toxic waste. There is no excuse for communities to use other people’s rivers as a dump for their raw sewage” (Johnson 1965).

M a r i ne P o ll ut i o n a nd P r o te c t i o n

President Kennedy and the Sea In 1962, President John F. Kennedy delivered a dinner speech to the crews of that year’s America’s Cup teams. In the speech he emphasized the deep connection that many people feel for the world’s oceans. Kennedy was an enthusiastic lifelong yachtsman who had also served as a Navy officer in World War II. His love of the sea was evident in his remarks: I really don’t know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it’s because in addition to the fact that the sea changes, and the light changes, and ships change, it’s because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea—whether it is to sail or to watch it—we are going back from whence we came.

Source Kennedy, John F. 1962. “Remarks in Newport at the Australian Ambassador’s Dinner for the America’s Cup Crews,” September 14. The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8873.

In 1980, Democratic president Jimmy Carter signed the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, which addressed a number of environmental issues related to intentional and accidental pollution from tankers carrying oil and chemicals. In his signing statement, Carter indicated that he had been awaiting the legislation since the opening months of his presidency. “Since my message on oil pollution to the Congress in March of 1977—following a series of tanker casualties during the winter of 1976–77 in and near the coastal waters of the United States—this administration has emphasized the need for international cooperation as a primary means of reducing the risks of tanker operation” (Carter 1980). The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships completed the legislative implementation of the 1978 Marine Pollution Protocol. Another law signed by Carter, the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, was the first major step in implementing the results of the Tanker Safety Conference—an international conference held in London at the request of the United States to address oil spill and safety concerns. In 1986, declaring that California’s 1,100-mile coastline faces “unprecedented threats,” nine Democratic legislators introduced 10 bills to combat ocean pollution and impose strict liability on petroleum companies for oil spills and to increase the Coastal Commission’s budget (Gladstone 1986). When the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 was introduced, Representative Thomas J. Manton (D-NY) criticized the act because it just shifted waste disposal from sea to land, but he voted for it anyway. Remembering the legislative vote, he later said, “If you opposed the bill you were treated like a leper or an environmental terrorist. Nobody wanted

177

178

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

to discuss the relative risks or the merits. It had been a bad summer, and we all wanted to be able to say we did something. So we passed a law. I tried to have a debate. And it was like I was trying to destroy the planet” (Specter 1993). President Bill Clinton signed into law the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) of 2000. This law required EPA to develop performance criteria for testing, monitoring, and notifying public users of possible coastal recreation water problems, and it authorized EPA to provide grants to states, territories, tribes, and local governments to protect beachgoers from contaminated water at coastal beaches, including the Great Lakes. Grant money would be used to develop and implement beach monitoring and notification programs. Clinton described the BEACH Act as a law that “significantly strengthens efforts to make America’s beaches clean, safe and healthy. America’s coasts are not only a natural treasure—they are also the number one destination for vacationing families, making their health vital to our nation’s tourism industry. Yet each year, pollution forces thousands of beach closures or health advisories. The Beach Act will ensure that in the future fewer families arrive at the beach only to discover that it is too polluted for fishing or swimming. It requires states to adopt enforceable standards for water quality, regularly test coastal waters for health-threatening pollution, and notify the public of unsafe conditions. In addition, it provides assistance to states to carry out these efforts. This Act builds on my Administration’s strong efforts to ensure healthier beaches and cleaner coastal waters, greater protection for endangered and threatened marine species, sound fisheries management, and support for marine protected areas” (Clinton 2000). In 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order 13547 to implement a new National Ocean Policy that encouraged closer cooperation between federal agencies in reducing marine pollution and better coordination of offshore ocean uses at the state and regional levels. The policy included a mandatory Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiative to “zone” the oceans. Obama often stated, “We cannot truly protect our planet without protecting the Ocean” (Obama 2016). Many Republicans considered this policy the “Obamacare of the Ocean,” a negative connotation toward an overarching policy (Helvarg 2016). The House Committee on Natural Resources, controlled by Republicans, issued the following statement on the National Ocean Plan (2010): “In this unilateral action, [Obama] established a top-down, Washington, D.C.-based approval process that will hinder rather than promote ocean and inland activities and cost American jobs. . . . Rather than streamline Federal management, the policy adds layers of additional Federal bureaucracy that could significantly impact the economic and recreational uses of our oceans, ocean lands. . . . The policy establishes a Federally-controlled system of regional planning bodies that could override local and state zoning authorities” (House Committee on Natural Resources 2010). Between 2014 and 2016, President Barack Obama expanded two national marine monuments that had been spearheaded by President George W. Bush. Obama

M a r i ne P o ll ut i o n a nd P r o te c t i o n

Pollution Dilution Not a Solution The wilderness conservation group Montana River Action describes “pollution mixing zones” as rivers, streams, lakes, and other bodies of water where polluters (industrial, municipal or individual) can legally obtain a permit to dump bio-accumulative chemicals, sewage, mining waste water at high concentrations based on the mistaken old rule that “dilution is the solution to pollution.” Toxins dumped into mixing zones can include mercury, BCBs, chlordane, BCD, dioxins, mirex, etc., as defined under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. These substances can accumulate and persist on the bottom of these water bodies and make their way into the food chain. Toxic chemicals can interfere with human (and animal) reproduction and development, immune responsiveness and neurological functions.

Critics of these practices assert that they amount to little more than legally sanctioned toxic pollution of economically and ecologically important waterways, and that the only responsible way to deal with toxic chemicals is to keep them out of the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and aquifers. Source Montana River Action. “Pollution Dilution Not a Solution.” Accessed April 13, 2017. http:// www.montanariveraction.org/pollution.dilution.html.

added nearly 700,000 miles to the Pacific Remote Pacific Islands National Marine. He also expanded the Northwest Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, known as Papahaˉnaumokuaˉkea, out to 200 miles or the limits of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, creating the world’s largest marine protected area (Golden 2014). All commercial resource extraction activities—including commercial fishing, oil exploration, and mineral extraction—are prohibited in the expanded areas of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. Teri J. Walker Further Reading American Sportfishing Association. n.d. “Establishment of Marine National Monuments in the Pacific Ocean.” Accessed April 7, 2017. http://asafishing.org/advocacy /issues-archive/establishment-of-marine-national-monuments-in-the-pacific-ocean/. BlueVoice Staff. 2008. “Dolphin Meat Obtained in Japan Drive Fisheries: Toxic to Humans.” BlueVoice.org. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.bluevoice.org/news_dolphinmeat .php. BlueVoice Staff. n.d. “Toxic Contamination in the Arctic.” BlueVoice.org. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.bluevoice.org/news_toxicarctic.php.

179

180

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Bohle, Bob. 2008. “The Effects of Ocean Pollution on Marine Mammals.” BlueVoice.org. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.bluevoice.org/news_issueseffects.php. Brinkley, Douglas. 2012. “Rachel Carson and JFK, an Environmental Tag Team.” Audubon, May/June. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.audubon.org/magazine/may-june-2012 /rachel-carson-and-jfk-environmental-tag-team. Brylske, Alex. 2017. “Our Oceans’ Future: WHO CARES?” Oceans for Youth Foundation. Accessed April 6, 2017. https://www.oceansforyouth.org/wt1201.php. Bush, George. W. 2009. “Proclamation 8336—Establishment of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument,” January 6. The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 4, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=85405. Cardiff, Scott, Catherine Coumans, Ramsey Hart, Payal Sampat, and Bill Walker. 2012. “Troubled Waters: How Mine Waste Dumping Is Poisoning Our Oceans, Rivers, and Lakes.” Earthworks and MiningWatch Canada. Accessed April 11, 2017. https://www .earthworksaction.org/files/publications/Troubled-Waters_FINAL.pdf. Carter, Jimmy. 1980. “Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships Statement on Signing H.R. 6665 into Law,” October 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 11, 2017. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=45342. Chen, Edwin, and Elizabeth Shogren. 2002. “Bush: Every Day Is Earth Day.” Sun Sentinel, April 23. Accessed April 2, 2017. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-04-23 /news/0204220526_1_earth-day-bush-s-air-pollution-carbon-dioxide. Cheng, Helen. 2013. “The Solution to Pollution Is NOT Dilution.” Feed the Data Monster (blog), October 22. Accessed April 4, 2017. http://feedthedatamonster.com /home/2013/10/22/the-solution-to-pollution-is-not-dilution. Clinton, Bill. 2000. “Statement on Signing the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act,” October 10. The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 11, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=1224. Cohen, Greshon. 2002. “The ‘Solution’ to Pollution Is Still ‘Dilution.’” Earth Island Journal 16 (4, Winter). Accessed April 11, 2017. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index .php/eij/article/the_solution_to_pollution_is_still_dilution/. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Learn about Ocean Dumping.” Accessed April 6, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/learn-about-ocean-dumping. Gladstone, Mark. 1986. “Nine Democrats Seek New Coastline Safeguards.” Los Angeles Times, February 25. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-02-25 /news/mn-11697_1_coastal-commission. Golden, Abigail. 2014. “Republicans: Obama’s Ocean Protection Plan Evidence of ‘Imperial Presidency.’” Daily Beast, June 23. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.thedailybeast .com/articles/2014/06/23/republicans-obama-s-ocean-protection-plan-evidence-of -imperial-presidency.html. Gronewold, Nathaniel. 2011. “Pollution and Climate Change Accelerate Ocean Degradation: The World’s Oceans Appear to Be Headed to a New Mass Extinction Event.” Scientific American, June 11. Accessed April 11, 2017. https://www.scientificamerican .com/article/pollution-climate-change-accelerate-ocean-degradation/. General Social Survey. n.d. Accessed July 6, 2017. http://gss.norc.org/. Helvarg, David. 2016. “The Ocean and President Trump.” National Geographic, December 5. Accessed April 7, 2017. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/05 /the-ocean-and-president-trump/. House Committee on Natural Resources. 2010. “President Obama’s National Ocean Policy.” Accessed April 6, 2017. http://naturalresources.house.gov/oceanzoning/.

M a r i ne P o ll ut i o n a nd P r o te c t i o n

Johnson, Lyndon B. 1965. “Remarks at the Signing of the Water Quality Act of 1965,” October 2. The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid =27289. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Staff. 2015. “It Took More Than the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill to Pass the Historic Oil Pollution Act of 1990.” U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Response and Restoration. Accessed April 11, 2017. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/significant-incidents /exxon-valdez-oil-spill/it-took-more-exxon-valdez-oil-s. National Park Service Staff. n.d. “Lyndon B. Johnson and the Environment.” Accessed April 4, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/lyjo/planyourvisit/upload/environmentcs2.pdf. Nelson Institute Staff. n.d. “Meet Gaylord Nelson, Founder of Earth Day.” Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. Accessed April 7, 2017. http://www.nelsonearthday.net/nelson/. Obama, Barack. 2016. “Remarks by the President at Our Ocean Conference.” White House Office of the Press Secretary. Statements & Releases, September 15. Accessed April 7, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/15/remarks -president-our-ocean-conference. Ocean Champions. n.d. Accessed April 6, 2017. https://www.oceanchampions.org /congressional-champions/. Reagan, Ronald. 1988. “Statement on Signing a Bill Terminating Ocean Dumping of Sewage, Sludge, and Industrial Waste,” November 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 4, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35192 &st=ocean+dumping&st1. Reilly, Kevin Anthony. 2017. “Ocean Dumping Ban Act.” PollutionIssues.com. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.pollutionissues.com/Na-Ph/Ocean-Dumping-Ban-Act.html. Specter, Michael. 1993. “Sea-Dumping Ban: Good Politics, but Not Necessarily Good Policy.” New York Times, March 22, 1993. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.nytimes .com/1993/03/22/us/sea-dumping-ban-good-politics-but-not-necessarily-good-policy .html. Vig, Norman J., and Kraft, Michael E., eds. 2016. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. 9th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press. Wilson, Bruce. 2010. “Dump Oil and Nuclear Waste at Sea, Proposed Oregon GOP Congressional Candidate.” HuffPost The Blog, May 24. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www .huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/dump-oil-and-nuclear-wast_b_587091.html.

181

Mining

At a Glance

Mining is an issue that often divides Democrats and Republicans down party lines. It is an important industry for the United States, and both Republicans and Democrats advocate policies they feel support the mining companies and employees. But while there exist areas of agreement between the parties, there are meaningful differences between the two, and these divisions are the ones that typically attract the most public attention. Overall, Democrats advocate stricter regulation of mining operations and reclamation efforts that reflect scientific advancements and understanding of environmental restoration. They also are much more likely to support investment in such renewable energy sources as wind and solar, which the coal industry—historically the single largest sector of the mining industry—views as a major threat to its own well-being. Republicans, meanwhile, favor fewer restrictions on mining industries and contend that excessive regulations reduce industry employment and profitability. GOP lawmakers and officials are also less likely than their Democratic counterparts to embrace policies that are focused on renewable energy; they are more likely to pursue policies beneficial to fossil fuel industries like coal. Many Democrats . . .

• Believe mining regulations need to be updated to reflect scientific advancements and mining technologies • Believe mining causes many harmful environmental effects, such as water and air pollution as well as habitat degradation • Believe mining of coal should and will continue to shrink as more efficient and environmentally friendly technologies are developed Many Republicans . . .

• Believe mining industries are at risk of having to cut jobs or reduce operations if the federal government places further regulations on them because of the added expense of compliance with the laws

M i n i ng

• Believe mining regulations for reclamation and mining operations are adequate • Believe mining of coal should continue to be a major part of America’s strategy for meeting its energy needs

Overview

The United States is mineral-rich, giving the mining industry extensive resources to extract throughout the country. There are five mining commodities: sand and gravel, coal, stone, metal, and nonmetal. Of the 237,812 employees reported by the mining industry in 2015, coal employed 28.8 percent of those, followed by stone with 28.2 percent of the total, metal with 17.4 percent, sand and gravel with 14.6 percent, and nonmetal with 11.0 percent. Of the active mining operations, 95 percent were surface mines, while underground mines accounted for the remainder of operations. Mines are located in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2015). In 2016, approximately 65 percent of electricity used was generated from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), with coal accounting for 30.4 percent (U.S. EIA 2017). The National Mining Association (NMA) stated, “On average, every American uses approximately 3.4 tons of coal and nearly 40,000 pounds of newly mined materials each year . . . mining has never been a more vital industry [to the public and the economy]” (NMA n.d.). Throughout the mining process, however, there are operations that have the potential to negatively impact the environment. All of the stages of mining—from extraction to refining to disposal—pose unique environmental and health issues. Environmental impacts of mining include disturbances to natural landscapes; air, water, and soil contamination; and public health and safety issues. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (PM), and heavy metals emitted into the air from coal-fired power plants lead to smog, acid rain, and toxins in the environment; they also have numerous respiratory, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular effects. The carbon dioxide emissions, as well as greenhouse gas emissions and methane releases, contribute to global warming and climate change. Coal dust causes severe and potentially deadly respiratory problems. Coal sludge contains toxins, and it endangers underground and surface waters. The outflow of acidic water from coal mines contaminates rivers and streams. Floods and forest destruction occur as a result of mountain top removal mining as well as surface mining, which also contributes to land subsidence (SourceWatch Staff 2015). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that between 1977 and 2008, 8.4 million acres of land have been disturbed by surface mining. On its website, the American Geosciences Institute (AGI) states that “modern mining operations actively strive to mitigate potential environmental consequences of extracting metals, and such operations are strictly regulated in the United States”

183

184

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Legal Landmarks Mining Law of 1872: This statute was passed to encourage westward expansion and settlement. It enabled individuals and mining companies to extract resources from public lands without paying royalties to the federal government. Estimates of lost revenue to the federal government are upwards of $300 billion in metals. Democrat members of the House Natural Resources Committee in the Senate have called for this law to be updated, requiring royalties on mined materials be paid to the government (House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 2017). Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977: This statute changed the way strip mining was done in the United States by requiring stricter permitting and performance standards. It also required that lands that had been mined be restored to their “approximate original contour” and to a condition capable of “supporting their pre-mining uses or ‘higher and better uses’” (Rasband, Salzman, and Squillace 2009). Miner Protection Act: This is a law proposed by Democrats to provide pensions and health care benefits to many coal miners, miner retirees, and their eligible dependents. Funding for the bill would come through moving money from the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation Program Fund into a different fund that could disburse money to qualifying miners. Republicans opposed the bill out of concern that a government bailout for a union sets a bad precedent (Lofton 2016). Sources House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. 2017. “Energy and Mineral Resources.” Accessed February 20, 2017. https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/subcommittees /energy-and-mineral-resources. Lofton, Kara. 2016. “Retired Coal Miners at Risk of Losing Promised Health Coverage and Pensions.” National Public Radio, December 8. Accessed February 20, 2017. http://www .npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504823965/retired-coal-miners-at-risk-of -losing-promised-health-coverage-and-pensions. Rasband, James, James Salzman, and Mark Squillace. 2009. Natural Resources Law and Policy. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.

(AGI Staff 2017). In fact, more than three dozen federal environmental laws and regulations cover all aspects of mining, including laws with major public health provisions like the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 and the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006. In addition to federal laws, states have their own laws and regulations pertaining to environmental and public health aspects of mining. In the United States, total active mining operations fell from 14,885 in 2006 to 13,294 in 2015. Active coal mines dropped from 2,113 to 1,460 in the same time period. Among the commodities, coal operators reported the largest number of

M i n i ng

employee hours, with a high of 215.2 million hours reported for 2011. However, this number steadily declined over the next few years, to 146.0 million in 2015 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017). The coal industry has declined for decades “as a result of environmental concerns, automation in mining and slowdowns in manufacturing industries that burned coal for power” (Krauss 2016). The United States is a net exporter of coal, but exports have decreased since 2012 due to increased consumption of cheaper natural gas and renewable energy sources around the world (AGI Staff 2017). In fact, Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported that 2015 “was a record year for global investment in the clean energy space, with $329 billion invested in wind, solar panels, biomass plants and more around the world” (Mooney 2016). China led the way in clean energy investment with $110.5 billion last year; the United States was second at $56 billion (Mooney 2016). Not surprisingly, these trends took a toll on coal mining companies in America. One aspect of Republican Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign that he returned to again and again was a vow to revive the ailing U.S. coal industry and bring back lost mining jobs. Most observers, though, believe that “coal mining jobs will continue to be lost, not because of blocked access to coal, but because power plant owners are turning to natural gas” (Fears 2017). Environmental considerations aside, utility companies and other big energy producers simply do not view coal as the financially sensible choice. Department of Energy and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports released in early 2017 indicate that employment is rising in natural gas and other cleaner energy sectors, even as coal mining employment declines. As a result, even if President Trump eases regulations on the coal industry, Ted O’Brien, coal analyst at Doyle Trading Consultants, is having “a hard time seeing a surge in coal demand” (Krauss 2016). Democrats on Mining

For the majority of President Barack Obama’s time in office, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) worked to develop the Stream Protection Rule. Among several purposes, the final rule sought to protect streams, fish, and wildlife from harmful effects of surface mining operations. Additional regulations were put in place to require mine operators to avoid water pollution, cover long-term costs associated with water treatment, and conduct restoration and reclamation once mining operations concluded. Many existing mining regulations date back to the 1970s or even earlier, and the OSMRE’s rule reflected advancements in science on new mining and reclamation techniques (OSMRE 2017). One issue with direct impacts on mining is the Democrats’ “Buy America” pledge. Senate Democrats argue that the pledge to buy U.S.-made products should be made permanent through insertion of the language into the Water Resources Development Act and the requirement that the federal government finance a project only if it uses American-made steel (Zanona 2016). House speaker Paul Ryan removed the provision in the House version of the bill. United Steelworkers

185

186

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

legislative representative Roy Houseman responded, “From our end it’s a little baffling . . . it’s been a program that’s been really successful, and it has bipartisan support. We’re just very confused by the Speaker, who’s not listening to the rest of his caucus.” Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) echoed Houseman’s sentiments: “Buy America is an important job-creating provision. . . . As a result, companies will have incentives to invest in domestic manufacturing facilities, and U.S. taxpayer dollars will support American manufacturers. Removing the Buy America provisions from the [Drinking Water State Revolving Fund] will have the opposite effect. An opportunity to support and grow U.S. manufacturers will be squandered” (Zanona 2016). Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded to Republican attempts to block the Buy America provision in the Senate by saying, “We challenge the President-elect [Trump] to follow through on his promise to America’s working families. Stand with Democrats in supporting steelworkers and miners across the country. Tell the Republicans to reverse course” (Frizell 2016). Buy America advocate Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) criticized the Republican position as well. “By removing my Buy America standard, Speaker Ryan and House Republicans are embracing the status-quo in Washington. This is a failure by House leadership to make a solid commitment to American manufacturers and workers” (Frizell 2016). Overall, Democrats see the Buy America provision as an opportunity to divide President Trump from his party base. Trump publically endorsed Baldwin’s Buy American provision and on April 18, 2017, issued an Executive Order (EO) to “Buy American and Hire American.” White House officials believe that this agenda will cut across party lines. Arguments are made that the EO will result in changes; others argue that it will not as it lacks substance. Meanwhile, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) has proposed legislation to remedy reclamation issues. In February 2015 he introduced H.R. 963, the Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act, which proposed to clean up hardrock abandoned mine lands (AMLs) through new funding and the introduction of a Good Samaritan provision to the Clean Water Act. Good Samaritans are defined in the bill as “individuals or entities who had no role in the creation of the historic mine residue or any resulting environmental pollution and are not legally responsible for the remediation of the historic mine residue.” The bill, however, was quickly referred to the Republican-controlled House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, where no further action was taken. Republicans on Mining

Republicans have proposed a series of laws in recent years to address issues they feel are important to the mining industry. Representative Cresent Hardy (R-NV) introduced the Mining School Enhancement Act in October 2015, which aimed to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 so that at least 70 percent of research funds would be earmarked to support programs at

M i n i ng

mining and mineral engineering schools (U.S. House of Representatives 2015d). Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) introduced H.R. 3843, the Locatable Minerals Claim Location and Maintenance Fees Act of 2015, to establish a seven-year period to collect claim location and maintenance fees (U.S. House of Representatives 2015c). But neither of these bills were brought up for a vote before the House. Sharing Senator Raúl M. Grijalva’s (D-AZ) concern for AMLs and reclamation efforts, Representative Jody Hice (R-GA) proposed the Energy and Minerals Reclamation Foundation Establishment Act of 2015 (H.R 3844) (also called the Bureau of Land Management Foundation Act). This bill sought to create “the Bureau of Land Management Foundation as a charitable, nonprofit organization to encourage, accept, obtain, administer, and use private gifts of money, devises, and bequests of real and personal property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the activities and services of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)” (U.S. House of Representatives 2015a). In a hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Eric Cavazza, Director of the Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation in the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, testified that “hardrock AML sites continue to pose an especially difficult problem, largely due to the lack of a federal hardrock AML program such as is in place for coal AML remediation. . . . There is clearly a need to establish both the funding mechanism and the administrative program to address these legacy sites. . . . We also advocate for a delegated program and required funding for reclamation of hardrock AML sites located outside federal lands” (Natural Resources Committee 2015). Hice’s bill actually passed in the GOPcontrolled House, but was never considered by the Senate. The most notable action taken by any Republican in recent years in the area of mining regulation and policy came on February 16, 2017, when recently inaugurated President Donald Trump signed a bill ending President Barack Obama’s Stream Protection Rule. Developed by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the Stream Protection Rule was designed to protect waterways from waste dumped by coal and other mining companies. The coal industry, which strongly supported Republican candidates in 2016, argued that the comprehensive environmental rule would have imposed high operating costs and led to job losses in an already vulnerable industry. Trump characterized the regulation as “another terrible job killing rule” and stated that ending it would save “many thousands American jobs, especially in the mines, which, I have been promising you—the mines are a big deal” (Henry 2017). Similar to the partisan positions on fracking, Republicans in mining-dependent states have different perspectives than their colleagues in states without extractive industries on a similar scale. Democrats are divided as well, with members from mining-dependent states needing to address the growing health care and pension needs for the slowly declining industry. As more mines close and miners retire, yet the demand for minerals and the need for employment remain, both parties must pursue policies to address the needs and concerns of their constituents and the country. Elizabeth Wheat and Teri J. Walker

187

188

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Further Reading AGI (American Geosciences Institute) Staff. 2017. “How Can Metal Mining Impact the Environment?” Accessed May 6, 2017. https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical -issues/faq/how-can-metal-mining-impact-environment. Barrón-López, Laura. 2016a. “Democrats Rip GOP as Coal Miners Prepare to Lose Health Coverage.” Huffington Post, December 8. Accessed February 20, 2017. http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-congress-coal-miners-heath-benefits _us_5849db0ee4b0bd9c3dfbec52. Barrón-López, Laura. 2016b. “Soon-to-Expire Health Benefits for Coal Miners Are at the Center of the Government Funding Fight.” Huffington Post, December 6. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/coal-minors-health-benefits -funding_us_5847533ae4b0b9feb0da2ce2?section=us_politics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2015. “Mining Facts—2015.” NIOSH Mining. Last modified May 20, 2016. Accessed February 20, 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh /mining/works/statistics/factsheets/miningfacts2015.html. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2017. “Statistics: All Mining.” The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Last modified March 7, 2017. Accessed February 20, 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/statistics/allmining .html. Congressional Budget Office. “S. 3470, Miners Protection Act of 2016,” November 18, 2016. Accessed February 14, 2017. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52233. Fears, Darryl. 2017. “Donald Trump Promises to Bring Back Coal Jobs but Experts Disagree.” The Independent, March 29. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.independent .co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-coal-mining-jobs-promise-experts -disagree-executive-order-a7656486.html. Frizell, Sam. 2016. “Democrats Move to Divide Donald Trump From GOP on Coal and Steel.” Time, December 6. Accessed February 20, 2017. http://time.com/4592750 /congress-democrats-donald-trump-coal-miners-steel/. Henry, Devin. 2017. “Trump Signs Bill Undoing Obama Coal Mining Rule.” The Hill, February 16. Accessed February 17, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment /319938-trump-signs-bill-undoing-obama-coal-mining-rule. Krauss, Clifford, and Michael Corkery. 2016. “A Bleak Outlook for Trump’s Promises to Coal Miners.” New York Times, November 19. Accessed May 6, 2017. https://www .nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/energy-environment/a-bleak-outlook-for-trumps -promises-to-coal-miners.html?_r=0. The Last Mountain. 2011. Directed by Bill Haney. N.p.: Solid Ground Films. DVD. Lofton, Kara. 2016. “Retired Coal Miners at Risk of Losing Promised Health Coverage and Pensions.” National Public Radio. Accessed February 20, 2017. http://www .npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/08/504823965/retired-coal-miners-at-risk -of-losing-promised-health-coverage-and-pensions. Mooney, Chris. 2016. “Why Clean Energy Is Now Expanding Even When Fossil Fuels Are Cheap.” Washington Post, January 14. Accessed May 6, 2017. https://www.washington ​ p ost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/14/why-clean​ - energy-is-now -expanding-even-when-fossil-fuels-are-cheap/?tid=a_inl&utm​_term=.37a362415331. Natural Resources Committee. 2015. “Abandoned Mine Lands Hearing Wrap-up: Speakers Agree More Funding Needed to Clean Up Abandoned Mines.” Hearing. 114th Congress, November 5. Accessed February 20, 2017. https://democrats-natural​

M i n i ng

resources.house.gov/media/press-releases/abandoned-mine-lands-hearing-wrap-up -speakers-agree-more-funding-needed-to-clean-up-abandoned-mines. NMA (National Mining Association). n.d. “Facts, Stats, Data.” Accessed July 5, 2017. http:// nma.org/facts-stats-and-data/. OSMRE (Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement). 2017. “Stream Protection Rule.” Accessed February 20, 2017. https://www.osmre.gov/programs/rcm​ /streamprotectionrule.shtm. SourceWatch Staff. 2015. “Environmental Impacts of Coal.” SourceWatch.org. Accessed May 5, 2017. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_impacts_of_coal. Tyson, Daniel. “Key GOP Member Lukewarm to Coal Miners’ Pension Bill.” RegisterHerald, October 13. Accessed February 20, 2017. http://www.register-herald.com/news /key-gop-member-lukewarm-to-coal-miners-pension-bill/article_a2048616-19fb -56c6-99a4-e310b8e4f5d2.html. U.S. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2017. “What Is U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source?’ Last updated April 18, 2017. Accessed May 5, 2017. https://www .eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3. U.S. House of Representatives. 2015a. “Energy and Minerals Reclamation Foundation Establishment Act,” H.R. 3844, 114th Congress. Accessed February 20, 2017. http:// docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20160704/HR3844.pdf. U.S. House of Representatives. 2015b. “Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act of 2015,” H.R. 963, 114th Congress. Accessed February 20, 2017. https://www.congress .gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/963. U.S. House of Representatives. 2015c. “Locatable Minerals Claim Location and Maintenance Fees Act of 2015,” H.R. 3843, 114th Congress. Accessed February 20, 2017. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3843. U.S. House of Representatives. 2015d. “Mining Schools Enhancement Act,” H.R. 3734, 114th Congress. Accessed February 20, 2017. https://www.congress.gov /bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3734. U.S. House of Representatives. 2016. “Bureau of Land Management Foundation Act,” H.R. 3844, 114th Congress. Accessed February 20, 2017. https://www.congress.gov /bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3844. U.S Senate. 2016. “Miners Protection Act,” S. 3470, 114th Congress. Accessed February 20, 2017. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3470?q=%7B%22 search%22%3A%5B%22Miners+Protection+Act%22%5D%7D&r=4. Zanona, Melanie. 2016. “Fight over ‘Buy America’ Provision Erupts in Congress.” The Hill, December 1. Accessed February 20, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy /transportation/308358-last-minute-fight-over-buy-america-provision-emerges-in -water-bill.

189

Motorized Recreation on Public Lands

At a Glance

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimated that almost 62 million people used the public lands it manages for recreation in 2015. This included over 180,000 snowmobilers (Bureau of Land Management 2016). Snowmobiling and other off-road vehicle (ORV) recreation remains very popular on other federally managed lands as well, including national parks and national forests. Both Democrats and Republicans recognize the economic value and popularity of recreation on public lands, but they differ on the extent of allowable recreational use and the regulations covering that use. In addition, the perspective of individual lawmakers—Democrat or Republican—on this issue has historically been influenced by the region from which they hail. Lawmakers from rural or western districts or states tend to raise greater objections to regulations governing motorized recreation on public lands than do lawmakers from other parts of the country. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe people should be granted greater access to public lands for off-road and snowmobile recreational use • Believe snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park is important to the local economies surrounding the park and should be maintained • Believe well-managed ORV activity on public lands does not show any significant long-term impact on the environment that is not also present in other land management activities (such as automobiles in parking lots and the construction of visitor centers, rest areas, and other amenities) Many Democrats . . .

• Believe environmental damage to public lands caused by off-road and snowmobile recreational use can be greatly reduced through regulation of those activities

Mot or i z ed R ec r eat i o n o n P ub lic L a nd s

• Believe snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park could be restricted and even eliminated without long-term damage to the local economies surrounding the park, and supporting the local economy is not the purpose of parks in the first place • Believe ORV activity on public lands is significantly more damaging to the environment than automobiles and more traditional recreational activities (such as hiking, camping, cross-country skiing, canoeing, and kayaking)

Overview

Early conservationists recognized the value of designating public lands for protection in order to protect their scenic beauty, historic importance, economic value, and recreational opportunities. The challenge has always been balancing these multiple values. The vast majority of public lands that involve recreational use, particularly the use of off-road vehicles and snowmobiles, include four main categories. National forests, authorized by the 1891 Forest Reserve Act, are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and fall under the Department of Agriculture (switched from the Department of the Interior in 1905). The other three categories are supervised by offices within the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service manages National Parks and Monuments, while the remaining relevant land is managed by the BLM. Because of local management and limited technology in the first half of the 20th century, clashes between environmentalists and off-road vehicle riders and snowmobilers on public lands did not reach a significant level until the 1960s. In 1963, the first personal snowmobiles entered Yellowstone National Park—a total of six. In 1967, there came the first running of the off-road Mexican 1000 Rally through desert land in Mexico and southern California. This event would later become the more famous Baja 1000, a race pitting competitors in a wide variety of vehicle classes—including trucks, motorcycles, and dune buggies—against one another. These two landmark events triggered a new front in the recreation versus environment debate over public land use that continues to this day. The debate primarily pivots around interpretation of several government statements regarding the use of public lands. The critical documents related to snowmobiles and off-road vehicles are the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (relevant to snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park, for example) and the 1960 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (relevant to off-road racing in Southwest desert public lands and ORV use in other parts of the country). On August 25, 1916, Democratic president Woodrow Wilson signed the National Park Service Organic Act and established the National Park Service we know today. The critical passage for understanding the debate over snowmobile use in Yellowstone is the purpose statement of national parks: “to conserve the

191

192

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Two ambiguities in this passage have emerged as sources of considerable debate. First, the mandate to “conserve” can conflict with the expectation of “enjoyment.” Second, the mandate to “leave them unimpaired” is followed by the qualifier “for the enjoyment of future generations” (Sellars 2007). Proponents of recreational snowmobiling argue that the activity increases the enjoyment of park visitors and can be done in a manner that conserves the land. Opponents argue that the snowmobiles are environmentally damaging to wildlife in the parks and diminish air quality. The 1960 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act was originally applied to national forests and in 1976 was extended to the BLM through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The act directs public lands to be managed “for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.” Multiple use is defined as “the management of all the various renewable surface resources . . . so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people.” Under this act, the use of public land for recreation must be balanced with environmental protection, potentially resulting in “periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions.” Proponents of off-road vehicles argue that their use of the land for recreation possesses equal status under the act and must be respected. Opponents argue that the environmental protection element of the act must override the recreation use. Snowmobile use in Yellowstone continued to increase in the 1970s and 1980s. Starting in 1990, the National Park Service began its first “winter use plan” for the park, hinting at the need to limit snowmobiles in the future. It also conducted an environmental assessment of snowmobile use within the park’s borders. By 1999, the National Park Service presented alternatives for a winter use plan that included new regulations for controlling snowmobile access. But the National Park Service also indicated that it was giving serious consideration to imposing a total ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone. In a series of executive decisions and legal cases (1999–2003), the snowmobile ban was going into effect, then was stopped, then was reinstated, and then was stopped again. In 2004, the National Park Service was able to develop a snowmobile use plan that allowed 720 guided snowmobiles to enter the park per day. Both sides considered the decision a “sell-out” to the opposing interests. Because of low snowfall and high gas prices, snowmobile traffic in Yellowstone seldom reached half of the allowed traffic through the next few years. In 2008, a temporary plan allowed 318 guided snowmobiles and 78 snow coaches into the park per day. This temporary rule was replaced by a plan that allowed up to 110 “transportation events” a day. A transportation event is defined as one snow coach or a group of individual snowmobiles (numbering seven on average). This rule was officially implemented in 2013, and it remains in effect today. While the snowmobile debate was taking place in Yellowstone, another ORV battle was developing in the Southwest desert sands. The Imperial Sand Dunes

Mot or i z ed R ec r eat i o n o n P ub lic L a nd s

Conflicting Decisions Regarding Snowmobiles in Yellowstone A critical set of cases pertaining to the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park occurred at opposite ends of the country in 2003 and 2004. The 2003 decision—from Washington, D.C., in Fund for Animals v. Norton—came down in support of a snowmobile ban: NPS is bound by a conservation mandate, and that mandate trumps all other considerations. . . . NPS managers must always seek to avoid, or minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts on park resources and values.

In 2004, however, in International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association v. Norton, a Wyoming district court ruled against a snowmobile ban in Yellowstone: After reviewing the administrative record, it appears to this Court that the National Park Service (NPS) did not consider the impacts of increased snowcoach use in the Parks, the effectiveness of snowcoach transportation in the Parks’ interior, or the real economic impacts to the surrounding areas. . . . International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association (ISMA) claims that the NPS misinterpreted the Park Service Organic Act (“Organic Act“) by determining that the conservation portion controlled and subjugated other obligations under the Organic Act. ISMA claims that there is a dual mandate to balance conservation with visitor enjoyment.

Sources Fund for Animals v. Norton. 294 F.Supp.2d 92. United States District Court, District of Columbia. 2003. Accessed January 28, 2017. http://www.leagle.com/decision/2003386294FSup p2d92_1378/THE%20FUND%20FOR%20ANIMALS%20v.%20NORTON. International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association v. Norton. 304 F.Supp.2d 1278. U.S. District Court, D. Wyoming. 2004. Accessed January 28, 2017. http://www.leagle.com/decision/20 041582304FSupp2d1278_11473/INTERNATIONAL%20SNOWMOBILE%20MFRS.%20 ASS%27N.%20v.%20NORTON.

Recreation Area has the largest sand dunes in California. The land is managed by the BLM, which historically made over two-thirds of the dunes open to ORV recreation. Located 150 miles east of San Diego, the 150,000-acre dunes area has been a popular off-road recreation destination since the 1950s. On Thanksgiving weekends, the area has seen as many as 200,000 off-road enthusiasts use the land. While the area has developed a reputation for some law-defying, rowdy gatherings, the more responsible off-road enthusiasts work hard to maintain the area (Madigan 2002). In the late 1990s, the BLM conducted studies on the ORV activity in the dunes and its impact on the Peirson’s milk-vetch, a plant protected by the Endangered Species Act. In 2000, the BLM announced plans to close off almost 50,000 acres of land in the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area to off-roaders.

193

194

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

After several legal challenges, the BLM followed through with the plan and closed off about 40,000 acres of the dunes. However, legal challenges from off-roaders and negotiations with the BLM continued through the next decade. In 2013, BLM announced a plan to reopen the land. Environmental groups were outraged, arguing that the decision “allows recreation to trump protection” of a unique plant species found nowhere else (Cart 2013). In 2016, a federal court allowed the land to be reopened to off-roaders under the BLM regulations. The balance between off-road recreation and environmental protection remains a challenge for all parties involved. In June 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) produced a report titled “Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles [OHVs].” Because the national parks reported that less than 10 percent of their land was utilized for OHV recreation, the GAO report was not overly critical of their long-term planning. However, the GAO found that the Forest Service and the BLM needed significant improvement in their strategic planning to “help provide quality OHV opportunities while protecting federal lands and resources.” Republicans on Motorized Recreation on Public Lands

The Republican Party frequently asserts that it remains true to the traditional conservationist stance that dates back to Republican Teddy Roosevelt. This position argues that human activity needs to interact with the environment in a manner that is conscientious and respectful, but this can be done to the benefit of society. Republicans argue that this approach was evident in 1972, when Republican president Richard Nixon issued Executive Order 11644: “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands.” This order established policies and provided for procedures to “ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands” [emphasis added]. The last phrase is a consistent element of Republican support for the multiple use approach to public land management. When the National Park Service announced its intention to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to help settle the snowmobiling lawsuit in 1997— and the banning of snowmobiles in Yellowstone looked likely—Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) stated, “By caving in to a radical group, such as Fund for Animals [the initiators of the original lawsuit], the Park Service has unnecessarily placed a lot of small businesses and the families that rely on them in jeopardy” (Mcmillion 1997). At the close of the decade, Republican opponents of a snowmobile ban in Yellowstone convened hearings in the House and Senate. The Republican Party’s economic concern was most evident in the hearings held by the Subcommittee on Tax, Finance, and Exports of the Committee on Small Business in the House. The hearing was titled “Impact of Banning Snowmobiles Inside National Parks on Small Business.”

Mot or i z ed R ec r eat i o n o n P ub lic L a nd s

It was this battle that the George W. Bush administration walked into in 2001. The Wyoming congressional delegation, all Republicans, pushed to have the ban delayed until the new president could assess the situation. On his first day in office, President Bush signed a 60-day moratorium on the ban. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced legislation to rescind the ban a month later. President Bush then took a slight turn and announced that his administration would allow the ban to go into effect after the moratorium. However, this was not inconsistent with general Republican principles. President Bush had his Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, negotiating with larger snowmobile business interests and collecting information from local business around effected areas in an attempt to find a more balanced approach rather than a complete ban. A spokesman for the Department of the Interior stated, “This administration feels strongly that greater local input, new information, scientific data and economic analysis and wider public involvement can only lead to better, more informed decisions” (Seelye 2001). The parties involved agreed to a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that took into account improving snowmobile technology while also opening Yellowstone to snowmobiles in the 2002–2003 winter season. Then, in 2003–2004, the number of entering snowmobiles would be controlled to allow snowmobile recreation while preserving the ecology of the park. Just before the compromise phaseout and reduction plan was to go into effect, the U.S District Court of the District of Columbia reinstated the Clinton-era rule to ban snowmobiles. That did not decide the issue, however, as the district court in Wyoming subsequently stayed the ruling from the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia court emphasized the environmental effects in the case, while the Wyoming court’s decision emphasized the economic loss to the community should the phaseout be completed. In August 2004, the National Park Service proceeded to set the snowmobile limit at 720 for that season and through the 2006–2007 season. To emphasize the political position of the Bush administration, Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, visited Yellowstone in 2005 and stated, “For me, the unique part of the experience was being on a snowmobile.” She also acknowledged that the legal wrangling had been “very hard on some local businesses” (Stark 2005). The Yellowstone snowmobile debate will likely continue for years to come and cannot be entirely identified with a political party, as regional politicians are often cross-pressured to go against the standard party position. As Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) indicated when he weighed in on the National Park Service snowmobile alternative proposals, “Two of these proposals aren’t going to fly in my book because, like most Montanans, I believe snowmobiles and snowcoaches have an important place in Yellowstone” (French 2010). The Republican Party’s desire to balance environmental concerns with recreational use does not apply only to winter snowmobiling. While the Yellowstone issue was developing, a similar environmental debate was taking place in the deserts of the Southwest. When the BLM decided to close about 50,000 acres of

195

196

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in 2000, the Republican Party saw the action as the opposite of multiple use management. A string of lawsuits followed for the next decade that led to the reopening of that land in 2013, but not to the satisfaction of everyone. Representative Paul Cook (R-CA) introduced legislation in 2015 that attempted to open up more public land to off-road recreationalists, while maintaining an off-limits protective area. Supporters of Cook’s proposal described it as in keeping with traditional conservationist goals to balance environmental protection with recreation in a multiple use model. The legislation stalled, however, and Democratic president Barack Obama proceeded to use the Antiquities Act of 1906 to set aside three desert areas in California, thus creating greater limits on recreation. Republicans have since tried to introduce legislation to loosen restrictions on ORV use in the region, but much of the desert land remains offlimits to off-roaders. While neither President Trump nor his secretary of the interior, Ryan Zinke, have made any direct statements concerning snowmobiles and off-road vehicles as of early 2017, comments by both of them regarding public lands remain consistent with the traditional Republican multiple use approach. When discussing public lands, Zinke argued that public access to public lands is important, and he voiced concern that “we’re shutting gates, we’re closing roads and the public is losing access” (Marcotte 2016). Democrats on Motorized Recreation on Public Lands

Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1943 designation of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for national monument protection under the Antiquities Act marked an early indication of his party’s movement toward wilderness protection. This movement, which intensified in the second half of the 20th century, had a significant impact on the Democratic Party’s position with regard to snowmobiles and off-road vehicles on public land. When the new environmental movement began to gain successes in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Democratic Party was poised to switch its general position from the conservationists of the early part of the century to modern environmentalists. Democratic lawmakers were broadly supportive of new legislation to protect natural resources and wilderness areas during this time, and Democratic president Jimmy Carter issued new limitations on the operation of off-road vehicles and snowmobiles on federal land. Carter used Executive Order 11989 to amend the Executive Order issued by Nixon in 1972. In 1977, Carter added a new section to the order stating that whenever an agency head determined “that the use of off-road vehicles will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat or cultural or historic resource of particular areas of trails or public lands, [he or she shall] immediately close such areas or trails to the type of off-road vehicle causing such effect.” It is this executive order that opened the door for President Bill Clinton and

Mot or i z ed R ec r eat i o n o n P ub lic L a nd s

the Democrats in Congress to ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone to protect the park in the 1990s. After receiving complaints about congestion and air pollution from park visitors in 1994 and an increase of employee headaches and nausea in 1995 on heavy snowmobile traffic days, park officials started monitoring carbon monoxide levels in Yellowstone. A two-year study on the effects of snowmobile traffic was also begun in 1995. In 1997, the Fund for Animals and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation sued the National Park Service, arguing the snowmobile use rules were violating the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. The National Park Service agreed to develop an EIS. It was this series of events that led Democratic president Clinton to move the National Park Service toward imposing a complete ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. This proposal was put forward at the close of Clinton’s presidency and was set to go into effect in late 2000. After the 2002 Bush announcement that snowmobiles would be allowed in Yellowstone, Democrats (joined by a few eastern Republicans) in Congress introduced legislation to restore the 2000 ban. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced the Senate version and Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) introduced the same bill in the House. The bill was called the “Yellowstone Park Protection Act.” But the bill never moved in the Republican-controlled House. When the Democrats regained the White House with Barack Obama in 2009, the Yellowstone snowmobile debate entered its second decade. President Obama moved the rules in the direction of the Democratic Party position of prioritizing environmental protection over local business interests, but did not go as far as the Clinton complete ban of 2000. The Yellowstone snowmobile use rules under the Obama administration were lowered to allow the entrance of 318 commercially guided, BAT (Best Available Technology) snowmobiles daily (a considerable drop from the Bush era number of 720). The rules also allowed 78 commercial snow coaches, which was no change from the earlier rule. Starting in 2014, the National Park Service proposed a preferred plan that allowed up to 110 “transportation events” a day. A transportation event is defined as one snow coach or a group of individual snowmobiles numbering seven on average. Starting in 2017, the BAT standards would also be replaced with stricter standards. This plan received support from small businesses in the area, snowmobile groups, and the Republican governor of Wyoming, but it was not enthusiastically embraced by environmentalists. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), meanwhile, exemplified how the members of both political parties sometimes have to balance their general stance on environmental issues with local political realities. While the snowmobile debate was playing out in Yellowstone, the BLM decided to use the ORV Executive Orders (Nixon’s 11644 and Carter’s 11989) to close off about 50,000 acres of Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in California. This action was proposed to protect the endangered Peirson’s milk-vetch and the habitat of the desert tortoise (Perry 2001). The BLM’s

197

198

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

decision to close one-third of the dunes area to off-roaders caused a string of lawsuits that dragged the issue out for the first decade of the new century. Senator Feinstein supported the Democratic Party position of protecting as much land as possible from off-road activity, but she also supported many responsible off-roaders who lived in Southern California. In 2010, she introduced the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 (she introduced the bill two more times in the next three years, just changing the date in the title). The bill was praised by conservationists for its identification of more protected public land, but it also gained the support of recreationalists as it reopened some land and identified other segments for responsible off-road recreation. The Democratic representative of Palm Desert, where environmental protection and economy boosting ATV rentals cooperate, in the House also supported the bill. The bill, in all its iterations, was unable to move through the Senate. By 2015, Senator Feinstein started to urge President Obama to use the Antiquities Act of 1906 to declare several desert areas in California as public land. This was the preferred move for conservationists as it created greater protection of the desert land, but recreationalists preferred the legislative process (Republican Paul Cook of California had a bill similar to Feinstein’s in the House). President Obama decided to use the Antiquities Act and set aside three new national monuments in California, covering the area of Feinstein’s bill and then some. While Feinstein supported this environmental position, she also promised to continue the legislative process to support off-roaders. David M. Dolence Further Reading American Motorcyclists Association. 2016. “Obama’s Monument Designations Penalize Off-Road Enthusiasts.” February 12. Accessed January 8, 2017. https://www .americanmotorcyclist.com/Home/News-Story/obamas-monument-designations -penalize-off-road-enthusiasts-2. Basin and Range Watch Staff. 2009. “1,000 Mile Race through the Desert.” Basin and Range Watch.org, February 23. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://www.basinand​rangewatch .org/OHV-09-Terribles.html. Brengel, Kristen. 2016. “Off-Road Vehicles: Unmanaged, Poorly Managed, and Damaging Off-Road Vehicle Use Has Become a Major Problem in National Parks, Forests, Monuments, and Other Public Lands.” The Wilderness Society. Accessed January 9, 2017. https://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Off-Road-Vehicles-CBB-09.pdf. Brooke, James. 1996. “A Quiet, Clean, Solitary Winter in Yellowstone Park? Vroom! Cough! Think Again.” New York Times, February 18. Accessed January 7, 2017. http:// www.nytimes.com/1996/02/18/us/a-quiet-clean-solitary-winter-in-yellowstone-park -vroom-cough-think-again.html. Bureau of Land Management. 2016. “BLM Public Land Statistics 2015.” U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed January 11, 2017. https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics /pls15/pls2015.pdf. Cart, Julie. 2003. “Expanded Snowmobile Use in Yellowstone Halted.” Los Angeles Times, December 17. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/17 /nation/na-snowmobile17.

Mot or i z ed R ec r eat i o n o n P ub lic L a nd s

Cart, Julie. 2013. “U.S. Seeks to Reopen Disputed Imperial Sand Dunes Area to OffRoaders.” Los Angeles Times, June 18. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://articles.latimes .com/2013/jun/18/local/la-me-0619-dunes-plan-20130619. Clarke, Chris. 2009. “First Take on the California Desert Protection Act of 2010.” Coyote Crossing, December 21. Accessed January 8, 2017. http://coyot.es/crossing/2009/12/21 /first-take-on-the-california-desert-protection-act-of-2010/. Comay, Laura B., Carol Hardy Vincent, and Kristina Alexander. 2013. “Motorized Park Recreation on National Park Service Lands.” CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report. Accessed January 7, 2017. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42955.pdf. CORVA Administrator. 2015. “Feinstein Pushes Obama to Create Desert Monuments.” California Off-Road Vehicle Association, October 23. Accessed January 8, 2017. https://www .corva.org/CORVA-Opposes-use-of-Antiquities-Act-to-create-national-monuments /3597730. Ettema, Hannah. 2013. “What Are the Differences between National Parks and National Forests?” National Forest Foundation. Accessed January 8, 2017. https://www.national​forests.org/blog/what-are-the-differences-between-national-parks-and-national-forests ?gclid=COSxk6vwv9ECFQUNaQodBs8PGA. French, Brett. 2010. “Tester Denounces Alternatives That Would Ban Snowmobiles, Snowcoaches in Yellowstone.” Billings Gazette, July 23. Accessed January 11, 2017. http:// billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/tester-denounces-alternatives -that-would-ban-snowmobiles-snowcoaches-in-yellowstone/article_703cf8d2-9683 -11df-8e01-001cc4c03286.html. Government Accountability Office. 2009. “Federal Lands: Enhancing Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles,” GAO-09-509. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-509. Kilian, Michael. 2002. “Bush Proposes to Overturn Yellowstone Snowmobile Ban.” Chicago Tribune, November 13. Accessed January 8, 2017. http://articles.chicagotribune .com/2002-11-13/news/0211130393_1_snowmobile-ban-international-snowmobile -manufacturers-association-national-parks. Klim, Ed. 2002. “ISMA Yellowstone Information Sheet.” Sharetrails Archive Site, November 25. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://archive.sharetrails.org/news/2002/11/25 /isma-yellowstone-information-sheet. Lazaroff, Cat. 2002. “Bill Challenges Reversal of Parks Snowmobile Ban.” Environmental News Service, June 27. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens /jun2002/2002-06-27-06.html. Madigan, Nick. 2002. “A Holiday of Mayhem in ‘the Most Illegal Place in the World.’” New York Times, January 2. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02 /us/a-holiday-of-mayhem-in-the-most-illegal-place-in-the-world.html. Marcotte, Amanda. 2016. “Can Ryan Zinke, Donald Trump’s Pick for Interior Secretary, Be Trusted to Protect Public Lands?” Salon, December 15. Accessed January 20, 2017. http://www.salon.com/2016/12/15/can-ryan-zinke-donald-trumps-pick-for-interior -secretary-be-trusted-to-protect-public-lands/. Mcmillion, Scott. 1997. “Snowmobiles Remain an Issue.” High Country News, October 27. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.hcn.org/issues/117/3731. Monoson, Ted. 2003. “House Cuts Snowmobile Ban.” Billings Gazette, July 17. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/house-cuts-snowmobile-ban /article_3b194ea7-eb5e-5958-97c9-c6ade6af7c0a.html. “Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.” As amended through 1996, P.L. 104–333. Accessed January 6, 2017. https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/musya60.pdf.

199

200

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

National Park Service Staff. 2017. “Yellowstone in Winter: A History of Winter Use.” Accessed January 8, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/timeline.htm. New York Times Staff. 1997. “Parks to Study Snowmobiles’ Effect on Bison.” New York Times, September 28. Accessed January 7, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/28/us /parks-to-study-snowmobiles-effect-on-bison.html. Perry, Tony. 2001. “BLM Reaffirms Closure of Sand Dunes to Off-Roaders.” Los Angeles Times, October 20. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/20 /local/me-59418. Seelye, Katharine Q. 2001. “U.S. to Reassess Snowmobile Ban in a Park.” New York Times, June 30. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/30/us/us-to​ -reassess-snowmobile-ban-in-a-park.html. Seelye, Katharine Q. 2002a. “Snowmobilers Gain Against Plan for Park Ban.” New York Times, February 20. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/20​ /us/snowmobilers-gain-against-plan-for-park-ban.html. Seelye, Katharine Q. 2002b. “TRAVEL ADVISORY: CORRESPONDENT’S REPORT; Snowmobiles in Parks: Limits, but Not a Ban.” New York Times, September 29. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/29/travel/travel-advisory​-correspondent -s-report-snowmobiles-in-parks-limits-but-not-a-ban.html. Sellars, Richard West. 2007. “A Very Large Array: Early Federal Historic Preservation—The Antiquities Act, Mesa Verde, and the National Park Service Act.” Natural Resources Journal 47 (Spring). Accessed December 14, 2016. https://www.nps.gov/archeology /sites/antiquities/docs/2007RSellars-VeryLargeArray-AntiqActMEVENPS.pdf. Shogren, Elizabeth. 2013. “15 Years of Wrangling Over Yellowstone Snowmobiles Ends.” National Public Radio, October 22. Accessed January 8, 2017. http://www.npr.org /2013/10/22/239705610/new-rules-mean-more-and-cleaner-snow-mobiles-in-yellow stone. Sierra Club Board of Directors. 1988. “Off-Road Use of Motorized Vehicles.” Accessed January 8, 2017. http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/road-use-motorized-vehicles. Stark, Mike. 2005. “After Tour of Yellowstone, Norton Prefers Snowmobile.” Billings Gazette, February 16. Accessed January 10, 2017. http://billingsgazette.com/news /state-and-regional/montana/after-tour-of-yellowstone-norton-prefers-snowmobile /article_d5bcba9a-bea2-5a52-a83f-5352f449816b.html. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 2016. Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management. Case No. 14-15836. Accessed January 10, 2017. http://cdn.ca9 .uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/15/14-15836.pdf. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 2004. International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association v. Norton. 304 F.Supp. 2d 1278, D.Wyo. Accessed January 10, 2017. http:// caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1598098.html. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 2003. Fund for Animals v. Norton. 294 F.Supp. 2d 92-117, D.D.C. Accessed January 10, 2017. http://www.leagle.com/decisio n/2003386294FSupp2d92_1378/THE%20FUND%20FOR%20ANIMALS%20v.%20 NORTON. U.S. House of Representatives. 2000. “Impact of Banning Snowmobiles Inside National Parks on Small Business.” Subcommittee on Tax, Finance, and Exports of the Committee on Small Business. Accessed January 7, 2017. https://archive.org/details/gov.gpo .fdsys.CHRG-106hhrg67683. Williams, Gerald W. 2005. “The USDA Forest Service—The First Century.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Accessed January 11, 2017. https://www.fs.fed .us/sites/default/files/media/2015/06/The_USDA_Forest_Service_TheFirstCentury.pdf.

National Parks

At a Glance

The national parks themselves have received strong bipartisan support at various times since Republican president Ulysses S. Grant signed the act that created Yellowstone as the first officially recognized national park in 1872. This positive attitude is also present in the general public, as a Pew Research Center (2015) poll found a 75-percent-favorable public approval rating of the National Park Service. However, this overall positive view has not granted the national parks immunity from partisan disagreement along Democratic and Republican lines. Republicans oppose excessive use of presidential power to designate national park land, while Democrats favor that use to protect against narrower private interests. Democrats oppose excessive use of national parks and public lands for destructive economic and resource development, while Republicans view that development as essential for local economies. President Barack Obama’s 2016 designation of the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument as another addition to the country’s National Park System cast these partisan differences in sharp relief. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe national parks are mismanaged at the federal level and require more state-level responsibility • Believe the creation of national parks is a congressional responsibility and not one that belongs with the executive branch • Believe economic and resource development on public lands, including national parks, should be considered in conjunction with important environmental concerns Many Democrats . . .

• Believe management of the national parks at the federal level ensures environmental priorities are protected from narrower interests

202

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

• Believe the creation of national parks is most effectively accomplished at the presidential level • Believe environmental concerns and conservation must remain the primary, if not the only, concern of national parks

Overview

In 2016, the National Park System celebrated its 100th year of existence. The National Park System has gone through many changes and has grown in esteem as far as the American people are concerned. In 2001, a Los Angeles Times survey found that 72 percent of the public had visited a national park in their lifetime. A 2012 CBS News/New York Times poll stated that 35 percent of the public intended to visit a national park that summer. The driving purpose behind the original park movement also seems to remain intact, as a 2007 ABC News/Washington Post survey found that “protecting natural habitats and wildlife” in national parks was seen as a priority for 79 percent of the respondents. A 2016 poll found that 93 percent of those surveyed somewhat or strongly supported “protect[ing] the pristine open lands around national parks so that wildlife has access” (Hart Research Associates 2016). The first national park in the United States was Yellowstone, created by an act of Congress in 1872. This was accomplished by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by Republican president Ulysses S. Grant. It was the third rung on a growing conservationist ladder that also included protection of archeological sites in the Southwest and Civil War battle sites throughout the East and the South. While the creation of Yellowstone National Park was viewed as an accomplishment, it did not immediately usher in a wave of new parks. By 1900, there were still only four large national parks in the United States, with Sequoia, Yosemite, and Mount Rainier added to Yellowstone. All were established by acts of Congress. However, the Progressive Era (from the 1890s to the 1920s) brought with it new ways of looking at the nation’s wilderness expanses. And in the area of national parks, there are no two bigger names than progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) and conservationist John Muir (1838–1914). In 1903, President Roosevelt met in Yosemite with Muir, who had founded the famed Sierra Club environmental group in 1892. During their time together, Muir emphasized the importance of preserving America’s natural resources for future generations, and his message resonated with Roosevelt, an avid outdoorsman. This moment launched a significant 15-year period in the history of the national parks. The two primary acts that came in the next decade and a half would shape the Republican and Democratic debate on national parks to this day. In 1906, the United States Congress passed and President Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act. What has become the most politically divisive element of the act in practice is section 2, which authorizes the president to establish national

N at i o na l Pa r k s

monuments and set aside for federal protection lands that are designated “of historic or scientific interest . . .” (16 U.S.C. 431–433). Until the 1906 Antiquities Act, the creation of Yellowstone in 1872 and every national park designation required an act of Congress. This new act allowed the president to make proclamations without the consent of Congress. While there were particular disagreements on the use of this act, presidents from both political parties made proclamations under its authority to set aside national monuments. Since Republican Richard Nixon, however, George W. Bush is the only other Republican president to utilize the act. The second significant act of the Progressive Era came in 1916. Prior to 1916, the national parks that had been established—along with the civil war parks, archeological protected sites, and new national monuments created under the 1906 Antiquities Act—were managed by three separate federal departments: Interior, War, and Agriculture. This less-than-efficient management scheme came under attack at the same time that the Hetch Hetchy Dam controversy was peaking in Yosemite National Park. The city of San Francisco was growing rapidly in the early 20th century, and the need for a reliable water source became a growing political issue. Within Yosemite National Park was the Hetch Hetchy Valley, and a plan was proposed to dam a nearby river and flood the valley to create a reservoir for San Francisco’s use. Because Hetch Hetchy Valley was within federally protected land, the City of San Francisco filed with the Secretary of the Interior for permission to construct the dam and provide water for the growing population. One of the first major environmental debates between development and preservation was joined. Preservationists gathered forces to stop the dam building. At the time, a conservationist was understood to be a person who wished to use the environment in a conscientious, respectful manner for the benefit of society (Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt was a big hunter and believer in outdoor exercise), and a preservationist believed nature should be protected from human interference. (This distinction remains today, but the growth of the environmental movement in the 1970s has made the distinction less clear in political debate.) The battle over Hetch Hetchy coincided with the movement for a more coherent National Park System. In 1913, Democratic president Woodrow Wilson signed a bill sponsored by Democratic Representative John Raker from California that allowed a dam to be built on federal land in the Hetch Hetchy Valley. This defeat for preservationists was the spark that led to the creation of the National Park System three years later. On August 25, 1916, President Wilson signed the National Park Service Organic Act, passed by a Democratic-controlled House and Senate, and established the National Park Service we know today. The critical passage for understanding current environmental debate surrounding national parks between the two parties is quoted here in full: “The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations

203

204

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” [emphasis added]. The emphasized section above creates two ambiguities that have persisted. First, the mandate to “conserve” can conflict with the expectation of “enjoyment.” Second, the mandate to “leave them unimpaired” is followed by the qualifier “for the enjoyment of future generations.” The National Park Service must impair the natural scene to build a visitor center to increase visitors’ enjoyment. They may be able to log timber in limited areas or draw on natural gas without necessarily impairing the enjoyment of future generations. Also, “conserve” seems to be a lower standard than “unimpair”—so which takes precedence? (Sellars 2007). Thus, the two main acts in the National Park Service’s history—the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Organic Act of 1916—laid the groundwork for the differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties when it comes to national parks and political debate today. In the Antiquities Act, the line of debate for Republicans and Democrats is drawn between the exercise of power at the state/ congressional and the presidential level. In the Organic Act, the line of debate is drawn between the development of the economy and natural resources and the preservation of national parklands. Republicans on the National Parks

The Republicans frequently lay claim to the conservationist mantle by emphasizing that Theodore Roosevelt was a member of their party. It has also been pointed out that between Roosevelt and Nixon, Republican presidents used the Antiquities Act 60 times without significant pushback from congressional Republicans. However, the Republican position on the Antiquities Act did become more skeptical during the presidency of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, who occupied the White House from 1933 to 1945. Specifically, the Republicans became the party of less government and federalism. Over time, the Antiquities Act became increasingly antithetical to the party position, because it gave extensive power to the president at the expense of the states and Congress, the states’ main federal voice in Washington, D.C. In addition, Republicans came to feel that the act was being used too frequently to “lock up” public lands that might otherwise be tapped for drilling or other economic development. While the Antiquities Act was used minimally in the 1950s and 1960s, its use by Republican presidents came to a complete halt in the 1970s with Nixon and Ford. The Reagan era brought further resistance to the idea of expanding the National Park System. As stated by James Watt, Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior, the Reagan administration’s philosophy was to “be a good steward of what we have before reaching for additional lands whose national significance may be questionable”

N at i o na l Pa r k s

(Knickerbocker 1981). Reagan lowered the national parks budget and moved to turn over more control to private and local interests. He also looked to increase resource production and recreational and economic use on federal lands, including locations surrounding and occasionally within national parks. These actions were framed as being in keeping with the traditional view of conservation, in which the economic needs of the American people are balanced with the needs of maintaining the environment. Reagan’s presidency began at a time when the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion was still reverberating from statehouses across the American West all the way to Washington, D.C. This revolt against federal ownership and management of public lands was sparked by the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act under a Democratic Congress and President Jimmy Carter in 1976. The position of the protestors was that the miners, loggers, and ranchers in the West were being squeezed off land that provided their economic livelihood. Western Republicans were the center of the “rebellion,” with Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), and Ted Stevens (R-AK) forming the League for the Advancement of States’ Equal Rights. Orrin Hatch submitted a bill into the Senate on behalf of the rebellion. Once the Republicans reclaimed the White House and the Senate under Reagan, however, many regulations for land use were relaxed and the rebellion ended quietly. Reagan and his successor, Republican George H. W. Bush, added 32 units to the National Park System during their combined 12 years in office. A “unit” is considered any addition of land that falls under National Park System oversight, including both new locations and extensions of old land. True to the Republican principle, the two presidents made all the additions through public law passed by Congress. There was also a large increase in use of national parks for recreational enjoyment and resource surveying. The escalating partisan battle over ownership and management of national parks and other public lands took another turn in 1995, when a political battle between Democratic president Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich culminated with a government shutdown. The resulting closure of all of America’s national parks became a key symbol of the shutdown. Indeed, the importance of the national parks to American voters became obvious. As Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stated, “Once the shutdowns began, the reaction from people who wanted access to the parks was absolutely incredible” (Rogers 2013). The story was played out again in 2013, when national parks again closed their gates during a fierce budgetary battle between Democratic president Obama and the Republican-controlled Congress. Near the end of his presidency, Bill Clinton revived the Antiquities Act that had lain dormant under the previous Republican presidents. Particularly, using the Antiquities Act in his last days in office, Clinton placed three large parcels of land within the National Park System in Arizona, New York, and Idaho. In response to increased designations by President Clinton, the Republican-controlled 106th

205

206

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Congress (1999–2001) proposed several amendments to the Antiquities Act. Representative Hansen (R-UT) introduced H.R. 1487 (Congress.gov 1999), which passed the House 408–2. The bill required the president, “before declaring a national monument, to: (1) solicit public participation and comment in the designation’s development; (2) consult with the Governor and congressional delegation of the State or territory in which the lands in question are located, to the extent practicable, at least 60 days before such a designation; and (3) consider any information made available in the development of existing plans and programs for the management of such lands, including public comments.” The House version was taken by Senator Murkowski (R-AK) and passed through the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to the Senate, which was also controlled by the GOP. However, Senator Craig (R-ID) had his own proposal and argued that the House version, which required only “consultation,” was not prohibitive enough on presidential action. His version required congressional approval of any designation. Craig’s version was also reported out by Chairwoman Murkowski, but both Craig’s version and the House version remained on the Senate calendar without a final vote. President George W. Bush entered office armed with the post–Nixon Republican Party conservationist view that economic development and resource access on public lands had been intolerably curtailed by Democratic administrations, to the detriment of American energy development. His appointment of Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior signaled a change in that approach. Norton came in with a public land prodevelopment reputation and as a strong proponent of opening Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling for oil, which was a hotly contested environmental issue at the time. But the Republicans maintained their traditional conservationist rhetoric in discussing their approach to public lands. As Bush stated, “Good stewardship of the environment is not just a personal responsibility, it is a public value . . . Our duty is to use the land well, and sometimes not to use it at all. This is our responsibility as citizens, but more than that, it is our calling as stewards of the earth” (Bush 2001). Moreover, the Bush administration’s generally prodevelopment philosophy of public land management did not extend into the national parks. In 2001, for example, the Bush administration announced the National Parks Legacy Project, which was developed to eliminate the maintenance backlog in national parks and, most important for environmentalists, to uphold existing policies that prohibited mining and other forms of resource extraction in national parks. While George W. Bush was consistent with the Republican position of balancing environmental concern with economic development, he did frustrate some Republicans by becoming the first Republican president since Eisenhower to invoke the Antiquities Act of 1906. He declared four national monuments during his presidency, including the largest marine reserve—covering 140,000 square miles surrounding Hawaii. In total, the marine protection area exceeds that of the entire landholdings of the National Park System.

N at i o na l Pa r k s

The 2016 Party Platform Statements on the National Parks From the Democratic Party platform: Democrats believe in the conservation and collaborative stewardship of our shared natural heritage: the public lands and waterways, the oceans, Everglades, Great Lakes, the Arctic, and all that makes America’s great outdoors priceless. . . . Democrats will work to establish an American Parks Trust Fund to help expand local, state, and national recreational opportunities, rehabilitate existing parks, and enhance America’s great outdoors—from our forests and coasts to neighborhood parks—so “America’s Best Idea” is held in trust for future generations, and all Americans can access and enjoy natural spaces.

From the Republican Party platform: Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. . . . We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish Congress’ right to approve the designation of national monuments and to further require the approval of the state where a national monument is designated or a national park is proposed.

Sources Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform,” August 14. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 25, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform,” July 31. The American Presidency Project. Accessed January 25, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index .php?pid=117718.

With President Obama’s revival of the Antiquities Act throughout his presidency, Republicans again introduced legislation to limit the scope of the act. In the House, Rob Bishop (R-UT), chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, introduced a bill to prohibit “(1) the President from making more than one such declaration in a state during any presidential four-year term of office without an express Act of Congress, or (2) such a declaration from including private property without the informed written consent of the affected private property owner.” The bill passed the House in 2014, but not the Senate. In the Senate in 2015, Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) introduced the Local Community and Sportsmen Input in Monuments Act, which echoed the Republican efforts in 2000. The act required not only consultation before a president could designate under the Act, but also the approval of the governor and the legislature of the state affected. Both bills uphold the positions on federalism, presidential power, and private property rights that have marked Republicans’ on national parks since the early 1970s.

207

208

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Democrats on the National Parks

Modern-day Democrats sometimes point out that it was a Democratic president— Woodrow Wilson—who paved the way for the creation of the modern National Park System through passage of the Organic Act in 1916. However, at the beginning of the movement, the Democratic Party position was much more aligned with business interests: seeking to make use of national parks for economic gain, primarily tourism. The railroad companies and the developing automobile industry were primary supporters of the Organic Act because of the tourism potential of the parks. Franklin Roosevelt served as a bridge between this economic and conservationist position in the Democratic Party and the more outspokenly proenvironmentalist positions that the Democrats embraced in the 1960s and 1970s. As far as the national parks are concerned, Roosevelt’s impact was evident in the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). While its overt impetus was creating employment, the CCC was also responsible for the building of hundreds of recreational facilities in national parks. The CCC helped revitalize the national parks; in addition, it turned the Democratic Party position more toward conservation, as the CCC was one of the Roosevelt administration’s most popular New Deal programs. The most controversial action by Roosevelt in relation to the park system was his designation of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, as a national monument under the Antiquities Act in 1943. Roosevelt had to veto a congressional bill passed by his own party that rescinded the designation, which had been criticized by ranching interests in the Jackson Hole region and other parts of the western United States. In his veto message, Roosevelt defended his decision: “The Secretary of the Interior issued a policy statement setting forth definite principles to govern the administration of the Federal lands within the monument. This statement provides for the continuance of all permits issued by the Forest Service or other Federal agencies for the use now within the national monument during the lifetime of the present holders and the members of their immediate families. In this statement the secretary recognized existing grazing privileges on monument lands and existing stock driveway privileges, and declared that cattlemen desiring in the spring and fall to drive their cattle across monument lands, between their respective ranches and the summer ranges, would be permitted to do so as a matter of settled administrative policy.” So, FDR was maintaining the conservationists’ approach while moving toward a new environmental protectionism. When the new environmental movement began to gain successes in the early 1970s, the Democratic Party was poised to switch its general position from the conservationists of the early part of the century to the preservationists—now environmentalists. During Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the dusty Antiquities Act, which had been employed only six times in the preceding two decades, was used aggressively. Carter exercised his rights under the act 15 times, but all of these uses were in 1978 and all were in Alaska. While this was consistent with the Democratic Party’s increasingly proenvironmental and prowilderness conservation outlook, not

N at i o na l Pa r k s

all Democrats were pleased. Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK), for example, introduced the Antiquities Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act Amendments of 1979. The bill required congressional approval of any presidential proclamation of a national monument in excess of 5,000 acres. And echoing the traditional conservationist language, the bill also required the continuance of uses of public lands within a national monument that were valid uses prior to the designation of such lands as a monument, including hunting, guiding, hiking, boating, and use of motorized vehicles. The bill also stipulated that such uses must not adversely affect the objects sought to be protected by the designation. The bill never made it out of committee, but Carter’s actions led to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, which extended federal protection to more than 55 millions acres of Alaska, including more than 30 million acres in eight new or expanded national parks and 18 million acres in more than a dozen new or expanded national wildlife refuges. This series of actions cemented the Democratic Party’s ties to the environmentalists today. During the period from 1981 to 1989, Republican president Ronald Reagan signed into law legislation (generally supported by Democrats in Congress) that created 18 new units in the National Park System. When Democrat Bill Clinton entered the Oval Office in 1993, he initially moved to raise grazing fees on western lands and revitalize the land use policies to remove some of the prodevelopment policies established during the Republican presidencies of Reagan and his successor, George H. W. Bush. Bruce Babbitt, Clinton’s Secretary of the Interior, proposed many of these changes, but he was forced to back down when several western Democrats stepped in to stall that move. The national parks’ main appearance in Democratic politics came during the government shutdown in 1995. Then, during President Bill Clinton’s second term, the Democratic environmental view was placed right up against the Republican conservationist view. In 1996, President Clinton signed an order to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. The area holds one of the largest known U.S. coal reserves. The designation by Clinton made the area off-limits for mining. Clinton used the Antiquities Act to designate 18 other monuments for the purpose of preservation and environmental protection, to the consternation of many Republicans. President Obama used the Antiquities Act of 1906 more than any other U.S. president, designating land under the act 24 times, outdistancing Clinton’s record of 19. The last and probably most controversial of Obama’s designations was the designation of the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument in Maine. The political party stances can be seen clearly in the statements from Maine’s two senators. Susan Collins (R-ME) was disturbed by the action, “given the objection lodged by the Maine Legislature, the lack of consensus among Mainers who live in the area, and the absence of congressional approval.” Angus King (I-ME), an Independent who sits with the Democrats in Congress, stated that the “benefits of the designation far outweigh any detriment,” and he expressed confidence

209

210

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

that the monument could coexist with the wood and paper industries in the area (Pérez-Peña 2016). David M. Dolence Further Reading Brown, Carl. 2016. “See America First: Public Opinion and National Parks.” Cornell University Roper Center. Accessed December 14, 2016. http://ropercenter.cornell.edu​ /see-america-first-public-opinion-and-national-parks/. Bush, George W. 2001. “Fact Sheet: The National Parks Legacy Project,” May 30. The American Presidency Project. Accessed December 15, 2016. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu​ /ws/?pid=78883. CCC Legacy Staff. n.d. “CCC Brief History.” Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www​ .ccclegacy.org/CCC_Brief_History.html. Deluca, Matthew. 2015. “California Drought: Century-Old Fight Over Hetch-Hetchy Simmers On.” NBC News, May 5. Accessed December 14, 2016. http://www.nbc​ news.com/science/environment/california-drought-century-old-fight-over-hetch -hetchy-simmers-n354081. Democrats.org Staff. 2016. “The 2016 Democratic Party Platform.” Accessed December 15, 2016. http://www.democrats.org/party-platform#public-lands. Eilperin, Julie. 2016. “Trump Taps Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke as Interior Secretary.” Washington Post, December 13. Accessed December 21, 2016. https://www​ .washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/trump-taps​-mon tana-congressman-ryan-zinke-as-interior-secretary/?utm_term=.afb19850a77c. Eilperin, Julie, and Brady Dennis. 2016. “Obama Creates What Could Be the Last Large National Park on the East Coast, in Maine.” Washington Post, August 24. Accessed December 21, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp /2016/08/24/obama-creates-what-could-be-the-last-large-national-park-site-on-the -east-coast-in-maine/?utm_term=.ee548c705a27. Franke-Ruta, Garance. 2013. “How the National Parks Became the Biggest Battleground in the Shutdown.” The Atlantic, October 11. Accessed December 12, 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/how-the-national-parks -became-the-biggest-battleground-in-the-shutdown/280439/. Hart Research Associates Staff. 2016. “Public Opinion on National Parks.” January 11–17. Accessed January 5, 2017. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016 /04/11070242/CAP_Polling-Slide-Deck-National-Parks2.pdf. House Committee on Natural Resources. n.d. “Empowering People Through Our Natural Resources.” Accessed December 21, 2016. http://naturalresources.house.gov/. Kleiner, Sam. 2014. “The GOP vs. Our National Parks.” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, March 27. Accessed December 7, 2016. http://www.democracyjournal.org/arguments /the-gop-vs.-our-national-parks/. Knickerbocker, Brad. 1981. “National Parks May Fall Under Reagan’s Ax.” Christian Science Monitor, April 20. Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www.csmonitor​ .com/1981/0420/042058.html. Madhani, Aamer. 2013. “GOP Asks: Why Were National Parks Shut Down, Anyway?” USA Today, October 15. Last Updated October 16, 2013. Accessed December 8, 2016. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/15/republicans-national -park-service-shutdown/2990847/.

N at i o na l Pa r k s

National Park Service Staff. 2016. “Organic Act of 1916.” Accessed December 8, 2016. https://www.nps.gov/grba/learn/management/organic-act-of-1916.htm. National Park Service Staff. n.d. “Archaeology Program: Antiquities Act of 1906.” Accessed December 14, 2016. http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/AntAct.htm. PBS Staff. 2012. “River of No Return: National Parks, National Forests, and U.S. Wildernesses.” Nature, April 18. Accessed December 15, 2016. http://www.pbs.org/wnet /nature/river-of-no-return-national-parks-national-forests-and-u-s-wildernesses/7667/. Pérez-Peña, Richard. 2016. “Obama Designates National Monument in Maine, to Dismay of Some.” New York Times, August 24. Accessed December 21, 2016. http://www​ .nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/obama-maine-katahdin-woods-and-waters.html?_r=0. Pew Research Center. 2015 “Ratings of Federal Agencies, Congress and the Supreme Court.” In Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government, 58–66. Accessed December 8, 2016. http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/4-ratings-of-federal-agencies-congress -and-the-supreme-court/agencies-1/. Republican National Committee. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform.” Accessed December 15, 2016. https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/. Rogers, Paul. 2013. “Government Shutdown: Closing National Parks Could Spark Public Outcry Similar to 1995.” Mercury News, September 30. Accessed December 8, 2016. http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/09/30/government-shutdown-closing-national​ -parks-could-spark-public-outcry-similar-to-1995/. Scott, Gary. 2010. “The Presidents and the National Parks.” White House History no. 28, Fall 2010. The White House Historical Association. Accessed December 12, 2016. https:// www.whitehousehistory.org/the-presidents-and-the-national-parks. Sellars, Richard West. 2007. “A Very Large Array: Early Federal Historic Preservation—The Antiquities Act, Mesa Verde, and the National Park Service Act.” Natural Resources Journal 47 (2/3): 267–328. Accessed December 14, 2016. http://digitalrepository.unm​ .edu/nrj/vol47/iss2/3/. Sierra Club Staff. n.d. “John Muir: A Brief Biography.” Accessed December 14, 2016. http:// vault.sierraclub.org/john_muir_exhibit/life/muir_biography.aspx. Thompson, Jonathan. 2016. “The First Sagebrush Rebellion: What Sparked It and How It Ended.” High Country News, January 14. Accessed December 10, 2016 http://www​ .hcn.org/articles/a-look-back-at-the-first-sagebrush-rebellion/print_view. U.S. House of Representatives. 1996. “H.R. 4118—To Amend the Antiquities Act to Limit the Authority of the President to Designate Areas in Excess of 5,000 Acres as National Monuments, and for Other Purposes.” Congress.gov. Accessed December 8, 2016. https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/4118?q=%7B%22search%2 2%3A%5B%22antiquities+act%22%5D%7D&r=1. U.S. House of Representatives. 1999. “H.R. 1487—National Monument NEPA Compliance Act.” Congress.gov. Accessed December 8, 2016. https://www.congress.gov/bill /106th-congress/house-bill/1487?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr+1487%22 %5D%7D&r=9. U.S. Senate. 1979. “S. 1741—Antiquities Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act Amendments of 1979.” Congress.gov. Accessed December 8, 2016. https://www .congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/senate-bill/1741. Vincent, Carol Hardy. 2016. “National Monuments and the Antiquities Act.” Congressional Research Service Report. Accessed December 19, 2016. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc /R41330.pdf.

211

Noise Pollution

At a Glance

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that noise pollution is a problem in some parts of the United States and that it has negative health effects; but there are differences between and within the parties regarding responsibility for noise pollution, responses to citizen complaints, and policy direction. Geographic location also plays an important role in government responses, because, despite their party affiliation, public officials recognize that noise adversely impacts people in their state, district, precinct, county, town, etc. That being said, local officials and state representatives typically respond to local citizens’ complaints, although governors and members of Congress have also responded to noise pollution controversies. These same officials, however, also recognize that industrial or commercial expansion can bring new jobs and economic opportunities to the area. These economic benefits are highly valued by members of both parties, even when such expansion brings more noise pollution. Most Republicans believe that noise pollution policy should be the responsibility of state and local governments, because they are closest to the problem and can thus address it in the most cost-effective fashion. In contrast, most Democrats believe that a national policy should be in place to protect citizens and wildlife from the harmful effects of noise pollution. They tend to believe that the federal government has the resources and the power to regulate noise and set standards. Both parties seem to favor the potential economic benefits that noise pollution sources, such as airports or oil and gas exploration, can bring to their states. They also express hope that, as businesses invest in and implement newer technologies and designs that operate more quietly, concerns about excessive noise levels might be effectively addressed. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe noise regulations and control should be a state and local responsibility • Believe states and municipalities are better equipped to act on their local noise problems

N oi s e P o ll ut i o n

• Believe national policy is not cost-effective for addressing noise pollution issues • Believe technology, more than policy, will alleviate noise pollution Many Democrats . . .

• Believe noise regulations and control should be a federal responsibility • Believe the federal government should take a more active regulatory role with regard to noise pollution • Believe federal funding and research can help address noise pollution problems • Believe states and localities do not have the funds to alleviate noise pollution

Overview

The fact that one cannot see, smell, or touch noise pollution may help explain why it has not received as much attention from government officials, or even citizens, as air and water pollution. People concerned about noise pollution, though, describe it as an invisible threat that has detrimental effects on people and wildlife. Often, many people just “get used to” the noise, but for others the constant or excessive noise can go beyond mere annoyance to disrupt their lives. In some cases, noise pollution can even have major health consequences. Residents who live near an airport or an industrial park or in a large city are particularly vulnerable to noise pollution. Citizens filed noise complaints with more than 100 communities across the United States in the first half of 2013 (APHA 2013). In 2014, the top qualityof-life complaint in New York City was noise (Semuels 2016). In 2015, Chicagoans and residents of the surrounding suburbs filed more than 4 million complaints about jet noise from O’Hare International Airport (Cherone 2016). When does sound become noise and noise become pollution? Noise is defined as “unwanted or disturbing sound.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) builds upon this traditional definition in order to define noise pollution, stating that sound becomes unwanted when it either interferes with such normal activities as sleeping and conversation or disrupts or diminishes one’s quality of life. Sound is measured in decibels. Average speech is around 60 dB, the sound of a jackhammer is about 125 dB, and firearms and jets taking off are all louder than 140 dB. The higher the noise level, the less time it takes for damage to occur (Dangerous Decibels 2016). However, even a low level of noise can damage hearing if people are exposed to it continuously (Noise Help n.d.). Anthropogenic (human-generated) noise has increased significantly due to the Industrial Revolution. Noise is generated by commercial and industrial activities, transportation, congested housing or businesses, home maintenance, and social events. As world populations expand, the issue has even expanded beyond “land” or “air” noise to include the ocean. The

213

214

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

three most significant sources of ocean noise are commercial and industrial ships, oil and gas exploration and extraction facilities and activities, and military sonar. Though sound is diminished as it travels through water, it travels farther and faster than sound through air, thus affecting ocean life beyond the point of origin— sometimes for thousands of miles, thus affecting a vast swath of marine life. The impact of noise pollution can vary in effects and severity. In general, problems include hearing loss, high blood pressure, sleep disruption, cardiovascular issues, communication problems or speech interference, and loss of productivity (EPA Staff n.d.). For example, children with noise induced hearing loss “suffer from decreased educational achievement and impaired social–emotional development, score significantly lower on basic skills, and exhibit behavioral problems and lower self-esteem” (Bess et al. 1998). On a similar note, Khazan (2016) reports that “studies suggest word acquisition and reading are more difficult in loud environments, and poor kids may suffer disproportionately.” Haberman (2013) argues that curbing excessive noise is less costly than responding to the damage that noise causes to learning and health, thus indicating that noise standards should be a focus for public officials. But some believe that noise relief may come more from technological advances and not so much from public policy. While countries in Europe have enforced stringent national noise standards, the United States has been criticized for being lax in developing a national noise pollution policy (Semuels 2016). Within the European Union, the Environmental Noise Directive helps identify noise levels and takes the necessary measures to bring them down to acceptable levels, while separate legislation regulates noise emission from specific sources. In the United States, the federal government’s first major attempt to address noise pollution was the passage of the Noise Control Act of 1972. It was passed by a Democratic majority in Congress, and Republican president Richard Nixon signed the bill into law. The Noise Control Act established a national policy to promote an environment free from noise that jeopardizes the health and welfare of Americans. Shortly after Noise Control Act’s passage, the EPA established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) to carry out investigations and studies on noise and its effect on the public’s health and welfare. In 1978, the Quiet Communities Act was passed and was intended to speed up Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) response to noise regulations proposed by the EPA. This legislation also required the FAA to provide the public with a detailed analysis of EPA proposals (Aviation Noise Law n.d.). In 1981, however, the Reagan administration concluded that noise issues were best handled at the state and local levels. As a result, ONAC funding was phased out and primary responsibility for noise control policy was shifted to state and local governments. The Noise Control Act of 1972 and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978 remain in effect today, and “EPA retains authority to investigate and study noise and its effect, disseminate information to the public regarding noise pollution and its adverse health effects, respond to inquiries on matters related to noise, and evaluate the effectiveness of existing regulations for protecting the public health and

N oi s e P o ll ut i o n

welfare, pursuant to the Noise Control Act of 1972 and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978” (EPA Staff n.d.) But those laws are essentially unfunded. The American Public Health Association makes this statement: “No rules or standards have been promulgated by the EPA to limit major sources of noise from industry, electronics, appliances, machinery, or recreational items since 1986. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Department of Transportation, and the Federal Aviation Administration have partnered with industry to reduce exposure to noise in some instances, but these agencies lack the authority to develop a national strategic plan and offer technical assistance to communities with vulnerable populations” (APHA 2013). Though Congress has introduced many bills pertaining to some aspect of noise regulation since 2009, few have even made it out of congressional committee. In 2003, the FAA rolled out its NextGen program, which uses satellite navigation systems to better control aircraft flight paths—increasing safety, efficiency, and capacity to reduce fuel consumption, emissions, and flight times. But the program did not address noise pollution, and it led to unintended consequences: namely, more precise flight paths that concentrated noise over certain neighborhoods and dramatically increased noise exposure to those living under the new flight paths, affecting numerous communities across the United States (Fink and Banks, 2017). With the responsibility of noise regulations pushed down to states and municipalities, governors, state legislators, mayors, and city councils assumed primary responsibility for handling noise pollution issues. Meanwhile, citizens increasingly formed various groups in order to fight noise generated by transportation, commercial, and industrial activities. A prime example of this trend was seen in Chicago. Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport typically ranks as one of the three busiest airports in the United States. Noise complaints about the airport increased drastically in 2013 after the opening of a new east-west runway, setting a record high of 29,500 complaints. In the first seven months of 2015, complaints topped 2 million, eight times the number filed in all of 2014. Jet noise complaints were at 1 million in the first eight months of 2016 (Cherone 2016). The O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) was spearheaded in 1996 by the City of Chicago and suburban mayors to address aircraft noise issues. The ONCC is the only policy-making, intergovernmental agency dedicated to reducing aircraft noise in the communities around O’Hare International Airport, and the commission holds more than 20 public meetings annually. The ONCC focuses on cooperation between the city of Chicago and suburban communities, the airlines, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), air traffic controllers and airline pilots to reduce the impact of aircraft noise in communities surrounding O’Hare. It has grown to include 42 municipalities and 16 school districts near O’Hare Airport, and its members are represented by mayors, Chicago aldermen, and Cook County school superintendents. Many suburban residents in close proximity to O’Hare attend ONCC meetings to voice their concerns and policy views, but formal noise complaints are filed through the

215

216

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA). Citizens have also formed citizen groups, along with their local government officials, to address jet noise; their concerns are then voiced at ONCC meetings. The focus of noise pollution is often about the effect on humans, and policy initiatives reflect that focus. But wilderness advocates point out that noise pollution also negatively impacts wildlife and marine life. Animals can suffer hearing loss, hearing sensitivity (or masking, the inability to hearing environmental cues and animal signals), decreased reproductive and hormone levels, and increased heart rates and respirations due to such stress behavioral effects as abandonment of territory linked to disruptive noise. Plants and trees, which rely on birds and other animals for pollination, are also negatively affected when pollinators move to quieter areas (Everything Connects Staff 2014). The increase in ocean noise affects the ability of whales, dolphins, and sea lions to communicate, find food, engage in mating activity, or navigate migratory pathways. Some scientists believe, in fact, that powerful noise from military sonar has been associated with mass strandings and deaths in several whale species (Wu 2013). While the federal government has the authority to regulate noise on land and on inland waterways, it also has authority to regulate ocean noise in United States waters through the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (though exemptions exist for the military). When the Marine Mammal Act was passed in 1972, it was supported by both parties. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service is the lead federal agency responsible for the stewardship of the nation’s offshore living marine resources and their habitat, and so it has primary responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act The federal government’s most recent effort to reduce ocean noise is through a project pioneered by Jane Lubchenco, the first woman administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from 2009 to 2013 (Broad 2012). The project’s first phase, which begins in 2017, will document human-made noises in the ocean radiating out through the oceanic depths and will transform the results into the world’s first large sound maps; the second phase continues with the development of implementation of plans to achieve the goals of the 10-year Ocean Noise Strategy program. Because oceans span vast spaces between countries, there is an international push from nongovernmental organizations for cooperation between countries to create and abide by international ocean noise regulations. State and local officials from some coastal states have also responded to concerns about noise pollution’s impact on ocean ecosystems. There are similarities and differences between and among the parties on ocean noise, just as there are for jet noise and other notorious generators of noise pollution. The “appropriate” balance between economic growth and employment considerations on one hand and the welfare of ocean life on the other collide here as well as on land. Nongovernmental organizations play a big role in the protection of marine mammal life, just

N oi s e P o ll ut i o n

as citizen groups play a role in trying to protect people from the negative health impacts of noise pollution. Republicans on Noise Pollution

Republicans often support reducing regulations on businesses and industries— including transportation. For example, in 2016 the House passed the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act, or the SCRUB Act. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) offered an amendment to ensure that the SCRUB Act will not in any way weaken the protections afforded by noise restriction policies at and around airports. His amendment failed; all Republicans but two voted against it, and all Democrats voted for it except one. The influence of money may be a factor in the Republican Party stance. Since 1990, transportation lobbyists have consistently made more contributions to Republican presidential candidates and to Republican members of the House and Senate. In 2016, over 70 percent of transportation contributions went to Republicans (OpenSecrets. org 2017b); air transportation lobbying groups spent $85,800,002 (OpenSecrets. org 2017a). Even local officials are lobbied. Big money from helicopter advocates poured in to support the East Hampton Town Republican candidates—who were running against Democratic incumbents who implemented use restrictions on the town airport (Civiletti 2015). Jet Noise in Chicago O’Hare International Airport is located in Chicago, a city that historically has elected Democrats to the mayor’s office and most other elected offices. In 2015, however, Anthony Napolitano (41st Ward) became the lone Republican on the Chicago City Council. Napolitano repeatedly asked Democratic mayor Rahm Emanuel to appoint him to the ONCC, stating he was the best person to represent residents whose homes have been blanketed by the noise from planes using east-west runways at O’Hare Airport (Cherone 2016). Napolitano also urged his 41st Ward’s residents, who were angry about jet noise, to flood his city council colleagues with messages urging support for his proposed measure to halt the expansion of O’Hare Airport. “I have received hundreds of thousands of complaints, others don’t realize the flight volume and how bad it is,” said Napolitano. “I have people calling my office in frustration, kids aren’t sleeping, houses [are] rattling” (Morell 2016). Mayor Emanuel refused to appoint Napolitano to the ONCC, and the Chicago City Council’s Committee on Aviation struck down the proposal from Napolitano that would have halted the O’Hare expansion. Chicago Aviation Commissioner Ginger Evans, who was appointed by Mayor Emanuel, stated that Napolitano’s proposed ordinance “would result in severe economic implications for the city, stunt O’Hare’s growth as a world-class airport, and jeopardize the important progress the city is making in providing noise relief for residents” (Morell 2016). In the

217

218

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

same vein, Mayor Emanuel stated, “O’Hare is a powerful economic engine, and we can’t put it at risk” (Morell 2016). A disappointed Napolitano commented, “What hurts me the most is that I have to go home to my kids and say, hey, that’s the Chicago way” (Morell 2016). Republican Illinois state representative Christine Winger (of the 45th District, just west O’Hare) has either introduced or cosponsored legislation aimed at assessing impacts and improving the situation for those affected by jet noise and expansion of O’Hare. Her bills required new parameters for monitoring jet noise, better impact studies, and the implementation of improved accountability measures, and were cosponsored by fellow Republicans as well as Democrats. “I will also continue to lend my support to organizations that are proactively finding ways to reduce the effects of airplane noise on residential areas and provide much needed relief,” says Winger (2015). Fellow Republican representative Michael McAuliffe (20th District, just east of O’Hare) frequently cosponsors noise bills. He has said, “We are seeking to prioritize the health and well-being of our neighbors who have witnessed a decline in the quality of living for their families” (McAuliffe 2016). Other Republican Illinois state representatives who live near O’Hare have also filed legislation to study environmental and health impacts of O’Hare Airport’s expansion. In July 2015, Illinois Republican governor Bruce Rauner signed legislation that would increase the number of runways allowed at O’Hare from 8 to 10, which would expand flight paths in an effort to reduce jet noise affecting some neighborhoods and suburbs. The 2016 Republican Party platform does not specifically address noise pollution, but it emphasizes job creation and expanding opportunities for everyone. The national GOP also emphasizes the party’s belief that environmental regulations should be shifted from the federal bureaucracy to the states, and it declares its desire to reorganize the EPA into a bipartisan independent commission. Lastly, Republicans stated in the platform that they “believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs” (Republican Party Platforms 2016). Ocean Noise and Coastal States In 2004, Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California adopted the California Ocean Resources Management Plan, the only statewide plan that addressed noise as an issue (Covi et al. 2008). Two years later, Schwarzenegger joined with the Democratic governors of Oregon and Washington in signing the West Coast Governors Agreement on Ocean Health. This agreement did not specifically address ocean noise, but it did mark the beginning of “a new, proactive regional collaboration to protect and manage the ocean and coastal resources along the entire West Coast” (California Ocean Protection Council 2012). In 2014, the Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition—governors from nine coastal states,

N oi s e P o ll ut i o n

made up of mostly Republicans—pushed to expand offshore oil drilling (a source of ocean noise) for economic reasons. Governor Terry McAuliffe from Virginia joined the coalition in 2014—the first Democrat to do so (Wilson 2014). In January 2015, President Obama proposed to open Atlantic Ocean waters to oil exploration. Though many were concerned about the impact on the ecosystem as well as an increase in ocean noise, governors from Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coast states supported it. Republican governors in North Carolina and South Carolina backed drilling off their states’ coasts, as did the Democratic governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe. South Carolina’s Republican governor Nikki Haley was part of this coalition, who “worked behind the scenes . . . with industry lobbyists to open the Southeast coast to oil and natural gas testing and drilling” (Petersen 2015). Though many governors supported oil exploration because of the job possibilities for their states, local officials were not as supportive because the success of their tourism comes from clean water and a peaceful atmosphere. They feared that the noise would drive tourism down. In March 2016, however, as President Obama was building his environmental legacy and ending his second term, his administration dropped its plan to open the coast of Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas to oil and gas drilling. In December 2016, in a move to preempt the incoming Trump administration, Obama put a permanent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along wide areas of the Arctic and the Atlantic Seaboard, by invoking a provision of a 1953 law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which he said gives him the authority to act unilaterally (Davenport 2016). He made the announcement in tandem with Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau. Republicans will likely challenge this in court or try to change the obscure 1953 law. Though Republicans tend to place an emphasis on economic possibilities derived from such noise pollution sources as airports or gas and oil exploration, fellow Democrats often share this same view. It appears that geography, more than party affiliation, may play a more active role in noise pollution legislation. Democrats on Noise Pollution

Democrats tend to support noise control regulations. For example, many Democrats were supportive when representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) proposed amendments to the SCRUB Act to shore up the protections afforded by noise restriction policies at and around airports. In response to constituents impacted by the FAA’s NextGen program and noise concerns, Democrats formed the National Quiet Skies Coalition. Democrats have typically pushed for federal responsibility— and for the EPA to regulate noise. For example, former senator Alan Cranston of California promoted that the power to regulate airport noise should be removed from such industry-oriented agencies as the FAA and turned over to the EPA. In 2015, representative Grace Meng from Queens (D-NY) introduced legislation that would require the EPA to take the lead in combatting aircraft noise over the borough, as well as in affected communities across the country.

219

220

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Jet Noise—Illinois and Beyond Historically, Chicago has elected Democrats to be their mayor, so noise control issues faced by the city have been addressed primarily by Democrats. The first notable legislation of this type appears in 1957 under mayor Richard J. Daley, when the city adopted a noise ordinance to specify maximum noise levels. In 1982, under the Jane Bryne administration, Chicago recognized the impact of jet noise from O’Hare International Airport on its residents and placed sound insulation technology in Chicago area schools in an effort to buffer jet noise. The program continually expanded, and it now includes sound insulation for homes within a certain radius of the airport. In 1990, under mayor Richard M. Daley (Richard J. Daley’s son), the city council adopted noise control standards and a stringent noise ordinance to protect residents from various commercial and industrial sources of noise. In 1996, Mayor Daley established the ONCC to provide neighboring communities with the funds and decision-making authority to reduce the impact of aircraft noise. In that same year, the CDA also began an Airport Noise Management System, which installed 24 monitors to track the amount of noise generated over communities; by the end of 2017, there will be 41 permanent noise monitors. Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, who took office in 2011, has not shown the same level of commitment to alleviating noise pollution, although in 2014 he was successful in requesting that the FAA Administrator expedite a key study to review the existing national metric for measuring noise near airports and the impact of O’Hare expansion. At the same time, three congressional Democrats from Illinois called for environmental impact hearings on the expansion. Significantly, however, they did not call for a halt to the expansion, as did Republican alderman Napolitano. The mayor was focused on economic possibilities for the city. In November 2015, the FAA announced it had severely underestimated the noise impact of the O’Hare expansion and would work with local officials to mitigate noise problems. In August 2016, Illinois congressional representatives and senators announced that the FAA had awarded Chicago $20 million in federal funding for aircraft noise mitigation efforts near O’Hare International Airport, and it will help soundproof residences with noise levels between 65 and 69 DNL (Day-Night Sound Level measured in decibels over a 24-hour period). Mayor Emanuel was bedeviled by accusations that he largely ignored the noise problem and responded to noise complaints only when state lawmakers “were attacking the noise problem with legislation in Springfield” (Ormsby 2015). Critics also charged that he addressed the problem only because it was close to reelection time. Earlier, the mayor had refused to meet with the Chicago aldermen or citizens, and he had opposed the city council’s decision to hold hearings on jet noise in 2014 (Ormsby 2015). Emanuel finally agreed to have city aviation officials meet with homeowners, but he would not commit to a personal meeting with the residents. This stance was criticized by Illinois state representative Christine Winger,

N oi s e P o ll ut i o n

who asserted that “the Suburban O’Hare Commission (SOC) has been waiting nine years for the City of Chicago to turn over data they have been collecting and previously promised to share. We can’t and won’t wait any longer” (Winger 2015). Illinois state senator Dan Kotowski (D-IL) wrote to Mike Quigley (D-IL) of the U.S. House of Representatives to “insist that the greatest possible care and consideration be afforded to the health, welfare, and well-being of Metropolitan Chicago residents who live, work, and own homes under O’Hare’s current and proposed flight paths” (Kotowski 2013). Both the Illinois House and Senate have introduced bills to address noise control; many of the bills are bipartisan. In 2015–2016, for example, the Illinois House of Representatives introduced a bipartisan bill that specifically addressed jet noise from O’Hare Airport. In 2015, state senator Ira Silverstein (D-IL) cosponsored House Joint Resolution 83, which was passed by both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly. This bill urged the City of Chicago to meet with the FAiR (Fair Allocation in Runways) Coalition, federal officials, and citizens to discuss solutions to jet noise. The resolution was sponsored by 12 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Though this type of resolution does not have the force of law and merely expresses an opinion, it indicates the support of Democrats in combating airport noise. Most noise bills in the Illinois General Assembly Senate have been sponsored by Democrats. At the federal level, four New York Democrats formed the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus in 2014. As of early 2017 the caucus included 36 members, 35 of whom were Democrats (the lone Republican was Mike Coffman, who represents Colorado’s 6th District. The group assembled to advocate on behalf of communities impacted by aircraft noise from nearby flight paths; their efforts included legislation in Congress to address the issue of aircraft noise. In 2015, the caucus wrote a position paper urging Congress to ensure that the 2015 FAA Reauthorization addresses harmful impacts of aircraft noise in U.S. communities. Representative Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), who backed provisions to help address excess noise from overhead aircraft, stated, “I’m pleased that some of what we’ve been pushing for is now reflected in the FAA reauthorization bill, but it’s not enough” (Chiem 2016). Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA) stated, “Airplane noise is a serious quality of life issue for many residents of my district. We continue to examine environmental impact and noise abatement, demand that communities have a real opportunity to raise concerns and stay informed about potential impacts on their residents, and ensure that the FAA is complying with regulations governing changes to air traffic” (Clark 2014). Though the act addresses noise-related concerns, some people feel that one of the weakest parts of the act is the response to aircraft noise—due to the three-year time frame allowed for the FAA to study the noise issue and report back. Communities facing serious noise problems interpreted the three-year study period as a “troubling” sign that the issue was not being treated as an urgent problem (Chiem 2016).

221

222

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Though the years 2015 and 2016 saw an upsurge from some members of Congress in addressing noise control, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, Republicans maintained control over both the Senate and the House, and the GOP’s antiregulatory disposition provided a stiff headwind against antinoise pollution legislation. In July 2015, Representative Grace Meng (D-NY) introduced the Quiet Communities Act of 2015, but no action was taken. In November 2015, Representative Mike Quigley (D-IL) and 14 cosponsors (13 Democrats and 1 Republican) introduced the FAA Community Accountability Act to give local communities a say in the FAA’s decision-making process regarding flight paths. “My constituents back home in Chicago are facing unprecedented noise pollution that is eroding their quality of life, lowering their property values, and impacting their health,” Quigley (2016b) argued. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced a version of this bill in April 2016 as well. Neither of these bills came up for floor votes, however. Also in April 2016, Representative Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), joined by members of the bipartisan Quiet Skies Caucus, introduced the Airplane Impacts Mitigation (AIM) Act of 2016. “As residents of communities surrounding airports face increasing levels and durations of airplane noise, the AIM Act will examine the health impacts of airplane overflights on local communities” (Lynch 2016). AIM focused on major metropolitan areas, including Chicago, New York, and Boston. The bill died, but it was reintroduced in January 2017 and referred to committee. With Republicans in control of both houses, however, most political observers do not have high expectations for AIM’s passage. Ocean Noise When President Obama proposed to open Atlantic Ocean waters to oil exploration in 2015, many coastal state governors and legislators, including Virginia’s Democratic governor and both Democratic senators, supported it for economic reasons. But a number of Democratic officials at the local level expressed fear that expanded drilling would negatively impact tourism along the Atlantic coast. In response to this proposal, for example, the towns of Beaufort and Port Royal, South Carolina (both under Democratic mayors), passed resolutions objecting to oil exploration off the coast. Their opposition extended to concerns about noise pollution, as they warned that offshore drilling operations use “seismic air-guns [that] fire intense blasts of compressed air . . . as frequently as every ten seconds, for days to weeks at a time and are loud enough to harm marine life” (Safina 2015). Their concerns addressed the impact of noise on both land and ocean. In 2016, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), introduced the Atlantic Seismic Airgun Protection Act, which would prohibit the conduct of geological or geophysical activities in support of oil or gas exploration and development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. The bill was aimed at protecting the Atlantic Ocean from seismic airgun blasting, an extremely loud process used in gas and oil exploration. The bill was sponsored by seven Democrats.

N oi s e P o ll ut i o n

There have been earlier attempts by Democrats in Congress to address ocean protection, but not necessarily ocean noise. In 2008, three U.S. senators introduced the National Oceans Protection Act of 2008 to secure for future U.S. generations a full range of benefits of healthy marine ecosystems; the bill died in Congress, which was evenly split by party at that time. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) introduced the Ocean Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act to establish a national policy for our oceans in 2007 and again in 2009. In 2007, the bill was cosponsored by 65 Democrats and 5 Republicans; in 2009, 70 Democrats and 1 Republican sponsored the bill; it has repeatedly died in Congress. This bill was originally introduced in 2005 by Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), with 18 Democratic cosponsors and 3 Republicans. In 2016, the Obama White House reversed its position on expanded drilling in the Atlantic and introduced a ban on oil and gas exploration across Atlantic and Arctic ocean areas under U.S. control. Both major candidates for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination expressed support for that ban on drilling, The 2016 Democratic Party platform, however, did not specifically mention noise pollution. Like the Republicans, Democrats want to portray themselves as dedicated to supporting economic security and creating well-paying jobs. Democrats, though, also are generally in favor of laws and regulations that support environmental protection, and the platform expressed a desire to make sure the EPA has the authority to regulate and enforce strict standards and regulations and to protect the oceans and the Artic (Democratic Party Platforms 2016). Teri J. Walker Further Reading APHA (American Public Health Association). 2013. “Policy Statement 20135—Environmental Noise Pollution Control.” Accessed July 29, 2016. https://www.apha.org/policies -and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/16/12/50 /environmental-noise-pollution-control. Aviation Noise Law. n.d. “Loss of the U.S. EPA’s Office of Noise Abatement and Control.” Accessed July 29, 2016. http://airportnoiselaw.org/epaonac3.html. Bess, F. H., J. Dodd-Murphy, and R. A. Parker. 1998. “Children with Minimal Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Prevalence, Educational Performance, and Functional Status.” Ear Hear 19 (5): 339–354. Accessed July 29, 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /pubmed/9796643. Broad, William J. 2012. “A Rising Tide of Noise Is Now Easy to See.” New York Times, December 10. Accessed July 29, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/science /project-seeks-to-map-and-reduce-ocean-noise-pollution.html. California Ocean Protection Council. 2012. “West Coast Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health.” Accessed July 29, 2016. http://www.opc.ca.gov/2009/05/west-coast -governors-agreement-on-ocean-health/. Cherone, Heather. 2016. “O’Hare Noise Complaints Top 4 Million in 2015, Records Show.” dnainfo.com, March 14. Accessed July 29, 2016. https://www.dnainfo.com /chicago/20160314/ohare/ohare-noise-complaints-top-4-million-2015-records-show.

223

224

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Chiem, Linda. 2016. “5 Things to Know about the FAA Reauthorization Bill.” Law360, February 11. Accessed July 29, 2016. https://www.law360.com/articles/758276/5-things -to-know-about-the-faa-reauthorization-bill. Civiletti, Denise. 2015. “Quiet Skies Advocate Alarmed by Influx of Big Money into East Hampton Town Republican Candidates’ Campaigns.” Riverhead Local, October 19. Accessed April 18, 2017. http://riverheadlocal.com/2015/10/19/quiet-skies-advocate -alarmed-by-influx-of-big-money-into-east-hampton-town-republican-candidates -campaigns/. Clark, Katherine. 2014. “Clark Teams Up with ‘Quiet Skies Caucus’ to Urge FAA Cooperation on Aircraft Noise.” Press Release. October 3. Accessed July 29, 2016. http:// katherineclark.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/10/clark-teams-up-with-quiet-skies -caucus-to-urge-faa-cooperation-on-aircraft-noise. Covi, Michelle, Devon Eulie, Deanna Swain, and Sarah Watkins-Kenney. 2008. “Noise in the Ocean: A Review of the Issues, Science and Policy Relating to the Effects of Noise on Marine Life.” Coastal Resource Management CRM6100, East Carolina University. Accessed January 17, 2017. https://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/crm/upload/Underwater -Acoustics.pdf. Dangerous Decibels. 2016. “Decibel Exposure Time Guidelines.” Accessed July 29, 2016. http://dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/decibel-exposure-time -guidelines/. Davenport, Coral. 2016. “Obama Bans Drilling in Parts of the Atlantic and the Arctic.” New York Times, December 20. Accessed April 18, 2017. https://www.nytimes .com/2016/12/20/us/obama-drilling-ban-arctic-atlantic.html. Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform,” July 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed August 15, 2016. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. EPA Staff. n.d. “Clean Air Act Title IV—Noise Pollution.” Accessed July 29, 2016. https:// www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-title-iv-noise-pollution. Everything Connects Staff. 2014. “Noise Pollution.” EverythingConnects.org. Accessed July 29, 2016. http://www.everythingconnects.org/noise-pollution.html. Fink, Daniel, and Jamie L. Banks. 2017. “Airplane Noise Is a Health Hazard.” The Quiet Coalition.org. Accessed April 17, 2017. http://thequietcoalition.org/airplane -noise-health-hazard/. govtrack Staff. 2017. “Noise Pollution.” Accessed February 23, 2017. https://www.govtrack .us/congress/bills/subjects/noise_pollution/6047. Haberman, Clyde. 2013. “Raising Her Voice in Pursuit of a Quieter City Arline Bronzaft Seeks a Less Noisy New York.” New York Times, October 6. Accessed July 29, 2016. http:// www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/nyregion/arline-bronzaft-seeks-a-less-noisy-new -york.html. Khazan, Olga. 2016. “How Noise Pollution Impairs Learning: Studies Suggest Word Acquisition and Reading Are More Difficult in Loud Environments, and Poor Kids May Suffer Disproportionately.” The Atlantic, July 21. Accessed July 29, 2016. http://www .theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/07/toddlers-and-noise/492164/. Kotowski, Dan. 2013. “Letter to Mike Quigley.” FAiR Coalition, August 27. Accessed July 29, 2016. http://www.fairchicago.org/documents/kotowski.pdf. Lynch, Stephen. 2016. “Rep. Lynch and Quiet Skies Caucus Introduce Airplane Impacts Mitigation Act.” Press Release, April 27. Accessed July 27, 2016. https://lynch.house

N oi s e P o ll ut i o n

.gov/press-release/rep-lynch-and-quiet-skies-caucus-introduce-airplane-impacts -mitigation-act. Morell, Claudia. 2016. “Ald. Napolitano: If Aldermen Can Approve Stop Signs, They Should Get to Approve Airport Runways.” The Daily Line, March 4. Accessed February 2017. http://thedailyline.net/chicago/03/04/2016/ald-napolitano-aldermen-can -approve-stop-signs-get-approve-airport-runways/. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Accessed October 23, 2016. http://www.noaa.gov/. National Quiet Skies Coalition. Accessed December 17, 2016. https://nqsc.org/Caucus .html. Noise Help Staff. 2014. “Noise and Noise Pollution FAQ.” Accessed July 29, 2016. http:// www.noisehelp.com/noise-pollution-faq.html. OpenSecrets.org. 2017a. Top Industries. Center for Responsive Politics. Accessed July 25, 2017. https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2016&indexType=i. OpenSecrets.org. 2017b. Transportation. Center for Responsive Politics. Accessed July 25, 2017. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2016&ind=M. Ormsby, David. 2015. “Political Noise Pushes Emanuel to Act on O’Hare Noise.” Illinois Observer, May 8. Accessed July 29, 2016. http://www.illinoisobserver.net/2015/05/08 /political-noise-pushes-emanuel-act-ohare-noise/. Petersen, Jeremy Borden Bo. 2015. “Haley, Governors Group Behind Push for Offshore Oil Testing, Drilling.” Post & Courier, May 9. Accessed July 29, 2016. http://www.post​ andcourier.com/politics/haley-governors-group-behind-push-for-offshore-oil-testing​ -drilling/article_04bebbb3-4cc4-56a2-8584-515900ea286b.html. Quigley, Mike. 2016a. “Quigley, Durbin, Schakowsky, Duckworth Announce $20 Million for Noise Mitigation for O’Hare Area Homeowners.” Press Release, August 30. Accessed January 7, 2016. https://quigley.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/quigley -durbin-schakowsky-duckworth-announce-20-million-noise-mitigation. Quigley, Mike. 2016b. “Quigley, Quiet Skies Caucus Introduce Airplane Impacts Mitigation Act.” Press Release, April 27. Accessed July 29, 2016. https://quigley.house.gov/media-center /press-releases/quigley-quiet-skies-caucus-introduce-airplane-impacts-mitigation-act. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform,” July 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed July 10, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index .php?pid=117718. Safina, Carl. 2015. “Why U.S. East Coast Should Stay Off-Limits to Oil Drilling.” Yale Environment 360, February 23. Accessed July 29, 2016. http://e360.yale.edu/features /why_us_east_coast_should_stay_off-limits_to_oil_drilling. Semuels, Alana. 2016. “The Future Will Be Quiet.” The Atlantic, April. Accessed July 29, 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-future-will-be-quiet /471489/. Sheyner, Gennady. 2015. “FAA Vows to Take Fresh Look at Flight Paths, Altitudes.” Mountain View Voice, November 17. Accessed January 9, 2017. http://www.mv-voice.com /news/2015/11/17/faa-vows-to-take-fresh-look-at-flight-paths-altitudes. Welsh, Mark. 2015. “A New State Law Intends to Increase the Amount of Soundproofing Funding Available.” Daily Herald, July 30. Accessed February 5, 2017. https://www .dailyherald.com/article/20150730/news/150739887/. Wilson, Reid. 2014. “McAuliffe Will Join Coalition Pushing for Off-Shore Drilling.” Washington Post, February 24. Accessed July 29, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com

225

226

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/02/24/mcauliffe-will-join-coalition-pushing-for-off-shore -drilling/?utm_term=.a7c51884eba7. Winger, Christine. 2015. “Winger O’Hare Noise Legislation Clears First Hurdle.” Christine Winger: State Representative 45th District, April 21. Accessed July 10, 2017. http:// www.repwinger.com/2015/04/winger-ohare-noise-legislation-clears.html. Wu, Tony. 2013. “Breaking the Silence: How Our Noise Pollution Is Harming Whales.” International Fund for Animal Welfare. Accessed April 16, 2017. http://www.ifaw.org /sites/default/files/IFAW%20Australia%20%20Breaking%20the%20silence-how%20 our%20noise%20pollution%20is%20harming.pdf.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

At a Glance

Most Republicans support increasing the amount of nuclear energy produced by the United States. In line with this, they support disposing of the waste generated by commercial nuclear power plants in a centralized, deep geological repository. The decision to construct a centralized site was made by Republican president Ronald Reagan, and in 2002, the administration of Republican president George W. Bush began development of a facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Although progress on the repository stalled after 2008, most Republicans favor resuming work on the Yucca Mountain site, arguing that it presents a safe and cost-effective place to store the United States’ growing stockpile of waste. In contrast, most Democrats oppose moving forward with construction on the Yucca Mountain site. Democrats have two objections. First, they charge that the initial selection process was politicized, and Nevada was selected due to its lack of political clout in Congress. Second, Democrats are concerned about the environmental and health hazards of the site. Some Democrats do support searching for an alternate repository for storing commercial nuclear waste, emphasizing that any site must have the support of the local population. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe the Yucca Mountain site should serve as the United States’ centralized geological repository • Believe deep geological disposal of waste is safe for humans and does not harm the environment • Believe searching for a new site would waste taxpayer dollars Many Democrats . . .

• Believe the United States should not continue work on the Yucca Mountain site

228

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

• Believe constructing the Yucca Mountain site poses risks to the local environment and public health • Believe the U.S. government should search for an alternate site for storing the waste

Overview

In the United States, nuclear energy was first used for defense purposes, to develop the two atomic weapons used against Japan in 1945. The government quickly recognized the possibilities for the peaceful use of this technology, and in 1954 Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act, which set standards for the civilian and military uses of nuclear energy. This led to a rapid growth in nuclear power plants, with the first commercial reactor opening in the United States in 1957. For nearly three decades, however, little attention was paid to the problem of disposing of the by-products of nuclear energy generation. The U.S. nuclear programs generate two main types of nuclear waste. The first is spent fuel; these are fuel rods that are removed from active use at civilian nuclear power plants after several years of creating chain reactions inside reactors. This type of nuclear waste is the most radioactive, and it remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. The fuel rods are also highly heated, and they must be stored in pools of water for 7 to 19 years before they are fully cooled. Following this, the rods may be moved to longer-term storage facilities. A second type of nuclear waste is high-level waste, a by-product of fuel reprocessing by the defense industry, mainly for making nuclear weapons. Although less radioactive than spent fuel, it must be isolated for at least 10,000 years. The first step toward dealing with the growing amount of nuclear waste came in 1969, with the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This legislation called on the president to identify three possible sites for long-term waste disposal. The law contained no clear timeline, and in 1980 President Jimmy Carter indefinitely delayed a decision on the location of a centralized waste disposal facility. This decision forced power plants to store their waste on-site. Military waste was temporally stored in facilities in three states: South Carolina, Washington, and Idaho (Holt 2015, 10). In 1982, Congress again addressed this issue, passing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). This act called on the executive branch to identify six possible sites for a deep geological repository to permanently store nuclear waste. The president was to identity three potential locations in the western United States and three in the eastern United States. Furthermore, the law tasked the president with selecting a primary site by 1987 and a secondary site by 1990. The primary site was intended to house 70,000 tons of material and be fully operational by 1998. The plan would be funded by payments from commercial nuclear power plants, which are legally required to transport and store their spent fuel in a federal repository.

N ucl ea r Wa s te Di s po s al

Importantly, the 1982 NWPA would allow a state to veto the placement of a repository inside of its borders. If a state’s governor exercised a veto, it could only be overridden by a majority vote in both houses of Congress. The construction of a single, centralized site for nuclear waste was based on the idea of geological isolation. Nuclear waste would be stored underground, where it could be isolated from humans for at least 10,000 years. The containers in which the waste would be stored would resist corrosion for only a maximum of 1,000 years; following this, the isolation of the waste in stable rock formations would prevent environmental contamination. This meant that it was imperative for the U.S. government to select a site with little geological activity and a low chance that the radioactive waste could enter the water supply. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards set in 1985, although some leakage was inevitable, the stored radioactive material must be projected to cause no more than 1,000 deaths over a 10,000-year period (Monastersk 1998, 139). The Reagan administration selected several western sites for consideration, including Deaf Smith County in Texas, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and the federally owned Hanford nuclear site in Washington State. In the East, the government considered sites in Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Maine. When the administration publicly released this short list of potential sites in 1984, citizens and elected officials in each location voiced objections. The reaction was particularly negative in the eastern states, which were more densely populated and politically powerful than were any of the western states selected for further study. In the first five months of 1986, the Department of Energy (DOE) held more than 30 meetings with elected offices from eastern states, and received nearly 60,000 citizen comments on the proposed sites (Walsh 2008, 598–599). Subsequently, in 1986, the DOE announced that it would no longer search for an eastern site and would instead focus on locating a suitable site in the western part of the United States. In 1987, Congress passed a set of amendments to the 1982 NWPA. These amendments directed the DOE to examine the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository. This site, which is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, proved attractive for several reasons. First, a large part of the site is located on land that is already owned by the federal government, with the site straddling a former nuclear testing site, an air force base, and land protected by the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, of the final three sites under study, scientists found that Yucca Mountain, with its deep water tables, was most likely to prevent the stored waste from contaminating the ground water. Subsequently, in February of 2002, after more than a decade of study and assessment, the Republican administration of George W. Bush announced that it had selected Yucca Mountain as the final site for the U.S.’s nuclear waste repository. In April, Republican governor Kenny Guinn of Nevada exercised a state veto over the site. This action was overridden, however, by a majority vote in both houses of Congress, and in June 2002, President Bush signed the joint resolution

229

230

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

The Party Line In 2015, James Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, supported construction on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, making the following statement: The American people have spent 30 years and $15 billion to determine whether Yucca Mountain would be a safe repository for our nation’s civilian and defense-related nuclear waste. Four years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s review was illegally shutdown. . . . Congress must now provide funding for the licensing process to continue, and transfer control over the land and water rights to the Department of Energy (DOE) to officially make Yucca Mountain a place to safely contain our nation’s nuclear waste. I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that America has a safe, permanent resting place for nuclear waste.

In a press release in 2015, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated his continued opposition: Nevadans of all political stripes agree that the Yucca Mountain project is dead and should never move forward. I have spent my Congressional career making sure that is the case, arguing that Congress should instead focus on consent-based solutions that don’t shove nuclear waste down the throats of people who clearly don’t want it in their state. That is why Senator Heller and I introduced the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act, which would require the Secretary of Energy to secure written consent from the Governor of the host state, affected units of local government and affected Indian tribes before a nuclear waste repository may be built.

Sources Inhofe, Jim. 2015. “Inhofe Comments on NRC’s Yucca Mountain License Review” GenerationHub, January 29. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://generationhub.com/2015/01/29 /inhofe-comments-on-nrcs-yucca-mountain-license-rev. Reid, Harry. 2015 “Reid Statement on Yucca Mountain Transportation,” October 27. Accessed July 15, 2017. https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1022575/reid-statement-on-yucca -mountain-transportation#.WXZ2lyMrKvM.

officially designating Yucca Mountain as the U.S.’s central nuclear repository site. The DOE began working on a licensing application for the site; the application had to be approved the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before the United States could begin construction on the underground facility. A series of legal challenges and technical issues prevented the completion of the Yucca Mountain repository, originally scheduled to begin accepting waste in 2017. Upon taking office in 2009, Democratic president Barack Obama announced his opposition to constructing the repository. Through a series of budget cuts and bureaucratic maneuvers, the Obama administration effectively stopped any further

N ucl ea r Wa s te Di s po s al

development of the project, though it still remains the only official site for a deep geological waste repository in the United States. Currently, there are no alternative plans for storing the growing amount of nuclear waste generated by U.S. power plants. As a result, many commercial reactors are electing to store their waste on-site. In addition, two sites operated by private companies, one in Texas and one in New Mexico, are storing spent waste. As of 2016, the government has paid fees of $4.5 billion to keep this high-level waste on-site at nuclear power plants (Zhang 2015). Republicans on Nuclear Waste Disposal

During the early 1980s, pursuant to the NWPA, the administration of Republican president Ronald Reagan sought to narrow down a list of possible sites for the development of a deep geological waste repository. Although the NWPA mandated that this process was to be scientific and apolitical, the Reagan administration faced strong pressure from the states that were being considered to host the repository. No state wanted to be selected, and lawmakers lobbied furiously to keep their state from being designated as the country’s central nuclear waste site. For example, since the selection process occurred in the run-up to the 1986 midterm elections, GOP officials from Maine and New Hampshire warned the administration that the issue could jeopardize Republican control of Senate and House seats in their states. Eventually, the Reagan administration excluded consideration of eastern locations, and selected three western states—Texas, Nevada, and Washington—for further study. Strong opposition to the Texas site came from House Speaker James Wright, a Democrat who represented a district in East Texas. Moreover, Democrat Thomas Foley, the House majority leader, came from the state of Washington, another proposed site, and he made his opposition clear as well. In this political climate, Nevada—a sparsely populated state with two newly elected senators—emerged as the most politically viable site. Subsequently, Congress passed and President Bush signed the 1987 amendments to the NWPA, designating Yucca Mountain as the official site for the U.S. repository. Following the decision, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) charged that “the proposal is an act of naked and unprovoked aggression by the people of several states against a state which is smaller and which has less power” (White 2012). Democratic governor Bob Miller of Nevada also registered opposition to the plan, and public opinion polls showed that 80 percent of Nevada residents opposed the decision (Shrader-Frechette 1995, 756). During the following decade, the issue was largely dormant, as officials studied the geology of the site and developed plans for constructing the repository. It reemerged as a subject of public debate in February 2002, when Republican president George W. Bush formally recommended beginning construction on a repository at Yucca Mountain. Bush argued that locating the facility in Nevada would “protect public safety, health and the nation’s security” (Bush 2002).

231

232

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) emerged as a strong opponent of the decision. He argued that the construction of the site was a national security threat, describing scenarios in which a terrorist group could steal spent nuclear material and build a homemade nuclear weapon. The majority of his party, however, did not share these views, as most Republicans strongly supported the construction of the Yucca Mountain site. During the 2002 congressional vote to override Nevada’s veto, only two Republican senators joined Ensign in voting against the measure, which passed the Senate 60–39. In the Republican-controlled House, the measure passed 308–105, with 200 of the “yea” votes coming from Republicans. Only 12 House Republicans voted against the measure. Despite continued opposition from elected officials in Nevada, the Bush administration moved forward with the project. In 2006, Bush nominated Edward Sproat to head DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and oversee the completion of the Yucca Mountain project. Sproat announced that the DOE planned to submit its licensing application to the NRC no later than 2008, completing the final step before construction of the facility could begin. This timeline would ensure that the facility could begin accepting waste by 2017. In the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats won control of both houses of Congress. Within the party, opposition to the Yucca Mountain facility was widespread, and the Democrats made deep cuts to Yucca Mountain funding. This forced the DOE to lay off contractors working on the Yucca Mountain Repository, and it effectively halted the project. During the 2008 election, the Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, sided with the majority of his party and pledged that if elected, he would redouble efforts to complete the repository. Although McCain lost to Obama in the 2008 election, congressional Republicans remained supportive of the plan and put forth several legislative measures designed to challenge President Obama’s decision to stop progress on the Yucca repository. In 2010, House members Ralph Hall (R-TX) and Paul Broun (R-GA) wrote a letter to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, questioning the legality of the president’s failure to fund work on a designated repository site. This view was generally shared among Republican members in the House, which had reverted to GOP control in the 2010 midterm elections. The Republicans promptly used their new majority to challenge the president on Yucca Mountain. First, in July of 2011, the House passed a bill that would have provided funds to continue with the licensing application for the Yucca Mountain site. The Senate was still controlled by the Democrats, however, and it rejected the provision. In 2012, House Republicans added $25 million to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, specifying that the funds be used for continued work on the Yucca Mountain licensing project. The Senate again rejected the measure (Garvey 2012, 5). In the 2014 midterm elections, the Republicans won a majority of seats in the Senate; they used their newly gained control of key committees to highlight the

N ucl ea r Wa s te Di s po s al

lack of progress on the creation of a national nuclear waste repository. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, was especially critical of the administration, arguing that the decision to stall the repository was illegal. Overall, most Republicans, with the notable exception of those from Nevada, favored continuing with the development of the Yucca Mountain site. During the 2016 election campaign, several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination pledged to restart the project, including former Arkansas governor Mick Huckabee and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Republican businessman Donald J. Trump, who won the 2016 election, declined to take a position regarding the Nevada facility, saying only that more study was needed (Sullivan 2016). Democrats on Nuclear Waste Disposal

Within the Democratic Party, opposition to building a repository in Yucca Mountain has grown steadily since the passage of the 1987 amendments to the NWPA. Following Bush’s 2002 announcement that he planned to move forward with the project, leading congressional Democrats opposed the decision, citing environmental concerns as well as charges that the initial selection process had been politicized. Nevada Senator Harry Reid, who was first elected to Congress in 1987, led much of this opposition. During the 2002 debate regarding whether or not to override Nevada governor Kenny Guinn’s veto of the site, Reid worked with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-ND) and Senator John Ensign (R-NV) to prevent the measure from coming to the floor. The strategy failed, and the Senate passed the veto override by a vote of 60–39; only 15 of the 50 Senate Democrats voted “yea” on the measure (“S. Senate Roll Call Votes” 2002). When the House voted on the measure, the Democratic Party was more divided, with 106 Democrats voting in favor of the measure and 92 voting against it (“H.J.Res. 87” 2002). Lacking control of both houses of Congress and the White House after the 2002 midterm elections, Democrats had little ability to influence U.S. policy. During the 2004 presidential election, Democratic nominee John Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, made a bid to win the support of Nevada votes by promising that “when John Kerry is president, there is going to be no nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Period” (MSNBC News Services 2004). The appeal failed to sway Nevada voters, however, and Bush won Nevada by a nearly three-point margin. In the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress. Harry Reid became senate majority leader, and at a press conference he stated that the Yucca Mountain Repository “is dead right now” (Lyne 2006). The subsequent victory of Obama in the 2008 presidential election led to a fundamental shift in U.S. policy. During the campaign, Obama argued that Yucca was not

233

234

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

a suitable site; in accordance with this, in the budget for the 2010 fiscal year, the administration cut funding for Yucca to $197 million. This amount represented only enough to continue the licensing process started during the Bush administration; it did not provide funding for the continued design and development of the site (Garvey 2012). The Obama administration went a step further in 2010 by withdrawing the license application for the site, effectively terminating the project. In response, the states of Washington and South Carolina, which currently housed the largest stores of nuclear waste, filed suit against the DOE, charging that the action was illegal. In August 2013, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the petitioners, holding that the Obama administration had acted improperly. The court ordered the NRC to continue reviewing the application. Although the Obama administration did not support further work on the Yucca Mountain site, the president did recognize the need to deal with the growing amount of nuclear waste generated by U.S. reactors. In 2010, Obama and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu established a 15-member Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. The commission was cochaired by Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic member of Congress, and Brent Scowcroft, a national security official in the Bush and Ford administrations. When the commission released its report in 2011, it made no statement regarding the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. The report did endorse the concept of a geologically isolated repository, but it asserted that any plan would have to have the support of public officials and citizens in the state where it was to be located. Although most Democrats have sided with the Obama administration’s position on the Yucca Mountain Repository, Democrats from states that currently house large amounts of spent fuel, such as Washington and South Carolina, have been critical of the president’s policies. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) has worked with Senate Republicans to restart the Yucca project and has supported additional funding for the Yucca Mountain Repository in both the 2010 and the 2015 budgets. Other Democrats pressed the Obama administration to begin searching for a new location for a deep geological repository. In 2015, Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) joined Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) in sponsoring the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2015. The proposed legislation would create a pilot storage site to temporarily hold waste while the U.S. government searches for a new repository location. The bill would also create a new oversight agency with guaranteed funding. As of 2016, however, the bill reminds in committee, and no alternative sites are currently under consideration (Holt 2015, 16). During the 2016 election campaign, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated that she endorsed the Obama administration’s approach to the issue, telling a Las Vegas newspaper, “Yucca should be off the table” (Messerly 2016). Kelly McHugh

N ucl ea r Wa s te Di s po s al

Further Reading Bush, George W. 2002. “Letter to Congressional Leaders Recommending the Yucca Mountain Site for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Nuclear Waste,” February 15. The American Presidency Project. Accessed October 24, 2016. http://www.presidency.ucsb .edu/ws/?pid=72967. Garvey, Todd. 2012. “Closing Yucca Mountain: Litigation Associated with Attempts to Abandon the Planned Nuclear Waste Repository.” CRS Report for Congress. Accessed November 13, 2016. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41675.pdf. “H.J.Res. 87 (107th): Yucca Mountain Development Resolution.” 2002. Accessed October 24, 2016. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h133 Holt, Mark. 2015. “Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal.” Congressional Research Service Report. Accessed November 16, 2016. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33461.pdf. Lyne, Jack. 2006. “Election Creates Cloudy Future for $70-Billion Nevada Nuke Storage Site.” Site Selection. Accessed November 14, 2016. http://siteselection.com/ssinsider /snapshot/sf061207.htm. Macfarlane, Allison. 2003. “Underlying Yucca Mountain: The Interplay of Geology and Policy in Nuclear Waste Disposal.” Social Studies of Science 33 (5): 783–807. Accessed October 26, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3183068. Messerly, Megan. 2016. “Q+A: Hillary Clinton Shares Stances on Nevada Solar Shake-Up, Bundy Saga and Yucca Dumpsite.” Las Vegas Sun, January 7. Accessed October 26, 2016. http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/07/qa-hillary-clinton-nevada-solar-fight -yucca-bundy/. Monastersk, Richard. 1998. “The 10,000-Year Test.” Science News 133 (9): 139–141. Accessed October 26, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3972221. MSNBC News Services. 2004. “Nuclear Waste Site Is Election Land Mine: Kerry Challenges Bush over Yucca Mountain.” NBCNews.com, August 12. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5683604/ns/us_news-environment/t/nuclear-waste-site -election-land-mine/#.WCXfiXeZNPM. “S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress—2nd Session. 220.” 2002. Accessed November 1, 2106. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?​con gress=107&session=2&vote=00167 Shrader-Frechette, Kristin S. 1995. “Environmental Risk and the Iron Triangle: The Case of Yucca Mountain.” Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (4): 753–777. Stroud, Matt. 2012. “Wasteland: The 50-Year Battle to Entomb Our Toxic Nuclear Remains.” The Verge, June 14. Accessed October 24, 2016. http://www.theverge.com /2012/6/14/3038814/yucca-mountain-wipp-wasteland-battle-entomb-nuclear-waste. Sullivan, Sean. 2016. “Trump Punts on Yucca Mountain, a Major Issue in Key Swing State of Nevada.” Washington Post, October 6. Accessed November 16, 2016. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/06/trump-punts-on-yucca -mountain-a-major-issue-in-key-swing-state-of-nevada/. U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). 2002. “Public Law 107-200—Joint Resolution Approving the Site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the Development of a Repository for the Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.” Accessed October 24, 2016. https://www.gpo .gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ200/content-detail.html.

235

236

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Walsh, Edward J. 1998. “New Dimensions of Social Movements: The High-Level WasteSiting Controversy.” Sociological Forum 3 (4): 586–605. Accessed November 16, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/684545. White, Adam J. 2012. “Yucca Mountain: A Post-Mortem.” The New Atlantis 37 (Fall): 3–19. Accessed October 24, 2016. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/yucca -mountain-a-post-mortem. Zhang, Sarah. 2015. “The Plan for Storing US Nuclear Waste Just Hit a Roadblock.” Wired, July 17. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://www.wired.com/2015/07/plan -storing-us-nuclear-waste-just-hit-roadblock/.

Oil and Natural Gas Drilling

At a Glance

The phrases “energy policy” and “energy crisis” seem to have gone hand in hand over the last half century. Energy policy itself is immensely complicated, but add in the vicissitudes of world politics and it is little wonder that American energy policies have taken dramatic turns over the years. The American people are attached to their cars, and clear linkages have been established between support for domestic oil drilling and gasoline price trends; in fact, other environmentally controversial methods for energy development, such as fracking, receive higher levels of approval when gas prices spike (Pew Research Center 2012). Through the years, the Republican and Democratic positions have remained rather consistent. Republicans tend to emphasize the importance of resource independence for national security and the economic benefits of oil and gas drilling. The Democrats, while fully acknowledging the danger of dependence on foreign oil, focus on the many proven methods of energy conservation—developing alternative sources of energy to lessen dependence on fossil fuels—and they favor regulatory action to limit environmental damage caused by oil and natural gas drilling. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe national security is tied directly to increased domestic production of oil, which can reduce dependence on foreign countries for energy supplies • Believe oil and natural gas drilling increases jobs and economic growth with minimal, if any, environmental harm. • Believe fracking as a method of retrieving previously inaccessible natural gas is a boon to the U.S. economy and is safe for the environment and public health Many Democrats . . .

• Believe alternative forms of energy such as solar and wind, combined with energy conservation programs, can meaningfully reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, whether they originate in the United States or overseas

238

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

• Believe investing in alternative methods of energy nomic prosperity and help U.S. workers become marketplace • Believe fracking and offshore drilling, even when cause environmental damage that overrides any benefit

can create more ecoworld leaders in the done conscientiously, temporary economic

Overview

Through the years, the Republican and Democratic positions on domestic development of oil and gas resources have remained rather consistent. Republicans tend to emphasize the importance of resource independence for national security and the economic benefits of oil and gas drilling. The Democrats, while fully acknowledging the danger of dependence on foreign oil, assert that development of renewable energy sources provides a more environmentally and economically sensible path for reducing U.S. consumption of foreign oil. At the center of this conversation remains the question of whether “to drill or not to drill.” Every president since Republican Richard M. Nixon, who served in the Oval Office from 1969 to 1974, has identified American dependence on foreign oil imports as a problem to be addressed. This statement of a problem always opens up the same three competing responses: We need to drill more, we need to find alternatives to drilling, and we need to conserve more. The second response can be further divided into two meanings of alternative. One is that alternative methods of drilling that are more environmentally conscious should be developed. The second is that a completely different alternative to drilling needs to be pursued, such as solar and wind energy. The responses seem to shift as much with external events as with political party affiliation, but there has definitely been a trend in party position through the years (to be discussed further below). All the environmental issues addressed in this collection are complex, and drilling for oil and natural gas is no exception. Many of the controversies surrounding oil and gas extraction activities, though, focus on the question of where to drill, if one must drill. The “where to drill” question may be highlighted in an examination of the ongoing fight over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). ANWR, originally the Arctic National Wildlife Range, was established in 1960 under Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower. It consists of 8.9 million acres in the northeast section of Alaska. In the 1970s, environmental groups began a semisuccessful campaign to place this land under federal protection from exploration and drilling. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 placed 104 million acres of land, including ANWR, under the federal government’s auspices. ANILCA included a provision, called section 1002, that prohibited any leasing, development, or production of oil and gas in ANWR unless

Oil a nd N atur a l G a s D r illi ng

Congress granted direct authorization. In the past, the president has been able to use executive orders to study and lease land for drilling, but this section placed the ball clearly in Congress’s court, thus opening up an internal legislative battle—as opposed to a battle between Congress and the president. ANILCA was not ideal from the perspective of environmentalists, however, because it did not provide automatic protection to lands that displayed significant development potential. This included several parcels of land in Alaska, but of greatest significance was the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain area of ANWR. In particular, the Department of the Interior was directed to study ANWR’s coastal plain for the purpose of oil and gas exploration. The potential for discovering oil deposits in ANWR has wavered between extremes, with environmentalists focusing on the low end and industry professionals citing the high end. Prodrilling advocates argue that the economic potential for jobs and growth of the region and the increase in oil independence is far too valuable to pass up. They also argue that, in what amounts to an uninhabited and unvisited tundra, the environmental damage is negligible. ANWR antidrilling advocates, in addition to questioning the high estimates of economic potential, have emphasized the ecological damage that would occur if oil development was permitted in the region. The porcupine caribou (or Grant’s caribou) and Beaufort Sea polar bears are two species that would be adversely affected by development. The Department of the Interior’s reporting—based on wildlife studies of Prudhoe Bay, which is the largest oil field in North America and just west of ANWR—supports environmentalists’ concern over wildlife disruption. In addition, drilling may result in violation of international agreements made in 1987 and 1973 with regard to the caribou and polar bears, respectively (Grunwald 2001). As of 2017, the United States was still a party to both of these agreements. In addition to the environmental costs of drilling in ANWR and other wilderness areas, another recurring debate concerns the practice of offshore drilling. The OCS is designated as the seabed approximately 3 nautical miles off the United States coast and extends about 200 nautical miles into international waters. This is a unique characteristic of American federalism, as most waters off the coast belong exclusively to the country in question; however, in the United States the individual states have authority over navigable waters off their coasts. Therefore, the environmental risk is shared by states that have to deal with oil wells off their coasts. While the potential for oil resources on the OCS are real, the environmental risk from such operations is considerable. This is evident from the environmental disaster that occurred in 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig spilled approximately 210 million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 was passed to regulate use of the OCS. The risk and reward of offshore drilling remain central to the oil and natural gas drilling debate. While more visible to Americans (and the world) in recent years, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is not actually a new technique. Fracking was first developed in 1865; the modern method was further advanced in the 1940s, as the United

239

240

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

States and other major postwar economies looked for alternatives to oil and coal. The natural gas industry was given an additional boost by the 1973 oil crisis, in which Middle Eastern countries dramatically raised the price of their oil. During the last quarter of the 20th century, the U.S. government crafted policies that were increasingly pro-natural gas, and energy industry investment in hydraulic fracturing technology increased accordingly—especially as huge shale fields containing huge natural gas deposits were identified. One shale field, the Marcellus Shale Formation in the eastern United States, drew particularly strong interest from the energy industry. “This gas-trapping shale formation has been estimated to hold as much gas as the whole United States consumes in a century,” wrote Bill McKibben, an environmental journalist and activist. “The gas is also ideally situated along the route of many existing natural gas pipelines and near the heavy-consumption eastern megalopolis. If you’re an energy company, it’s about the best place on the planet to find a huge pool of gas” (McKibben 2012). Fracking consists of drilling into the earth and injecting a mixture of water, sand, and chemical at a high pressure into rock containing natural gas deposits. This allows for paths to be created that allow the gas to flow up to the well. The technique is designed to retrieve oil and gas reserves from previously inaccessible areas. The first company to successfully use fracking to extract natural gas at an industrial level was Halliburton, the company from which Dick Cheney resigned to become Republican George W. Bush’s vice president in 2001. The technique has been further refined with different chemicals and significantly more pressure. Its use has helped make the United States the largest natural gas producer in the world (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2015). Environmentalists have expressed concern about fracking for several reasons. One of the main environmental issues they raise is that most fracking activities are under state control and exempt from federal environmental laws. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 all have exemptions for oil and gas drilling, including specific exemptions for fracking. Many states have implemented laws to regulate fracking and to study environmental concerns, but the scope and strength of these laws is inconsistent from state to state (Plumer 2012). Groundwater contamination is top on the list of environmental concerns related to fracking. One of the challenges for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies in determining the environmental impact of fracking is that almost 10 percent of the chemicals used in fracking are protected under “trade secret” rules and thus are shielded from public scrutiny. The most proprietary chemicals may very well be the most environmentally dangerous. In 2015, the EPA released a study stating that there was “no evidence of widespread contamination from fracking.” The report also stated, however, that there were “potential vulnerabilities in the water life cycle that could impact drinking water” (Miller 2015). These two statements allowed both environmental groups and industry groups to claim victory.

Oil a nd N atur a l G a s D r illi ng

Republicans on Oil and Natural Gas Drilling

Just before the 1968 election that would place Republican Richard Nixon in the White House, an important discovery was made just west of ANWR. The Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and the Humble Oil and Refining Company discovered oil at Prudhoe Bay. Nixon would cement the Republican position of prodrilling and resource recovery with his appointment of Alaska governor Walter Hickel to Secretary of the Interior. Hickel was a strong proponent of construction of a Trans-Alaska Pipeline to bring the oil south from Prudhoe Bay. However, in the first few months of Nixon’s presidency, a huge oil spill occurred at a well off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. This accident complicated the prodrilling stance of Republicans. They remained largely supportive of drilling for oil and natural gas in most places where the two were located, but they recognized that the American public wanted assurances that such activities would not produce a wave of environmental catastrophes. Hickel responded to the Santa Barbara spill by establishing stricter offshore drilling regulations. Two years later, when a spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred, he had the Justice Department file 900 charges against Chevron for violation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953. As environmental events turned Hickel into a more wary driller, including the demand for more safety regulations with regard to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline project, Nixon removed him from office (Heves 2010). To investigate further energy resources, deal with the growing influence of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), and advance drilling opportunities, Nixon in 1973 created the Office of Energy Policy (soon renamed the Federal Energy Administration). In that same year, the Yom Kippur War (between Israel and Egypt/Syria) resulted in an oil embargo and the first “energy crisis” In the United States. This led to Nixon’s Project Independence initiative, designed to make the United States energy-independent by 1980. A central piece of the plan was individual conservation and automobile usage; but this was supplemented with the expediting of nuclear power licensing and construction, along with more use of coal instead of oil. The emphasis was on independence from foreign oil, not necessarily on increasing domestic oil production. The only direct oil-related action was Nixon’s signing of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline construction legislation (Homans 2012). The moderate Republican Gerald Ford came into office in the midst of the energy crisis. Construction on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was begun in 1975 to get more production out of drilling in Prudhoe Bay, but Ford also endorsed conservation methods and price controls. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 tried to accomplish both. Passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed by Ford, it was as much a response to external realities—specifically, increased oil embargos and decreased production threats from OPEC countries—as it was a statement of policy. Ronald Reagan stayed consistent with the probusiness/prodrilling stance of his Republican Party when he was inaugurated president in January

241

242

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

1981. He quickly lifted price controls on oil, and he reemphasized oil exploration by dismantling much of the renewable energy research structure that had been built under his predecessor, Democrat Jimmy Carter (Reagan even removed working solar panels from the White House roof). Tax breaks for wind turbines and solar research were also removed (Biello 2010). The Department of Energy was also reorganized to focus on production. Reagan’s most visible action was his proposal to eliminate the Department of Energy and move its responsibilities to the Department of Commerce. This was a clear Republican signal that economics were the principle element of energy policy. In 1986, Reagan administration Secretary of Energy Donald Hodel asked Congress to open access to interstate natural gas pipelines and lift controls on natural gas prices. Reagan’s successor, Republican George H. W. Bush, who was faced with the prospect of working with a Democratic Congress, actually took a more moderate stance on oil and natural gas production. He would not be confused with Carter before him or Clinton directly after, but he did sign the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This act returned to an emphasis on alternative fuels and made certain that natural gas was included in the clean fuel list. This provision helped open the door to the rise of fracking in the 1990s. The Energy Policy Act and a 1990 executive order from George H. W. Bush (following the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill) that banned offshore drilling for 10 years were major shifts from the traditional Republican prodrilling position. This unexpected Bush executive order, which was compounded by the Energy Policy Act’s emphasis on alternative energy sources, reenergized the prodrilling advocates through the 1990s, after which another prodrilling/probusiness Republican took office. Within two weeks of assuming the presidency in January 2001, George W. Bush established the National Energy Policy Development Group, a task force chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney. The group was tasked with bolstering the country’s long-term energy supplies. The Republican position on drilling quickly became evident when Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Chair Frank Murkowski (R-AK) and other Senate Republican leaders introduced an energy bill to allow oil drilling in Alaska’s ANWR and increase OCS drilling. A few months later, Cheney’s task force released a Bush administration National Energy Policy that also urged opening ANWR to drilling. Senate Democrats countered by proposing an alternative energy bill that stressed conservation, energy efficiency, and development of green energy resources over expanded drilling on public land, including ANWR. They subsequently successfully filibustered multiple attempts by their GOP counterparts to pass legislation that would have opened ANWR to commercial oil development. But while the Bush administration was unsuccessful in its efforts to open ANWR, it did engineer the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation, crafted in large part by Cheney’s task force of oil- and gas-industry executives, contained many far-reaching provisions, but the one that attracted the most attention was the infamous “Halliburton loophole” on fracking. Named after the energy

Oil a nd N atur a l G a s D r illi ng

company that Cheney had once led, the Halliburton loophole exempted fracking companies from major environmental regulations contained in laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and the Clean Water Act. The 2005 policy established this exemption as law, instead of just as an administration position. With the election of Republican Donald Trump as president in 2016, the Republicans have once again turned their attention to expanding offshore drilling and opening ANWR as part of their overall program, which they describe as one of economic growth and energy independence. On April 27, 2017, Trump signed an executive order that aims to expand offshore drilling for oil and gas, which was welcomed by the oil and gas industry and greeted with alarm by environmental groups. “Renewed offshore energy production will reduce the cost of energy, create countless new jobs, and make America more secure and far more energy independent,” Trump said before signing the order. The order directs Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to review a five-year plan in which Trump’s predecessor, Democratic president Barack Obama, banned drilling in parts of the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans (Rott and Kennedy 2017). While broadly identifying the Arctic, this Trump directive was a clear signal pointed at drilling in ANWR, which is also consistent with Republican attempts to open the federal land to oil exploration. President Trump also took steps in early 2017 to eliminate President Obama’s federal rules on fracking; however, he has also taken a position that gives individual states authority to ban the practice if they so desire. While this is a traditional view of state control supported by Republicans, it is not consistent with Republicans in the House and Senate, who support fracking and see no environmental threat from the practice (Cama 2016). The impact of all of these changes will not be clear for several years, but the expectation is that during the Trump presidency, there will be a notable shift in favor of policies that encourage expanded oil and natural gas drilling. Democrats on Oil and Natural Gas Drilling

When it comes to environmental regulation of and general policies toward oil and natural gas drilling, President Jimmy Carter set the stage for the modern Democratic position on energy policy. Nothing establishes that more than his action to create the Department of Energy at the cabinet level (an action Reagan later tried but failed to erase before it became too well-established). Carter’s single term included a National Energy Policy, which consisted of five separate bills, one of which was the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. This bill directly provided incentives for producers to increase their production of natural gas. A year later Carter proposed an $88 billion decade-long effort to enhance production of synthetic fuels, including shale oil reserves. Despite the energy crisis that would have given prodrilling advocates an advantage, other than the completion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (which started before Carter entered office), Carter continued to pursue energy policies that emphasized investments in renewable

243

244

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

energy and opposition to fracking and offshore drilling. Reagan would spend the next decade dismantling much of this activity, George H. W. Bush would back off slightly, and then Bill Clinton would return to the Democratic environmental position. During the budget battles of the mid-1990s, Republicans repeatedly introduced amendments and bills to open ANWR to drilling. The Senate Democrats were often able to filibuster the legislation before it was passed. Clinton vetoed a balanced budget act in December of 1995 because it included drilling in ANWR. In 1995, President Clinton considered using the Antiquities Act of 1906 to unilaterally designate ANWR a national monument and close it to drilling. Because of the legislative protection given to ANWR in ANILCA, Clinton decided against the action for legal reasons. In 1997, the Supreme Court stated that the barrier islands around ANWR and the lagoons that they enclose were within the refuge. This was important because Alaska had tried to make a claim to sell leases for drilling. In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey produced its largest-ever mean estimates for drilling potential in ANWR, which sparked more bills in Congress for opening the refuge. During his final year in office, Clinton stated that he believed the legislation already in place to protect ANWR was sufficient, and he decided against designating ANWR as a national monument (Holland 2001). Clinton, faced with a hostile Republican Congress for much of his presidency, was also able to maintain the Democratic position on offshore drilling without completely closing out the oil industry. In 1998, he extended a moratorium on offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific for 10 years. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had pushed for a permanent ban. However, Clinton acknowledged that the oil and gas industry had made strides in environmentally safer drilling, and thus he compromised on the ban. The Democratic Congress imposed the drilling moratorium in 1981 and has extended it each year since, by prohibiting the Department of the Interior from spending money on offshore oil or gas leases in virtually all coastal waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and in some areas off Alaska. President Obama had an interesting approach to oil and gas drilling. It was consistent with the Democratic Party position, but it strayed on the edges because of his “all-of-the-above” energy policy. This approach acknowledged the need for some oil and gas drilling, while also emphasizing a transition to new forms and safer drilling. This stance often was not viewed as being robust enough in the area of environmental protection to suit Democrats and too restrictive of drilling for the taste of Republicans (Furman and Stock 2014). President Obama praised the the natural gas industry for leading the world in developing cleaner energy, but at the same time he supported efforts to increase the safety of fracking by making the industry more responsive to environmental and public health concerns about the practice. President Obama also made an attempt to “permanently” ban OCS drilling in the Arctic and parts of the Atlantic. He used the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to withdraw the land from drilling. This action basically removed the Eastern Seaboard of the United States from drilling, excluding leases that already

Oil a nd N atur a l G a s D r illi ng

were in force. But he also honored a contract by Royal Dutch Shell to drill in shallow water just off ANWR (Gardner 2015). In 2009, Democrats in both the House and the Senate introduced legislation, called the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act), to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act and give the EPA authority over fracking. The act would have also required the energy industry to disclose the chemicals it mixes with the water and sand that it pumps underground in the fracturing process (Lustgarten 2009). The bill was not passed, but it led to a 5-year EPA study on fracking that was inconclusive on the effect of fracking on drinking water. When Obama left office, he had a solid record of protecting ANWR from extensive drilling, maintaining and extending a ban on offshore drilling, and attempting to regulate environmental damage from fracking and other forms of oil and gas exploration. David M. Dolence Further Reading Biello, David. 2010. “Where Did the Carter White House Solar Panels Go?” Scientific American, August 6. Accessed April 18, 2017. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article /carter-white-house-solar-panel-array/. CA Frack Facts. “Policy: Federal Fracking Regulations.” Accessed April 19, 2017. http:// www.cafrackfacts.org/policy/federal-regulation/. Cama, Timothy. 2015. “Greens: Obama Caves on Fracking.” The Hill, March 24. Accessed April 18, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/236700-environmentalists -obama-caved-on-fracking. Cama, Timothy. 2016. “Trump Rattles Industry with Fracking Comments.” The Hill, August 3. Accessed April 18, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290186 -trump-rattles-industry-with-fracking-position. Davenport, Coral. 2016. “Obama Bans Drilling in Parts of the Atlantic and the Artic.” New York Times, December 22. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.nytimes​ .com/2016/12/20/us/obama-drilling-ban-arctic-atlantic.html. Davenport, Coral. 2016. “Obama Fracking Rule Is Struck Down by Court.” New York Times, June 22. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics​ /hydraulic-fracturing-interior-department-regulations.html?_r=0. Eilperin, Juliet, and Darryl Fears. 2016. “President Obama Bans Oil Drilling in Large Areas of Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.” Washington Post, December 20. Accessed April 23, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/20​ /president-obama-expected-to-ban-oil-drilling-in-large-areas-of-atlantic-and-arctic​ -oceans/?utm_term=.a65ec827da50. Free, Kathryn. 2014. “Study: The Toxicity of One-Third of Fracking Chemicals Is Unknown.” Popular Mechanics, August 14. Accessed April 21, 2017. http://www .popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a11113/toxicity-of-one-third-of-fracking -chemicals-unknown-2493008/. Furman, Jason, and Jim Stock. 2014. “New Report: The All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy as a Path to Sustainable Economic Growth.” The White House, May 29. Accessed April 17, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/05/29​ /new-report -all-above-energy-strategy-path-sustainable-economic-growth.

245

246

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Gardner, Timothy. 2015. “CORRECTED—Here’s Why Obama Is Approving Arctic Drilling Again.” Reuters, May 12. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.reuters.com/article​ /usa-shell-arctic-idUSL2N0WT2F220150512. Grunwald, Michael. 2001. “New Species Enters Debate on Arctic Oil.” Washington Post, October 30. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive /politics/2001/10/30/new-species-enters-debate-on-arctic-oil/d93de1c0-660f -4173-9b00-684db51e897c/?utm_term=.94759d62ed9b. Hauter, Wenonah. 2015. “10 Years Later: Fracking and the Halliburton Loophole.” Eco​ Watch, August 11. Accessed April 17, 2017. http://www.ecowatch.com/10-years-later -fracking-and-the-halliburton-loophole-1882083309.html. Heves, Dennis. 2010. “Walter Hickel, Nixon Interior Secretary, Dies at 90.” New York Times, May 8. Accessed April 22, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/09hickel .html. Holland, Jesse J. 2001. “Clinton Decides Against Giving Artic Refuge Monument Status.” Juneau Empire, January 10. Accessed April 24, 2017. http://juneauempire.com /stories/011001/Bre_monmument.html#.WQjqPDV1wnI. Homans, Charles. 2012. “Energy Independence: A Short History.” Foreign Policy, January 12. Accessed April 23, 2017. http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/03/energy-independence -a-short-history/. Jehl, Douglas. 2001. “Wildlife and Derricks Coexist, But the Question Is the Cost.” New York Times, February 20. Accessed April 22, 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/20​ /us/wildlife-and-derricks-coexist-but-the-question-is-the-cost.html. Lustgarten, Abraham. 2009. “FRAC Act—Congress Introduces Twin Bills to Control Drilling and Protect Drinking Water.” ProPublica, June 9. Accessed April 21, 2017. https:// www.propublica.org/article/frac-act-congress-introduces-bills-to-control-drilling-609. Manfreda, John. 2015. “The Origin of Fracking Actually Dates Back to the Civil War.” Business Insider, April 14. Accessed April 21, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com​ /the-history-of-fracking-2015-4. McKibben, Bill. 2012. “Why Not Frack?” New York Review of Books, March 8. Accessed May 4, 2017. www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/08/why-not-frack. McManus, Doyle. 1998. “Clinton Takes Middle Ground with Offshore Drilling Ban.” Los Angeles Times, June 13. Accessed April 21, 2017. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun /13/news/mn-59509. Miller, Justin. 2015. “Why It’s So Hard to Regulate Fracking.” American Prospect, June 24. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://prospect.org/article/why-its-so-hard-regulate-fracking. Noel, John. 2015. “EPA Analysis of Chemicals Used in Fracking Is a Study of the Unknown.” Clean Water Action (blog), April 17. Accessed April 21, 2017. http://www.cleanwater​ action.org/2015/04/17/epa-analysis-chemicals-used-fracking-study-unknown. Pew Research Center. 2012. “As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and Gas Production Grows.” Accessed April 15, 2017. http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/19/as-gas -prices-pinch-support-for-oil-and-gas-production-grows/. Plumer, Brad. 2012. “How States Are Regulating Fracking (In Maps).” Washington Post, July 16. Accessed April 19, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk /wp/2012/07/16/how-states-are-regulating-fracking-in-maps/?utm_term=.9c903fa 75a86. Richardson, John. “The History of Fracking (A Timeline).” Quora. Accessed April 21, 2017. https://energywithjr.quora.com/The-History-of-Fracking-A-Timeline.

Oil a nd N atur a l G a s D r illi ng

Rott, Nathan, and Merrit Kennedy. 2017. “Trump Signs Executive Order on Offshore Drilling and Marine Sanctuaries.” National Public Radio, April 27. Accessed April 30 2017. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/27/525959808/trump-to -sign-executive-order-on-offshore-drilling-and-marine-sanctuaries. U.S. Department of State. 1973. “Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears,” Oslo, Norway, November 15. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns​ /opa/biodiversity/polarbear/. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015. “U.S. Remained World’s Largest Producer of Petroleum and Natural Gas Hydrocarbons in 2014.” Accessed April 21, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20692. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment: Report and Recommendation to the Congress of the United States and Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement.” U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fedgov/70039559/report.pdf. U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. “Assessment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 1002 Area.” https://energy.usgs.gov/RegionalStudies/Alaska/ANWR1002.aspx. U.S. Senate. 1975. “S. 622—Energy and Conservation Policy Act.” Accessed April 18, 2017. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/s622. Vashi, Sonam. 2017. “Trump Wants a $1 Trillion Investment in Roads and Bridges. Will More Drilling Help?” CNN.com, March 17. Accessed April 23, 2017. http://www.cnn​ .com/2017/03/02/politics/trump-oil-and-gas-leases/.

247

Outdoor Air Pollution

At a Glance

The control of outdoor air pollution enjoyed broad support by Democrats and Republicans from the 1960s through 1980. This bipartisan consensus on the need for federal legislation and regulation to control air pollution led to the Clean Air Acts of 1970 and 1990, both of which included provisions authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to monitor and control air pollutants from motor vehicles, power plants, and factories. Since 1980, however, this bipartisan consensus has been replaced by gridlock. Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly polarized on how best to address air pollution and promote air quality, as well as numerous other environmental policy issues. Republicans maintain that air quality in the United States has improved due to economic technological development. They believe that continued economic growth—not increased federal regulation—will further decrease air pollution and improve air quality. Republicans do not believe carbon dioxide is a threat to air quality, and they oppose giving the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions. Democrats maintain that the federal government must regulate air pollution and air quality to ensure that all communities have access to clean air. They seek to strengthen federal air quality standards and extend the authority of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe the United States has made significant progress on improving outdoor air quality and should prioritize economic freedom to continue that progress • Believe Congress, not the EPA, should have the authority to set outdoor air quality standards • Believe carbon dioxide does not pose a threat to outdoor air quality and cannot be regulated under existing federal legislation Many Democrats. . .

• Believe existing federal legislation such as the Clean Air Act is essential for reducing air pollution

O utd o o r Ai r P o ll ut i o n

• Believe the disproportionate impact of air pollution on low-income communities should be addressed, both by the states and by the federal government • Believe reducing carbon dioxide emissions will improve outdoor air quality and address global warming

Overview

Outdoor air pollution consists of airborne substances generated by human activity that pose a hazard to public health and welfare. Air pollutants can be either gaseous or particulate matter and can vary in degree of toxicity. Common air pollutants in the United States are carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, ground-level ozone, and mercury. When inhaled or ingested, these pollutants can pose a serious health risk. Exposure to them has been linked to respiratory illnesses, cancer, birth defects, and damage to the neurological and immune systems. Carbon dioxide, though not harmful in low concentrations, traps heat in the lower atmosphere, thereby contributing to climate change. Important human-influenced sources of air pollution include motor vehicle engines, power plants, oil refineries and other manufacturing industries, and landfills (Simon 2007). Approaches to controlling air pollution include air quality and emission control strategies. Air quality strategies seek to set a standard for ambient air quality and monitor it, while emissions strategies limit pollutants at the source (Brimblecombe 2011). The first attempts to regulate air pollution in the United States began in the late 19th century in major industrial cities and at the state level shortly after the turn of the century. The impact of these laws on air quality was limited, however, due to implementation and enforcement failures. More often than not, cities and states did not establish agencies or dedicate sufficient resources to controlling air pollution (Stern 1982). The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 was the first piece of federal legislation to address air quality in the United States. The act asserted that state and local governments were responsible for monitoring and controlling air pollution, but it did not establish air quality standards. Instead, the act provided funding for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to investigate the impact of air pollution and to provide technical assistance to states seeking to control it. Public concern over environmental degradation—and air pollution, in particular—increased in the 1960s. Media attention to deadly smog events in London (1962) and New York (1966) and the publication of works warning of escalating environmental degradation, such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), contributed to growing awareness of the harmful effects of industrial pollution on human health and the environment; such attention dramatically increased pressure on America’s lawmakers and public officials to address these problems (Adler 2004). Congress asserted the role of the federal government in protecting air quality in the Clean Air Act of 1963. The act quadrupled funding to the HEW for

249

250

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

research into monitoring and controlling air pollution, but it still did not create national standards for air quality or require the federal government to monitor or control air pollution. The next step forward in air pollution control was the Air Quality Act of 1967, which authorized the HEW to establish air quality control regions and required states to develop and enforce air quality standards. By the 1970s, environmental protection was recognized by both Democrats and Republicans to be a principal concern of voters, and enacting policies to address those concerns became a priority. In 1970, in a moment of bipartisanship, Republican president Richard M. Nixon and the Democratic-led Congress passed the Clean Air Act of 1970, a major breakthrough in the history of air pollution control policy in the United States. The act charged the newly created EPA with implementing five new regulatory programs: the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), the New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs), mobile source emissions, and the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) (EPA Staff 2017). The NAAQS set limits on the emission of the following major or “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead (added in 1977) to protect public health and welfare (Haeg 2011). The EPA was also charged with establishing NESHAPs for hazardous pollutants that are not ubiquitously present in ambient air, emitted from stationary sources. The NSPS established emission standards for new stationary sources of air pollution such as factories, power plants, and refineries. The act also established mobile emission standards for cars, trucks, and other vehicles and directed the EPA to ensure they were enforced. The SIPs program required the states to develop EPA approved plans for meeting the national air quality standards within a specific time frame. This landmark legislation was revised in 1990. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 created the Acid Deposition Control program to mitigate the problem of acid rain and established a program to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. Additionally, the act strengthened the enforcement of NAAQS, and it required the EPA to step up its implementation of NESHAPs (EPA Staff 2017). Since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, new regulations represent most of the progress on noncarbon air pollution. Significant regulatory milestones include rules on air toxics emissions from the chemical industry in 1994, and from the petroleum industry and municipal waste combustors in 1995 (EPA Staff 2017). The EPA revised the NAAQS in 1997, setting stricter standards for ozone and particulate matter (Klyza and Ford-Martin 2011). The EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). In 2011, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule took effect, adding power plants to the list of regulated industries. Also in 2011, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) was issued. The rule requires certain upwind states to reduce their emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which can cross state lines and elevate downwind states’ ambient concentration of the chemicals themselves, as well as particulate

O utd o o r Ai r P o ll ut i o n

matter and ground-level ozone. This rule was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013 in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. Lastly, a rule concerning emissions of methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and toxics from oil and gas production was finalized in May 2016. It would limit emissions from new and significantly modified sources; at the time of this writing, it is under review. Currently, the EPA is proposing a two-year stay on the enforcement of this rule (EPA 2017). Republicans on Outdoor Air Pollution

Prior to the election of President Nixon, outdoor air pollution was not a significant issue for the Republican Party. Republicans favored economic development over environmental protection, and they maintained that environmental policy— including air quality control—was the purview of state and local governments. Recognizing the increasing saliency of environmental protection to the American public, however, Nixon made environmental protection one of his chief initiatives (Daynes and Glen 2010, 66). In his first State of the Union address, President Nixon promised extensive federal action to protect air quality: Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. . . . Clean air, clean water, open spaces-these should once again be the birthright of every American. If we act now, they can be. We still think of air as free. But clean air is not free, and neither is clean water. The price tag on pollution control is high. Through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to nature, and now that debt is being called. The program I shall propose to Congress will be the most comprehensive and costly program in this field in America’s history. (Daynes and Glen 2010)

Deemed the “Nixon platform,” the 1972 Republican Party platform was the first to give significant attention to environmental protection (Daynes and Glen 2010, 73). The platform included a wide range of environmental proposals, including recommendations to prevent dumping in the Great Lakes, protect wetlands and endangered species, create more parks, and enforce strict air quality standards. Subsequent Republican platforms would shy away from such specific recommendations, particularly for outdoor air quality. During the administrations of presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party returned to an emphasis on economic development interests over environmental regulation. The party decried environmental regulations as harmful to economic growth and advocated a more circumscribed role for the federal government. With respect to ensuring air quality, the 1976 platform championed subsidiarity, maintaining that “we are in complete accord with the recent Supreme Court decision on air pollution that allows the level of government closest to the problem and the solution to establish and apply appropriate air quality standards.” Under Reagan, the party moved even farther away from the “Nixon platform.” In its plank on the environment, the 1980 Republican Party platform stated that “we strongly affirm that environmental protection must not become a cover for a

251

252

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

‘no-growth’ policy and a shrinking economy. Our economy can continue to grow in an acceptable environment.” With respect to controlling air pollution, the party called for “revision of cumbersome and overly stringent Clean Air Act regulations.” As a result, attempts by congressional Democrats to strengthen the Clean Air Act of 1970 were unsuccessful under the Reagan administration. The election of President George H. W. Bush in 1988 returned the Republican Party, albeit briefly, to a more Nixon-era posture on the environment. The 1988 Republican platform listed a wide range of environmental protection proposals, including increasing efforts to address air and water pollution, hazardous waste, ozone depletion, coastal erosion, and climate change. Under Bush, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were finally passed, as his administration “brought together a coalition of business and industry leaders, environmentalists, and government officials” to win bipartisan support for the amendments (Daynes and Glen, 2010, 162). Since the 1990s, the Republican Party has grown increasingly critical of environmental regulations at both the federal level and the state level. Beginning with the

Changing Public Attitudes about Air Pollution Regulation Public policy appears to be associated with public opinion. Concurrent with a period of over 25 years lacking new air pollution legislation, the number of survey respondents saying they worry “a great deal” about air pollution has dropped 18 percentage points from 1990 to 2016, according to a 2016 Gallup poll (Jones 2016). In a 50-state survey in 2013, Gallup found that most respondents were satisfied with their local air quality, with the median state reporting 90 percent satisfaction (Riffkin 2014). Responses per state ranged from 65 percent satisfaction (Utah) to 96 percent (South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming). This might suggest agreement with assertions in the Republican Party platforms regarding the continued progress on air quality over time. However, in 2017 Gallup found that 59 percent of respondents prioritized protection of the environment over development of such U.S. energy supplies as coal, oil, and gas, suggesting that current satisfaction with air quality is not directly linked with a tolerance for decreasing air quality (Newport 2017). Sources Jones, Jeffrey M. 2016 “Americans’ Identification as ‘Environmentalists’ Down to 42%.” Gallup, April 22. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190916/americans -identification-environmentalists-down.aspx?g_source=air+pollution&g_medium=search &g_campaign=tiles. Newport, Frank. 2017. “Americans Tilt Toward Protecting Environment, Alternative Fuels.” Gallup, March 15. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/206159/americans -tilt-toward-protecting-environment-alternative-fuels.aspx. Riffkin, Rebecca. 2014. “Utahans Least Satisfied with Air Quality.” Gallup, June 5. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170966/utahans-least-satisfied-air-quality.aspx?g _source=air+pollution&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles.

O utd o o r Ai r P o ll ut i o n

1994 “Gingrich Revolution,” in which deeply conservative Republicans assumed leadership of the House of Representatives, Republicans sought to rewrite several pieces of environmental legislation, including the 1990 Clean Air Act. According to newly installed Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), such regulations were “absurdly expensive, created far more resistance than was necessary and misallocated resources on emotional and public relations grounds without regard to either scientific, engineering or economic rationality” (Cushman 1995, A14). In the 2004 platform, Republicans championed President George W. Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative to limit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants via a cap-and-trade system, but the plan never came to fruition. Since 2000, the Republican platform has consistently underscored the progress that the United States has made in reducing air pollution over time as a justification for rejecting further environmental regulation. The 2008 platform credits the United States’ “diverse economy” and economic growth with providing the investments in cleaner air and water. In the 2012 platform, meanwhile, Republicans pledged “an end to the EPA’s participation in ‘sue and settle’ lawsuits, sweetheart litigation brought by environmental groups to expand the Agency’s regulatory activities against the wishes of Congress and the public.” In the 2016 GOP platform, Republicans repeated the sentiment about “sue and settle” and promised to roll back the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and give Congress the power to determine NAAQS. Democrats on Outdoor Air Pollution

The first Democratic Party platform to address air pollution was the 1960 platform, which stated that “federal action is needed in planning, coordinating and helping to finance pollution control. The states and local communities cannot go it alone. . . . Democrats will step up research on pollution control, giving special attention to . . . the rapidly growing problem of air pollution from industrial plants, automobile exhausts, and other sources.” In a 1963 address to Congress, President Kennedy called for federal legislation to address air pollution: Economic damage from air pollution amounts to as much as $11 billion every year in the United States. . . . In some 6,000 communities various amounts of smoke, smog, grime or fumes reduce property values and—as dramatically shown in England last year—endanger life itself. . . . In the light of the known damage caused by polluted air, both to our health and to our economy, it is imperative that greater emphasis be given to the control of air pollution by communities, States, and the Federal Government. (Kennedy 1963, 144–145)

The Democratic Congress responded with the Clean Air Act of 1963. Under President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Democratic Party made air pollution control one of its chief environmental concerns. The Air Quality Act of 1967, passed with bipartisan support, was the first piece of federal legislation to call for air quality standards.

253

254

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Similarly, under President Carter, the Democratic Party sought to strengthen air quality standards. In 1977, they passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act to incorporate lead pollution into the NAAQS program. During the 1990s, the Democratic Party sought to preserve existing gains made on air quality control and focus on initiatives related to carbon emissions. President Bill Clinton, a self-avowed environmentalist, “stressed balance, equalizing the needs of the economy with the needs of the environment” (Daynes and Glen 2010, 102). The 1992 and 1996 Democratic Party platforms embraced sustainable development—pledging to promote both economic development and environmental protection. With respect to air pollution, the 1992 platform promised to “oppose Republican efforts to gut the Clean Air Act in the guise of competitiveness.” The platform devoted as much space to the global environment as it did to the national environment. With respect to global warming, it asserted that “[the U.S.] should join our European allies in agreeing to limit carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.” In much the same vein, the 1996 Democratic Party platform stressed enforcement of existing environmental laws and pledged to “seek a strong international agreement to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and protect our global climate.” Clinton’s first proposal included an energy tax on gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil and electricity from coal; hydropower; and nuclear power—designed to promote energy conservation and reduce emissions and pollution (Greenhouse 1993). When Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, Clinton’s environmental policy became largely defensive. He used his veto power to prevent Congress from rolling back environmental legislation on a number of occasions. The most significant change in air pollution control during this period—the strengthening of NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone—was achieved through EPA regulation rather than congressional action (Clark 1997). Similarly, the early 2000s saw the Democrats place continued emphasis on sustainable development and only a weak focus on noncarbon pollution. In its subsection on “Protecting American Consumers,” the 2000 platform included protection of the air and a community’s right to know about toxic releases. It also supported high-speed rail and other transportation solutions as ways to improve air quality, among other benefits, and proposed support for urban communities to mitigate pollution from airports. In 2004, an entire subsection of the Democratic Party Platform was devoted to the idea that the Democrats could “[make] our government and our markets work together” to reduce mercury emissions, smog, and acid rain and to address the changing climate. The 2004 platform also called for closing legal loopholes responsible for emissions of pollutants and increasing enforcement of existing clean air laws. The 2008 Democratic Party platform pledged to “reinvigorate the Environmental Protection Agency so that we can work with communities to reduce air and water pollution and protect our children from environmental toxins, and never sacrifice science to politics.” Under the leadership of President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party sought to strengthen its efforts to control air pollution and limit carbon emissions. Faced

O utd o o r Ai r P o ll ut i o n

with opposition from Republicans in Congress on virtually all policy fronts, Obama turned to an administrative strategy to advance his environmental protection goals (Konisky and Woods 2016). In 2011, the EPA issued two sets of important regulations: the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. In 2012, the Democrats affirmed their intention to defend the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in their platform: “We will not back down from protecting our kids from toxic mercury pollution. . . . Pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury are a threat to human health, and Democrats will continue to stand up to polluters in the interest of environmental and public health.” The central and highly contested achievement of the Obama administration in the realm of air pollution—the Clean Power Plan—consisted of new EPA emissions standards for existing power plants. In their 2016 platform, Democrats linked efforts to promote clean air and curtail climate change: “Democrats are committed to defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards for automobiles and heavy-duty vehicles, building codes and appliance standards.” Democrats also proposed that the reduction of air pollution was a paramount goal for environmental justice: Democrats believe clean air and clean water are basic rights of all Americans. Yet as we saw in Flint, Michigan, low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately home to environmental justice “hot spots,” where air pollution, water pollution, and toxic hazards like lead increase health and economic hardship.

Jennifer R. Wozniak Boyle and Megan M. Kelly Further Reading Adler, Jonathan H. 2004. “The Fable of Federal Environmental Regulation: Reconsidering the Federal Role in Environmental Protection.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 55 (1): 93–113. Brimblecombe, Peter. 2011. “Air Pollution.” In Environmental Encyclopedia. Vol. 1, 4th ed. 38–41. Detroit, MI: Gale, Cengage Learning. Clark, Bruce. 1997. “Clinton Upholds Tight Standards on Air Pollution.” Financial Times, June 26, Accessed May 10, 2017. http://flagship.luc.edu/login?url=http://search.pro quest.com/docview/248626206?accountid=12163. Cushman, John H., Jr. 1995. “Congressional Republicans Take Aim at an Extensive List of Environmental Statutes.” New York Times, February 22. Accessed May 10, 2017. http:// www.nytimes.com/1995/02/22/us/congressional-republicans-take-aim-extensive-list -environmental-statutes.html?pagewanted=all. Daynes, Byron W., and Glen Sussman. 2010. White House Politics and the Environment: Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Greenhouse, Steven. 1993. “Clinton’s Economic Plan: The Energy Plan; Fuels Tax: Spreading the Burden.” New York Times, February 18. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www .nytimes.com/1993/02/18/us/clinton-s-economic-plan-the-energy-plan-fuels-tax -spreading-the-burden.html.

255

256

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Haeg, Claire. 2011. “Clean Air Act of 1979.” In Encyclopedia of the U.S. Government and the Environment: History, Policy, and Politics. Vol. 1, 186–189. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Hays, Samuel P. 2000. A History of Environmental Politics since 1945. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Jones, Jeffrey M. 2016 “Americans’ Identification as ‘Environmentalists’ Down to 42%.” Gallup, April 22. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190916/americansidentification-environmentalists-down.aspx?g_source=air+pollution&g_medium =search&g_campaign=tiles. Kennedy, John F. 1963. “Special Message to Congress on Improving the Nation’s Health,” February 7. In Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1963, January 1 to November 22, 1963. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Klyza, Christopher McGrory, Paula Anne Ford-Martin. 2011. “Clean Air Act (1963, 1970, 1990). In Environmental Encyclopedia. Vol. 1, 4th ed. 308–310. Detroit, MI: Gale, Cengage Learning. Klyza, Christopher McGrory, and David Sousa. 2010. “Beyond Gridlock: Green Drift in American Environmental Policymaking.” Political Science Quarterly 125 (3): 443–463. Accessed May 10, 2017. Konisky, David M., and Neal D. Woods. 2016. “Environmental Policy, Federalism, and the Obama Presidency.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 46 (3): 366–391. Lindaman, Kara, and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2002. “Issue Evolution, Political Parties, and the Culture Wars.” Political Research Quarterly 55 (1): 91–110. Lindstrom, Matthew J., ed. 2011. Encyclopedia of the U.S. Government and the Environment: History, Policy, and Politics. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Newport, Frank. 2017. “Americans Tilt Toward Protecting Environment, Alternative Fuels.” Gallup, March 15. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/206159/ameri cans-tilt-toward-protecting-environment-alternative-fuels.aspx. Nixon, Richard. 1970. “Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union,” January 22. The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 17, 2017. www.presidency .ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2921. Republican Party Platforms. 1972. “Republican Party Platform of 1972,” August 21. The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25842. Republican Party Platforms.1988. “Republican Party Platform of 1988,” August 16. The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25846. Republican Party Platforms. 1980. “Republican Party Platform of 1980,” July 15. The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25844. Riffkin, Rebecca. 2014. “Utahans Least Satisfied with Air Quality.” Gallup, June 5. Accessed May 10, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170966/utahans-least-satisfied-air-quality .aspx?g_source=air+pollution&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles. Royden, Amy. 2002. “U.S. Climate Change Policy under President Clinton: A Look Back.” Golden Gate University Law Review 32 (4): 415–478. Accessed May 10, 2017. http:// digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1842&context=ggulrev. Rudalevige, Andrew. 2016. “The Contemporary Presidency: The Obama Administrative Presidency: Some Late-Term Patterns.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 46 (4): 868–890. Accessed May 10, 2017. Simon, G. 2007. “Pollution, Air.” In Encyclopedia of Environment and Society, ed. P. Robbins. Vol. 5, 1391–1395. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

O utd o o r Ai r P o ll ut i o n

Stern, Arthur C. 1982. “History of Air Pollution Legislation in the United States.” Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 32 (1): 41–61. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “Basic Information about Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.” Accessed April 17, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/mats/basic-information -about-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “Clean Air Act Overview; Evolution of the Clean Air Act.” Accessed April 12, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview​ /evolution-clean-air-act. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “Controlling Air Pollution from the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, Actions and Notices about Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution Standards.” https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry /actions-and-notices-about-oil-and-natural-gas. Accessed July 26, 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Basics.” Accessed May 5, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/csapr/cross-state-air-pollution -rule-csapr-basics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d. “EPA History.” Accessed May 5, 2017. https:// www.epa.gov/history.

257

Ozone Depletion

At a Glance

Most members of the Republican Party have supported domestic and international efforts to control substances that deplete the ozone layer, citing concerns about public health. In 1977, for example, the party supported a ban on aerosols containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a major contributor to ozone depletion. In 1987, Republican president Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol, a global agreement designed to prevent further damage to the ozone layer by banning a number of commercial and consumer substances. By the 1990s, however, a group of Republicans began to express concerns about the economic consequences of further regulation. Since the 1970s, Democrats were part of a bipartisan effort to protect the ozone layer. During the presidency of Democrat Jimmy Carter, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) took aggressive measures to ban U.S emissions of ozone-deleting substances. In the 1990s, Democrats supported amending the Montreal Protocol in response to new scientific developments. Most recently, under the administration of Barack Obama, the United States took a leadership role in negotiating a ban on CFC replacements that contribute to global warming. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe U.S. leadership was a crucial factor is securing global support for the Montreal Protocol • Believe any new regulations must balance environmental factors with economic concerns • Believe the Montreal Protocol should not be amended to address substances that contribute to global climate change Many Democrats . . .

• Believe U.S. leadership was a crucial factor is securing global support for the Montreal Protocol, and this should serve as a model for future environmental agreements

O z o ne D epl et i o n

• Believe regulations should be based on scientific consensus, rather then economic concerns • Believe the Montreal Protocol should be amended to further regulate substances that contribute to global climate change

Overview

Scientific research carried out in the 1970s and 1980s to study the Earth’s lower atmosphere put concerns about ozone depletion at the forefront of public debate. Policy-making initially centered on the effects of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a group of chemical compounds used in refrigerants, aerosols, solvents, and foam insulation. CFCs were invented by the General Motors Corporation in the 1930s, and by the 1970s they were widely in use in commercial settings, as well as in such consumer products as hairspray and deodorant. In 1974, two scientists at the University of California discovered that CFCs were causing damage to the ozone layer, a region of the lower stratosphere 12 to 19 miles over the Earth’s surface (Molina and Rowland 1974). The ozone layer absorbs and filters out a large percentage of ultraviolent (UV) radiation emitted by the sun. The scientists found that once emitted, CFCs could remain in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years. Eventually, these CFC molecules drift into the stratosphere; they’re then broken down by ultraviolent radiation from the sun, which causes the release of chlorine. This process could trigger a chain reaction, causing ozone molecules to break apart and resulting in widespread damage to the ozone layer. Scientists warned that such a chain of events would have far-reaching effects on human heath, including an increased risk of skin cancer and cataracts. Moreover, greater penetration by UV rays would cause damage to such crops as soybeans and peas, as well as causing decreases in plankton and krill sufficient to dramatically alter the ocean’s ecosystem. Most concerning to scientists was the fact that the use of aerosols containing CFCs had increased drastically in the previous decade, suggesting the worst damage to the ozone layer was yet to occur. Subsequently, in 1985, three scientists published a paper in the scientific journal Nature that provided evidence of an ozone hole above Antarctica that appeared each fall (Farman, Gardiner, and Shanklin 1985). Moreover, the scientists estimated that the volume of the ozone layer was declining by 4 percent each decade. This dramatic development triggered a robust policy response from the United States and eventually the wider international community. This response to ozone depletion occurred in two stages. The first period of debate occurred from 1974 to 1977, and resulted in the EPA’s 1977 announcement that it would put forth regulations to ban all nonessential aerosols containing CFCs. In addition, in 1977 Congress amended the Clean Air Act to grant the EPA greater power to regulate any other compounds that could “reasonably be anticipated to affect the stratosphere” (Grundmann 2001, 116–117).

259

260

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

These regulatory developments prompted major CFC producers like DuPont, which had initially been opponents of the aerosol ban, to begin development of alternative substances that did not harm the ozone layer (Maxwell and Briscoe 1997). Overall, this period of policy debate was dominated by bipartisan support for a CFC ban, and by deference to the scientific consensus surrounding both the rate of ozone depletion and the consequences of inaction. The second stage of the ozone debate occurred from 1978 to 1987, as environmental advocates in the United States pushed for stronger domestic regulation of all CFCs—and for the creation of an international treaty that would bind all nations to steep CFC reductions and an eventual complete phaseout. In addition, policy makers began to focus on other substances that deplete the ozone layer. These chemicals included halons, a compound that was widely used in fire extinguishers, as well as methyl bromide, a compound used as an agricultural pesticide. The U.S. government took a leading role in this process, with U.S. ambassadors warning their counterparts abroad of the dangers of the continued production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. In 1985, at the Vienna Conference, participating nations agreed to regulate chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. This was to be a precursor to more strict and detailed regulation of these substances. Negotiations over the details of a comprehensive international agreement continued for several years, as the United States began taking domestic action to restrict these substances. Many European countries, however, were hesitant to act quickly, with emitters like France and the United Kingdom arguing that further scientific study was needed before global regulations could be developed to deal with ozone-depleting substances. In 1987, frustrated with the perceived reluctance of other nations to take action, members of Congress introduced several pieces of legislation that would ban the import of ozone-depleting substances, as well as goods produced with these compounds. Subsequently, in September 1987, during a summit in Montreal, 46 nations agreed to regulate substances that deplete the ozone layer, including CFCs, halons, fully halogenated CFCs, and methyl bromide. The Montreal Protocol called on industrialized counties to freeze CFC production and consumption at 1986 levels, and then achieve a 50 percent cut by 1999. The parties were also required to gradually phase out the use of halons, completely eliminating them by 2010. The parties to the Protocol were to meet every four years to provide progress reports and consider revisions. In addition, the Protocol allowed developing countries to have an extended timetable for phasing out these substances, and these countries were offered economic assistance for developing alternatives. The U.S. Senate unanimously ratified the Protocol in 1989. Following this, the Senate passed to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, committing the United States to a stricter phaseout schedule than required by the Protocol. Eventually, the Protocol achieved universal participation, with every country in the world, as well as the European Union, joining. The Protocol has been amended four times, and has succeeded in banning 97 percent of the human-made chemicals that cause ozone depletion. In 2013, the

O z o ne D epl et i o n

The Party Line In 1987, Republican President Ronald Reagan praised the passage of the Montreal Protocol: I believe the Montreal protocol, negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, is an extremely important environmental agreement. It provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect a vital global resource. It requires countries that are parties to reduce production and consumption of major ozone-depleting chemicals by 50 percent by 1999. . . . For our part, the United States will give the highest priority to analyzing and assessing the latest research findings to assure that the review process moves expeditiously.

In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama supported amending the Montreal Protocol to address climate change: For several years, the United States has worked tirelessly to find a global solution to phasing down the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). This super polluting greenhouse gas, used in air conditioners and refrigeration, can be hundreds to thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide, and represents a rapidly growing threat to the health of our planet. . . . Through the Montreal Protocol, a proven forum for solving environmental challenges like protecting the ozone layer, the world community has agreed to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. . . . It shows that we can take action to protect our planet in a way that helps all countries improve the lives and livelihoods of their citizens.

Sources Obama, Barack. 2016. “Statement by the President on the Montreal Protocol,” October 15. The White House Office of the Press Secretary. Press Release. Accessed November 15, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/10/15/statement-president-montreal -protocol. Reagan, Ronald. 1988. “Statement on Signing the Montreal Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances,” April 5. The American Presidency Project. Accessed November 15, 2016. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35639.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) estimated that due to the long life of CFC molecules in the atmosphere, the benefits of the CFC ban would not be fully realized until 2025, when the rate of ozone depletion begins to slow down significantly. Scientists expect that the ozone hole over the South Pole will cease to exist by 2070 (Ghose 2013). Democrats on Ozone Depletion

Much of the initial debate over ozone depletion occurred during the tenure of Democratic president Jimmy Carter, who came into office committed to environmental

261

262

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

protection. With Democrats in control of Congress and Republicans sharing concerns about the dire consequences of ozone depletion, the Carter administration was able to move quickly in response to scientific developments. Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D-ME) and Representative Paul G. Rogers (D-FL) led the congressional effort to amend the Clean Air Act, championing legislation that provided the EPA with the authority to ban all nonessential aerosols containing CFCs. In 1977, upon the signing of the Clean Air Act Amendments, Carter praised the legislation, arguing that it would strongly contribute to public health. Although these measures constituted an important first step in protecting the ozone layer, officials recognized that aerosols constituted only half of the U.S. emissions of CFCs, and further measures would be necessary. Meanwhile, the Carter administration also began laying the groundwork for a global agreement to regulate substances harmful to the ozone layer. In April 1977, the EPA hosted a meeting of global scientists aimed at fostering international collaboration on ozone research. Two years later, Carter signed Executive Order 12114, which required federal agencies to issue environmental impact statements for any policies that could “significantly affect the environment of the global commons outside the jurisdiction of any nation” (Carter 1979). Following this, in 1980, the EPA announced its intention to pursue further domestic controls on substances that damaged the ozone layer. Progress toward an international agreement slowed, however, with the election of Republican president Ronald Reagan in 1980. Although Reagan was disinclined to take any further action to stop ozone depletion, Democrats in Congress remained strong advocates of binding measures, and they eventually helped propel the U.S. toward supporting an international agreement. In June 1986, in the midst of the initial negotiations over the Montreal Protocol, the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution heard testimony from EPA administrator Lee Thomas. Concerned that the Reagan administration was not fully committed to an international effort, eight senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State George Shultz warning that absent an agreement, the U.S. Senate would pursue unilateral measures to reduce the production and consumption of substances harmful to the ozone. Following this, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and John Chafee (R-RI) submitted a bill to mandate an 85 percent cut to the U.S. consumption of CFCs and halons. In the House, Bill Richardson (D-NM) introduced a similar measure. This was followed in 1987 by another proposal from Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Jim Bates (D-CA) mandating steep cuts in U.S. production and consumption of CFCs (Parson 2003, 134). Democratic support for aggressive measures to ban ozone-depleting substances was by no means unanimous, however. John Dingell (D-MI), the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, led a group of legislators who voiced concerns about the impact of the regulations on automakers that utilized CFCs in vehicle air conditioners. Dingell’s objections, however, remained a minority viewpoint in the party (Parson 2003, 134).

O z o ne D epl et i o n

In 1987, Democrats and Republicans alike praised the final version of the Montreal Protocol, and the Senate quickly confirmed the treaty and worked to implement its provisions. Successive Democratic administrations have remained committed to enforcing and expanding the Protocol. In 1992, when Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was running as the Democratic nominee for president, the party’s platform pledged that “the United States must be a world leader in finding replacements for CFCs and other ozone depleting substances” (Democratic Party Platforms 1992). During Clinton’s time in office, the Montreal Protocol was successfully updated three times—in 1993, 1997, and 1999—to further limit production of substances that deplete the ozone layer. During the second decade of the 21st century, the administration of Democratic president Barack Obama joined with other world leaders to warn of a new threat: the widespread commercial use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which had emerged as a replacement for CFCs. HFCs do not harm the ozone layer, but they are a greenhouse gas that can be hundreds of times more potent than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. The Obama administration took a leadership role in promoting modifications to the Montreal Protocol to restrict HFCs. In 2014, the United States and China—another major global emitter of HFCs— agreed to reduce their emissions of HFCs. In October 2016, the parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to add an amendment to the treaty that would cut use of HFCs by 80 percent over the next three decades. As of early 2017, however, this modification to the Protocol had yet to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. Republicans on Ozone Depletion

Following the initial scientific discovery of ozone depletion stemming from the production and emissions of CFCs, congressional Republicans joined Democrats in pushing for a swift and comprehensive policy response. This unity was shortlived, however, and the debate over subsequent domestic and international regulations led to divisions inside the Republican Party. Part of this shift stemmed from the election of Ronald Reagan, the conservative former Republican governor of California, to the White House in 1980. Although the Reagan administration was not overtly hostile to further reductions in ozonedepleting substances, Reagan had won the election by running on a platform that promoted smaller government and less regulation of business. Upon taking office, Reagan issued Executive Order 12291, which required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to examine all environmental regulations before implementation to identity possible negative impacts on the economy. He also cut the budget of the EPA by 12 percent (Shabecoff 1981). Reagan’s initial appointments suggested that environmental issues would not be a priority for his administration. His first EPA administrator, Anne M. Gorsuch, believed that the agency had become too aggressive in protecting the environment, to the detriment of economic development. In line with this, she implemented

263

264

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

steep cuts to EPA staffing and tried to weaken air and water pollution standards and enforcement. Compounding this, the administration, as well as members of Congress, faced pressure from industry groups that opposed any further regulations of ozonedepleting substances. Specifically, DuPont helped form an antiregulation lobbying group called Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy. In addition to lobbying individual members of Congress, the group lodged multiple complaints with the EPA regarding the negative economic impact of the proposed regulations (Maxwell and Briscoe 1997). Opposition also came from U.S. farmers, who opposed any restriction on the use of pesticides made from methyl bromide, a substance also linked to depletion of the ozone layer. Frustrated with the position of the Reagan administration, an environmental advocacy organization called the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit against the EPA in 1984, arguing that its failure to regulate nonaerosol CFCs was in violation of the mandate set out in the Clean Air Act. In response to this increased scrutiny, the Reagan administration tasked both the EPA and NASA with providing a comprehensive scientific assessment of the problem and recommending policy measures. The 1986 discovery of the ozone hole over the South Pole intensified public and congressional concern with the issue, and many Republicans supported international action. In Congress, key Republican advocates of a treaty included John Chafee (R-RI), who served as chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Inside the administration, several of Reagan’s top advisors also emerged as strong advocates of an international agreement and asserted that the United States should take a leadership role. Lee Thomas, who became EPA administrator in 1985, favored a full phaseout of CFCs and other substances, warning that a failure to act would result in an ozone crisis. Similarly, Secretary of State Shultz counseled the president that U.S. leadership was necessary for a successful agreement to be concluded. The heads of other agencies however, expressed reservations about moving forward on an international agreement. Specifically, the heads of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture focused on the possible negative consequences of further regulation, arguing that it could harm the U.S. economy. These interagency struggles became public in 1987, when the news media gained information about a debate that occurred during a meeting of the president’s Domestic Policy Council. During this meeting, Secretary of the Interior Donald P. Hodel argued against any binding global agreement limiting the production of CFCs and halogens. Instead, he favored a “public awareness campaign” where the government simply warned citizens about the dangers of exposure UV rays and urged people to wear hats and sunglasses to protect themselves from

O z o ne D epl et i o n

skin cancer (Gillette 1987). Public reaction to Hodel’s remarks were overwhelming negative. Several environmental groups called on Hodel to resign, and the Reagan administration disavowed his statements. Ultimately, two factors convinced Reagan to fully endorse the Protocol. The first was the strong public and congressional support for the proposal, especially the groundswell of public condemnation that occurred after Hodel’s statements. The second was a report from the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, which estimated that U.S. participation in the treaty would prevent millions of cases of skin cancer. The reports estimated that these health benefits would far outweigh the costs of implementation, estimated at $21 billion (Sunstein 2008, 10568). When the treaty eventually entered into force on January 1, 1989, Reagan hailed it as a “magnificent achievement” (Shultz 2015). Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, also supported efforts to protect the ozone layer. In 1992, when scientists discovered that the ozone layer over the Northern Hemisphere had begun to thin, Bush reacted swiftly, supporting legislation that would require U.S. industries to cease production of all chemicals that deplete the ozone layer by 1995 (Lemonick 1992). Following the Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections, divisions in the party over the ozone issue began to emerge. In 1995, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, chaired by Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), held hearings on whether or not the decision to accelerate the ban on CFCs was politically motivated. During the hearing, several Republican representatives questioned the legitimacy of scientific research on the issue (Brown 1997, 12–16). Other Republicans, such as George W. Bush, continued to support the international efforts. In 2007, Bush, along with other world leaders, supported a revision to the Montreal Protocol that accelerated the global phaseout of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), an ozone-depleting compound used in refrigerants and air conditioners. Top Republicans have so far declined to take a position on the 2016 proposal to amend the Montreal protocol to ban substances that contribute to climate change. Kelly McHugh Further Reading Brown, George E., Jr. 1997. “Environmental Science under Siege in the U.S. Congress.” Environment 39 (2): 12–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139159709604359. Carter, Jimmy. 1979. “Executive Order 12114—Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,” January 4. The American Presidency Project. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=31623. Democratic Party Platforms. 1992. “1992 Democratic Party Platform,” July 13. The American Presidency Project. Accessed October 30, 2016. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/?pid=29610. DiPeso, Jim. 2009. “Few Americans Are Ever Likely to See George W. Bush’s Greatest Environmental Legacy.” Grist.org, January 17. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://grist .org/article/republican/.

265

266

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Doniger, David. 2016. “Countries Adopt Kigali Amendment to Phase Down HFCs.” NRDC (blog), October 14. Accessed November 14, 2016. https://www.nrdc.org/experts /david-doniger/countries-adopt-kigali-amendment-phase-down-hfcs. Farman, J. C., B. G. Gardiner, and J. D. Shanklin. 1985. “Large Losses of Total Ozone in Antarctica Reveal Seasonal ClOx/NOx Interaction.” Nature 315: 207–210. Ghose, Tia. 2013. “Ozone Hole Won’t Heal Until 2070, NASA Finds.” Livescience, December 12. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://www.livescience.com/41899-ozone -hole-wont-heal-until-2070.html. Gillette, Robert. 1987. “Suggests Wearing Hats, Sunscreen Instead of Saving Ozone Layer: Hodel Proposal Irks Environmentalists.” Los Angeles Times, May 30. Accessed November 8, 2016. http://articles.latimes.com/1987-05-30/news/mn-3572_1_ozone-layer. Grundmann, R. 2001. Transnational Environmental Policy: Reconstructing Ozone. London: Routledge. Lemonick, Michael D. 1992. “The Ozone Vanishes and Not Just over the South Pole.” Time, February 17. Accessed November 8, 2016. http://content.time.com/time /subscriber/article/0,33009,974884-1,00.html. Maxwell, James, and Forest Briscoe. 1997. “There’s Money in the Air: The CFC and DuPont’s Regulatory Strategy.” Business Strategy and the Environment 6 (5): 276–286. Molina, M. J., and F. S. Rowland. 1974. “Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethane: Chlorine Atom-Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone.” Nature 249: 810–812. Parson, Edward A. 2003. Protecting the Ozone Layer: Science and Strategy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Shabecoff, Philip. 1981. “Reagan Order on Cost-Benefit Analysis Stirs Economic and Political Debate.” New York Times, November 7. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://www .nytimes.com/1981/11/07/us/reagan-order-on-cost-benefit-analysis-stirs-economic -and-political-debate.html?pagewanted=all. Shimberg, Steven J. 1991. “Stratospheric Ozone and Climate Protection: Domestic Legislation and the International Process.” Environmental Law 21 (4): 2175–2216. Shultz, George. 2015. “A Reagan Approach to Climate Change.” Washington Post, March 13. Accessed November 10, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reagan -model-on-climate-change/2015/03/13/4f4182e2-c6a8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816 _story.html?utm_term=.af540697d099. Sunstein, Cass R. 2008. “Of Montreal and Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols.” Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review 38: 10566–10581. https://law.vanderbilt.edu/files /archive/Sunstein-2008.pdf. U.S. Senate. 1992. “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 102nd Congress—2nd Session.” Accessed November 8, 2016. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote _cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=2&vote=00019.

Pesticides

At a Glance

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a pesticide as “any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. . . .” For decades, Congress and the EPA have been tasked with regulating pesticide use in the United States. But Democrats and Republicans in Congress hold different views on the efficacy and impact of federal pesticide, insecticide, and herbicide regulations. Democrats tend to focus on the risks to public health and to the environment, and they prefer a robust EPA empowered to carefully regulate those chemicals. Republicans tend to stress their beliefs in the negative economic consequences of overregulation, the failed policies of the EPA, the country’s agricultural reliance on pesticides and herbicides, and the safety of these products. Historically, neither party has provided explicit language pertaining to pesticide use in their official platforms. However, the 2016 Republican Party platform dedicates considerable time to evaluating the connections between agriculture and the economy, while the 2016 Democratic Party platform elaborates on the need to protect the environment, citizen health, and more. Both parties find themselves working in an increasingly polarized environment in Washington, DC, further adding to disagreements about how to properly regulate pesticides and other chemicals. What is more, advocacy groups and critics of the two parties claim that excessive influence from corporate interests and the pesticide industry is affecting the decision making of both parties, and that both major parties have failed the public interest by ignoring the risks of pesticide use. This extends not only to concerns about pesticides, but also to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the concentration of the agriculture industry into the hands of a small number of multinational corporations, such as Monsanto. Agricultural groups, representing many of America’s farmers and ranchers, by comparison, see pesticides and herbicides as valuable tools in the production of food crops and other resources.

268

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Many Republicans . . .

• Believe the federal government—specifically, the EPA—impedes agricultural and economic prosperity by overregulating farmers, ranchers, and local and state governments • Believe regulation of pesticides should be the responsibility of the states • Believe lawfully administered pesticides are safe, effective, and necessary resources for American farming Many Democrats . . .

• Believe the federal government plays a fundamental role in maintaining and enforcing national guidelines for the safe use of pesticides • Believe concerns for public safety and the environment necessitate the existence of an active and responsible EPA, with the authority to regulate herbicides, insecticides, and other pesticides. • Believe there remains uncertainty about the safety of some pesticides being used commercially in the United States

Overview

Pesticides are substances or organisms used by people, organizations, and societies to control or destroy pests. Pesticides can be categorized in terms of the pest they are intended to address. Insecticides address insects, herbicides kill weeds, fungicides destroy fungus, and so on (EPA 2016b). Thus, herbicides and insecticides are types of pesticides. Chemical pesticides include organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and sulfonylureas. Naturally-based biopesticides include a range of microbial, biochemical, and plant-incorporated products (Hsaio 2015). Humanity has used pesticides for thousands of years, but in the past 125 years, especially post–World War II, pesticide use has surged. For example, in the 1940s, DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was used in American homes, by the military, and in agriculture for everything from disease control (e.g., malaria and typhus) to insect management. In the 1950s, however, the downside of DDT became apparent. In 1972, in response to damning evidence of the detrimental impact of DDT on the environment, its toxic effect on the human body, and indications of increasing insect resistance to the chemical, the use of DDT was banned in the United States. The history of DDT is but one example, although perhaps the most well-known, of the fine balancing act the United States entered into regarding pesticides by the mid-20th century. Today, pesticide use is a matter of weighing costs against benefits. The benefits of pesticide use are many. The control of pests eases the mass production of foods, to potentially feed the world. National security and economic prosperity also demand a level of national food production to alleviate reliance on

P es t ici d es

imported crops. Advocates of pesticides, including experts in a variety of fields, point to a number of specific benefits. For example, a 2009 report funded by the Crop Protection Research Institute, entitled “The Value of Insecticides in U.S. Crop Production,” assessed benefits across 50 different types of crops. The researchers estimated that without insecticide protection, 31 of the 50 crops they studied would experience significant production losses of between 40 and 70 percent. Decades-long use of insecticides by large numbers of U.S. farmers has resulted in an increase of nearly 150 billion pounds of “food, feed, and fiber” (Gianessi 2009). American consumers have become accustomed to low-cost, year-round, attractive, and tasty fruits, vegetables, and grains. Supporters of pesticides point to these expectations and warn that excessive regulations from state and federal governments can jeopardize this consumer-friendly state of affairs. However, pesticide use in the United States has attracted an ample number of critics as well, including environmental and public health scientists and consumer advocates, who warn about a number of adverse effects. Concerns about pesticides revolve around dangers related to their impact on the environment and their toxic effect on the human body. By definition, pesticides interfere with the biological processes of their targets—for example, weeds and insects. Critics of chemical pesticides worry about that impact extending beyond those targets and adversely impacting humans and wildlife. In 2010, a President’s Cancer Panel advised President Barack Obama of the following: “The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties” (Weeks 2015). Pesticides also disrupt the environment and waterways. Studies have shown pesticides to be harmful to ecosystems, to populations of animals and insects, and to water reservoirs and drinking water. For instance, there has been much attention by the press to the declining honey bee population. In 2012, The Guardian newspaper reported on research indicating “bees consuming one pesticide suffered an 85% loss in the number of queens their nest produced” (Carrington 2012). The controversy surrounding the production and labeling of GMOs is intimately tied to the national conversation on pesticide use. The World Health Organization defines GMOs as organisms “in which the genetic material is altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination” (WHO 2014). Initially, it was suspected that the production of GMOs would increase the necessity of pesticides. But recent studies have provided mixed evidence, indicating that the use of GMOs may actually reduce the reliance on pesticides. Indeed, GMO technology can modify the genetic makeup of a crop to to make it more resistant to particular pests, thereby reducing the need for pesticides. Some advocates of GMO technology even speculate that researchers could alter the genetic makeup of a plant so that it thrives more abundantly and efficiently with particular pesticides. The political firestorm over GMO use is reflected in scientific studies and growing public awareness and concern about GMOs. President Obama faced criticism

269

270

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

from GMO opponents for working closely with Monsanto, the world’s most visible producer of GMOs, and other large corporations and agribusinesses. For example, in 2016 anti-GMO journalist Jonathan Greenberg charged that the Obama administration was too willing to accept opaque food labeling guidelines and follow the “Monsanto Doctrine,” which Greenberg described as “the right of agrochemical corporations to spray unlimited quantities of industrial poisons regardless of any local law passed to protect human or environmental safety.” Greenberg further points out that, “If it is upheld by the federal Appeals Court, then local governments around the country will be rendered powerless to protect its citizens’ basic civil right to health and safety” (Greenberg 2016). The government’s perceived lax attitude about GMOs alarms a small but growing number of individuals and groups. This includes organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Consumers Union, and Friends of the Earth. Growing public concern is reflected in the marketplace as well, with companies like Whole Foods planning, in the future, to label all GMO products. On the other hand, Jayson Lusk, author of The Food Police, points to this statement by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academies: “Many U.S. farmers who grow genetically engineered crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits, such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields” (Lusk 2013, 104). Other observers also insist that the red flags raised over GMOs are unjustified in the face of an abundance of scientific evidence indicating that GMOs are safe (Saletan 2015). These competing concerns dominate the public policy process that creates the laws, rules, and regulations guiding the use of pesticides. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to craft all legislation and to shape federal departments and agencies. Significant federal regulation of pesticides began in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), following legislative acts crafted in the U.S. Congress. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938 charged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which at the time was housed in the USDA, with setting tolerance standards for necessary but potentially poisonous substances in food, specifically pesticides. In 1947, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This act charged the USDA with the registration of pesticides (“economic poisons”), as well as the identification and enforcement of appropriate and consistent labeling procedures (Toth 1996). The registration and labeling requirements of this act sought to protect farmers by assuring them access to accurate information regarding the efficacy of the pesticides they purchased and used. Both of these federal acts applied to all pesticides involved in interstate and foreign commerce. Both laws are also still in force today, although they have been amended several times. In 1970, the EPA was established, and the implementation of pesticide regulation shifted from the USDA to that independent regulatory agency. By moving the

P es t ici d es

enforcement of the portions of the FDCA Act relevant to pesticides and the FIFRA Acts to the newly established EPA, Congress explicitly shifted the federal concern regarding pesticides to include, and even prioritize, considerations of the use of pesticides on health and the environment. The EPA was charged solely with the responsibility to protect human health and the environment. In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which amended both the FDCA and the FIFRA. FQPA outlined the standard by which the EPA measures the risk of a pesticide as “a reasonable certainty of no harm.” This law also explicitly designates that the risk be assessed in terms of the cumulative impact of all pesticides on the product and the aggregate risk from exposure to the pesticide from multiple sources—for example, food, water, and more (EPA 2016a). All these laws were crafted in a Congress structured by the two major political parties. For at least the last two decades, however, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have been plagued by debilitating polarization. Partisan polarization occurs when a gap emerges in the policy preferences of Republican and Democrats, often resulting in policy gridlock. Research on the behavior of the modern American Congress has repeatedly shown that voting along party lines occurs at a rate in excess of 90 percent, with very little evidence of bipartisanship or cooperation (Hare et al. 2014). The federal response to the 2016 Zika health crisis illustrates this. The Zika virus is spread primarily through infected mosquitoes, and in 2016 the virus was detected in Florida, leading to much public concern about the presence and transmission of the virus, which can cause severe birth defects. As Congress worked to develop a federal response to the Zika health crisis, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives took issue with Democratic president Obama’s direction to the EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to increase the use of pesticides in specific states and territories in order to inhibit the spread of the Zika virus. Republican lawmakers, perceiving Obama’s response as “too little, too late,” penned a letter to the president urging him to publicly state that “spraying can be accomplished ‘safely and effectively’” (Cama 2016). Legislation introduced by Representative Bob Gibbs (R-OH) would have removed a federal requirement that sprayers receive permission from the EPA to use pesticides near waterways if the sprayers already had state approval. Gibb’s bill, entitled the Zika Vector Control Act (H.R. 897), proposed the removal of what Republicans described as burdensome regulations on local and state entities that were lawfully using pesticides. Consistent with years of heightened party polarization, the vote fell along party lines and passed the House of Representatives, 258–156. Of the 258 votes in favor, 235 came from Republicans, with just 23 Democrats crossing party lines to support the Gibbs bill. By contrast, all 156 “nay” votes came from Democrats. (The bill was later blocked by Democrats in the U.S. Senate, and the White House had warned that President Obama would veto the legislation if it reached his desk.) In addition to evaluating the consequences of party polarization, one should also weigh the influence of federalism and the various levels of government at play in the policy process. Local, state, and federal guidelines often

271

272

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

work in tandem to establish rules and regulations for the lawful use of a variety of chemicals and pesticides tailored to the needs of a given locality, state, or region. And while polarization in Congress often leads to homogeneity in voting, varying local and state political pressure may cause elected partisans to deviate from their party’s dominant position. Republicans on Pesticides

Every four years, as the two major parties prepare to formally nominate their candidates for president, the national parties also reevaluate and update their official party platforms. The Republican Party platform is updated by a four-person Platform Committee, based on input from national Republican leaders and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Neither party’s official 2016 platform explicitly detailed the use of pesticides, but they did address several related matters. The 2016 GOP platform situated the modern Republican Party as the one that “speak[s] for the people of agriculture, energy, and mineral production” (Republican Party Platforms 2016). With an emphasis on the nation’s economy and free markets, the party’s platform noted that the United States is the world’s largest exporter of agricultural products, and that these products drive the American economy. The Republican Party is committed to global economic competitiveness, and to opening new markets around the world for American agriculture. In this vein, the 2016 Republican Party platform criticized the “regulatory impulse” of federal agencies in general and the Democratic Party in particular, and called for a reduction in federal regulations, mandates, and other “interference” to agricultural prosperity and economic growth. The 2016 Republican Party platform also emphasized the devolution of power from the federal government, placing more authority in the hands of the state governments. “Like the rest of the economy, agriculture has suffered through eight years of the Democrats’ regulatory juggernaut, particularly from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),” the party’s 2016 platform proclaimed. “States, not Washington bureaucrats, are best equipped to engage farmers and ranchers to develop sound farm oversight policies.” Unlike Democrats, who frequently defend the EPA, Republicans often fault the EPA for producing misguided, politically motivated, or unnecessary regulations. The 2016 Republican Party platform even called for the transformation of the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission. Republican leadership has echoed its party platform on the EPA for some time. The top Republican in the U.S. Senate during the Obama years, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), frequently pushed back on Obama administration and Democratic Party regulatory goals, including new restrictions on coal power plants. Like others in his party, McConnell opposes what he perceives to be EPA overreach and regulations he sees as unnecessary. Republican president Donald Trump signaled opposition to the EPA throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. “For too

P es t ici d es

long,” Trump declared, “the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn.” Many see Trump’s selection of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, a vocal, conservative critic of the EPA, to head the agency as a first step in greatly diminishing the regulatory powers of the EPA (Chiacu 2016). In nominating Pruitt to head the EPA, President Trump remarked, “For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn.” Trump further promised to “reverse this trend” (Flores 2016). Working closely with state governments, Republicans believe farmers and ranchers are already good stewards of the environment and conservationists at heart. They assert that with little government interference, farmers’ tendency is to preserve wildlife and water and air quality, and to limit soil erosion and the use of unnecessary pollutants. Farmers can do this while maximizing their yields and embracing free market principles. Technological advancements in the agriculture sector, including the lawful application of pesticides and GMO products, are likewise embraced by the national Republican Party. In what is described as the generation of “Big Data,” the national platform vows to protect the interests of American farmers and ranchers. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, for example, called in 2016 for “smarter regulations that actually help us grow jobs in this country”; Ryan further claimed that environmental regulations unnecessarily impede ranchers and farmers in the Midwest, leading to less work and productivity (Evich 2016). The 2016 Republican Party platform additionally supported the use of GMOs in U.S. agricultural practices. “We oppose the mandatory labeling of genetically modified food, which has proven to be safe, healthy, and a literal life-saver for millions in the developing world.” In both chambers of the U.S. Congress, Republicans worked to block Democrats’ efforts to label GMO foods. In sum, in regard to both pesticides and GMOs, the inclination of many Republicans and conservatives in Congress is to embrace market principles and the emergence of corporations, with limited government interference. In recent years, there has been, perhaps, no “pest” more visible than the mosquito. In the Zika Vector Control Act (H.R. 897), cited above, Representative Gibbs found additional support from Speaker Ryan for the Republican’s attempt to remove federal restrictions on pesticide use to combat Zika. In a press release, Speaker Ryan declared, “This is serious stuff—we are not talking about annoyances at your summer barbeque. Mosquitoes are the carrier of life-threatening and exotic diseases, among which are the Zika and West Nile Virus. . . . But leave it to the Obama EPA to make a bad situation worse. Onerous new EPA regulations have completely hamstrung mosquito control activities” (Slingsby 2016).

273

274

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Third Parties and Pesticides U.S. politics is dominated by two parties vying for control of the political process. Third parties also influence policy, partly by influencing the policy agenda. The debate surrounding pesticides demonstrates this. Both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party seek to affect the discussion, legislation, and policies addressing pesticides. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for president in 2016, for example, called for a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.

Democrats on Pesticides

Like the Republican Party, every four years, the national Democratic Party platform is reviewed and changed, as necessary, by a 15-member Democratic Platform Committee, an arm of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Although the 2016 Democratic Party platform does not mention pesticides specifically, it does stress the party’s belief that the health of people and the environment can be greatly aided by establishing efficacious pollution standards and regulations and by closing loopholes that industries use to avoid EPA regulations (Democratic Party Platforms 2016). Moreover, the platform states that Democrats “reject the notion that we have to choose between protecting our planet and creating good-paying jobs. We can and will do both.” This assertion is reflected in the Democratic push for effective pesticide regulations that, from the Democrats’ perspective, do not conflict with abundant crops and food production. For most Democrats and liberals, government is expected to actively work on behalf of consumers and focus on public safety. Overall, the Democratic Party seeks to bring together regulatory agencies, industry, and environmental activists to identify and promote practices that protect the environment and health, without diminishing agricultural productivity. The 2016 platform concluded its statement on the environment by noting that “agricultural lands account for nearly half of the total land area in America and our agricultural practices have a significant impact on our water, land, oceans, and the climate. Therefore, we believe that in order to be effective in keeping our air and water clean and combatting climate change, we must enlist farmers as partners in promoting conservation and stewardship.” Democrats see the EPA as essential to the process of protecting the environment, consumers, and farmers. In 2014, U.S. Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), along with 70 other Democratic members of the House, sought to strengthen the EPA’s efforts to protect farmworkers and others. They called for stronger EPA regulations “to promote the health of rural communities and those who harvest the food for our constituents’ tables,” and they explicitly asserted that “strong protections from pesticide exposure are urgently needed” (Cama 2014). These Democrats explicitly

P es t ici d es

asked the EPA to strengthen and make more specific pesticide regulations, especially those regulations protecting farmworkers and children. The Democratic support of effective and necessary pesticide regulation was evident in the policies promulgated by the Obama administration. Obama received high marks from environmental advocates in 2015 when the White House unveiled a multifaceted plan to address the declining numbers of honey bees in the United States. “The problem is serious and requires immediate attention,” Obama wrote. This concern reflects the overall Democratic Party’s commitment to monitoring and controlling the impact of pesticides. Many scientists praised Obama’s expressions of concern over the declining honey bee and monarch butterfly populations. “I don’t think a President has made any kind of statement or proclamation about an insect before . . . it really shows how far we have come as a society” said Sam Droege, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Other members of the scientific community, however, viewed Obama’s actions as too little too late. Lori Ann Burd of the Center for Biological Diversity disparaged Obama’s approach to regulating pesticides; she found them to be inadequate, given the multitude of studies revealing pesticides to be the major cause of pollinator declines (Arnold 2015). While partisan loyalties may explain the concerns about and opposition to pesticide use among many elected Democrats, at times the state and local needs of elected officials may supersede partisanship. For instance, in 2011, a bipartisan group of governors from western states sent a letter to Democratic and Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate, requesting clarification on the role of the EPA in relation to FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, referenced earlier). In the wake of a ruling by a federal court of appeals on the interplay among the EPA, state regulatory agencies, and federal acts regulating pollutants and clean water, John Hickenlooper, the Democratic governor of Colorado and a coauthor of the letter, pointed to the strain on state agencies as the EPA began to expand the number of state level applications and permits required for the application of certain pesticides near waterways. In this letter, Hickenlooper and five other governors argued that the “new permitting requirement imposed on state agencies will have negative public health, environmental, and economic consequences” (Hickenlooper et al. 2011). GMOs might be one path to reconciling the drive for increased crop productivity and concerns about pesticide use, a reconciliation that many Democrats actively seek. By tailoring the genetic makeup of some plants to be pest-resistant, GMO technology may diminish agricultural reliance on pesticides. Many Democrats do, in fact, support GMOs. Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee for president, signaled her support for GMOs as early as 2014, when she remarked at a Biotechnology Industry Organization convention that “genetically modified sounds ‘Frankensteinish’—drought resistant sounds really like something you want” (Lim 2016).

275

276

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Americans Express Concerns about Pesticide Safety Public opinion polling reveals concern about pesticide safety among U.S. adults, but as the data from this 2015 Pew Research Center poll indicates, Republicans are less concerned than Democrats about the health and environmental dangers of pesticides. % Safe U.S. Adults Republicans Democrats Conservatives Moderates Liberals

28 39 23 31 27 25

% Unsafe 69 59 75 66 71 71

% Don’t Know 3 3 2 3 2 4

Source Pew Research Center. 2015. “Views About Safety of Eating Foods Grown with Pesticides by Party, Ideology.” Accessed December 28, 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01 /americans-politics-and-science-issues/pi_2015-07-01_science-and-politics_6-15/.

Public opinion polls indicate that among the general public, however, Democrats overall are more likely than Republicans to worry about the health repercussions of GMOs. An ABC News poll revealed that while Republicans were equally likely to conclude that GMOs are safe or unsafe, Democrats tend to conclude that GMOs are unsafe by a margin of 26 points (Langer 2016). Correspondingly, Democrats in Congress are more likely to push for mandatory labeling of GMOs. In 2016, Democrats defeated a Republican effort to prohibit state GMO labeling requirements. The bill, sponsored by Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) and supported by many Republicans, sought to ban mandatory labeling of GMOs. The Democratic defeat of this proposal signals the Democratic support for regulations and labeling. Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) denounced the voluntary labeling provisions promoted in the proposed law: “If you think this is giving the consumer the right to know what’s in their food, you’re wrong. This is a game” (Kollipara 2016). In regard to one of the most recent controversies surrounding pesticides, Republicans and Democrats alike supported the spraying for mosquitoes in areas where the Zika virus posed a threat. However, while Republicans used the Zika crisis to argue for reduced restrictions on the use of pesticides, Democrats argued that current regulations were not an obstacle in the fight against Zika. Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), for example, argued that the Clean Water Act, which Republicans criticized as obstructing the fight on Zika, “in no way hinders, delays, or prevents the use of approved pesticides for pest control operations.” House Minority Leader

P es t ici d es

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) went further, calling the Republican-led move “dishonest.” Pelosi’s spokesperson explained, “This bill has nothing to do with Zika and everything to do with Republicans’ relentless special interest attacks on the Clean Water Act. It will do nothing to stem the growing threat of the Zika virus” (Cama 2016). Democrats also strongly opposed President Trump’s appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, fearing that Pruitt will cut back on necessary regulations and turn the EPA into a “toothless tiger.” Jeremy Symons, an opinion writer for The Hill, made a case for why Pruitt was the wrong choice to head the EPA, noting that Pruitt had frequently attacked and brought suit against the EPA when he was Oklahoma’s attorney general and arguing that Pruitt was not qualified for the job because he lacked “scientific, health, or regulatory experience” and was too friendly with “corporate polluters.” Symons also quoted Christie Todd Whitman, EPA administrator under George W. Bush, who warned that Pruitt is “disdainful of the agency and the science behind what the agency does” (Symons 2017). Phillip Hardy and Mary Barbara Walsh Further Reading Arnold, Carrie. 2015. “Obama Unveils Plan to Reverse Alarming Decline of Honeybees.” National Geographic, May 19. Accessed December 28, 2016. http://news.national​ geographic.com/2015/05/150519-pollinators-health-honeybees-obama-animals-science/. Cama, Timothy. 2014. “House Dems Want More Farmworker Protections.” The Hill, August 18. Accessed December 28, 2016. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/215430 -house-dems-want-more-farm-worker-protections. Cama, Timothy. 2015. “GOP Blasts Obama on Using Pesticides for Zika.” The Hill, July 11. Accessed December 27, 2016. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/287260 -republicans-blast-obama-on-pesticides-for-zika. Cama, Timothy. 2016. “GOP Repurposes EPA Pesticide Bill for Zika.” The Hill, May 17. Accessed on December 28, 2016. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/280147 -gop-repurposes-epa-pesticide-bill-for-zika. Carrington, Damian. 2012. “Pesticides Linked to Honeybee Decline.” The Guardian, March 29. Accessed January 7, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/29 /crop-pesticides-honeybee-decline. Chiacu, Doina. 2016. “Trump to Nominate Pruitt to Lead U.S. Environmental Agency: Statement.” Reuters, December 8. Accessed July 16, 2017. http://www.reuters.com /article/us-usa-trump-epa-idUSKBN13X15S. Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform,” July 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016a. “Summary of the Food Quality Protection Act.” Accessed December 18, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary -food-quality-protection-act. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016b. “What Are Pesticides and How Do They Work?” Accessed December 18, 2016. http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/pesticides/pestwhatrhow .htm.

277

278

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Evich, Helena Bottemiller. 2016. “Ryan Cites Ranchers, Farmers in Pledge to Beat Back Regulations.” Politico, December 5. Accessed December 27, 2016. http://www.politico .com/tipsheets/morning-agriculture/2016/12/ryan-cites-ranchers-farmers-in-pledge -to-beat-back-regulations-217703. Evich, Helena Bottemiller, and Catherine Boudreau. 2016. “GMO Labeling Bill Divides, Torments Democrats.” Politico, March 4. Accessed on December 28, 2016. http://www .politico.com/story/2016/03/gmo-bill-highlights-division-among-democrats-220250. Flores, Reena. 2015. “Donald trump names Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt to lead EPA.” CBS News, December 7. Accessed on July 28, 2017. http://www.cbsnews.com/news /donald-trump-scott-pruitt-epa-administrator/ Gianessi, Leonard. 2009. “The Value of Insecticides in U.S. Crop Production.” CropLife Foundation. Accessed December 19, 2016. https://croplifefoundation.files.wordpress .com/2012/07/insecticide-benefits-execsum.pdf. Greenberg, Jonathan. 2016. “Will the New Monsanto Doctrine Hijack Democracy in Epic Hawaii GMO Ruling?” Huffpost The Blog, June 15. Last Updated June 15, 2017. Accessed on May 3, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenberg/will -the-new-monsanto-doc_b_10452008.html. Hare, Christopher, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2014. “Polarization in Congress Has Risen Sharply. Where Is It Going Next?” Washington Post, February 13. Accessed on May 3, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage /wp/2014/02/13/polarization-in-congress-has-risen-sharply-where-is-it-going-next /?utm_term=.516d768a0bd7. Hickenlooper, John, et al. 2011. “Letter to the U.S. Senate.” Accessed on December 28, 2016. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/gov%20hickenloopers%20 position%20on%20pesticide%20reg.pdf. Hsaio, Jennifer. 2015. “GMO and Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful?” Science in the News Special Edition: Signal to Noise—GMOs and Our Food, August 10. Accessed December 18, 2016. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/. Kollipara, Puneet. 2016. “Opposition Stalls U.S. Senate Bill Aimed at Blocking GMO Food Labels.” Science, March 17. Accessed on December 28, 2016. http://www.sciencemag .org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo-food-labeling-bill-us-senate. Langer, Gary, 2016. “Poll: Skepticism of Genetically Modified Foods.” ABC News, June 19. Accessed on December 28, 2016. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id =97567&page=1. Lim, XiaoZhi. 2016. “Video: Hillary Clinton Endorses GMOs, Solution-Focused Crop Biotechnology.” Genetic Literacy Project, July 29. Accessed on December 28, 2016. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/29/video-hillary-clinton-endorses -gmos-solution-focused-crop-biotechnology/. Lusk, Jayson. 2013. The Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto about the Politics of Your Plate. New York: Crown Forum. Pew Research Center. 2015. “Views about Safety of Eating Foods Grown with Pesticides by Party, Ideology.” Accessed December 28, 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01 /americans-politics-and-science-issues/pi_2015-07-01_science-and-politics_6-15/. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform,” July 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117718. Saletan, William. 2015. “Unhealthy Fixation.” Slate, July 15. Accessed July 28, 2017. http:// www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the _case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html.

P es t ici d es

Slingsby, Julia. 2016. “Mosquitoes Carrying Zika Must Be Killed.” Office of the Speaker of the House: Speaker Paul Ryan, May 24. Accessed December 18, 2016. http://www .speaker.gov/general/mosquitoes-carrying-zika-must-be-killed. Symons, Jeremy. 2017. “The Growing Case against Scott Pruitt’s Nomination to Lead EPA.” The Hill, February 1. Accessed May 5, 2017. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog /energy-environment/317400-scott-pruitt-cannot-be-trusted-to-lead-the-epa. Toth, Stephen. 1996. “Federal Pesticide Laws and Regulations.” Accessed December 18, 2016. https://zoltanpdesign.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/fifra_laws.pdf. Weeks, Jennifer. 2015. “Pesticide Controversies.” CQ Researcher 25 (21): 481–504. Accessed December 18, 2016. http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2015060500. World Health Organization. 2014. “Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Food.” Accessed July 28, 2017. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food -technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/. Yerman, Marcia. 2015. “Interview with Jill Stein—Green Party Candidate for President.” HuffPost The Blog, July 15. Updated July 14, 2016. Accessed December 27, 2016. http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-g-yerman/interview-with-jill-stein_b_7795526 .html.

279

Public Lands

At a Glance

The way the national government manages public lands is highly controversial. Politicians on both the right and the left have very different approaches to how public lands should be managed. On the right, the argument is that the national government has demonstrated that it is unable to operate public lands efficiently or wisely. Conservatives argue for three basic changes: • Privatization, in which the federal government transfers public lands to private ownership by selling or transferring lands to individuals, businesses, or nonprofit conservation groups. • The transfer of ownership of federal land to state governments, which would allow the states to manage the parks, grazing lands, and other resources within their borders. • The transfer of federal lands to fiduciary trust organizations. The national government would maintain ownership of the land, but trust managers would be given specific instructions to lease the land for industrial uses, with the stipulation that businesses would protect the environment and protect the recreational capabilities of the land over time (Edwards and O’Toole 2012). Many Republicans argue that if the land is taken out of the hands of the federal government, control will be decentralized in ways that will improve economic efficiency and accountability, strengthen environmental stewardship, and help reduce the deficit of the national budget. On the left, the argument is that all lands should remain under federal supervision. Many Democrats assert the following: • That the national government is the only level of government that has the resources and the will to support the recreational and conservational components of public land and still regulate commercial use responsibly. The opinion is that individual states do not have the economic resources or personnel to effectively manage federal public lands in their jurisdiction. The financial burden of building public roads and maintaining trails and

P ub lic L a nd s

Party Committees Stake Out Divergent Positions on Privatization of Public Land The Republican National Committee has taken a very strong stand in favor of privatization of public lands. In 2016, the official GOP platform stated that “Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership. Timber is a renewable natural resource, which provides jobs to thousands of Americans. All efforts should be made to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting. The enduring truth is that people best protect what they own.” The Democratic Party has taken a much different stance. In 2012, for example, the Democratic National Committee advocated (1) expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy with a larger budget and authority to make sure that public land patrons are not misusing federal lands; (2) limiting permits (to 3 years rather than 10 years) to assure that commercial users are not exploiting existing federal public land; (3) expanding permits for renewable resources such as solar and wind power, while reducing those for fossil fuels; (4) continuing to expand federal land holdings; and (5) charging competitive fees for permits and using the additional money to finance land management. “We will ensure that our National Parks are protected while expanding opportunities for Americans to visit and experience these national treasures,” declared the DNC. “Democrats will continue working to ensure the integrity of the waters Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming, and fishing, by supporting initiatives that restore our rivers, oceans, and watersheds. We will preserve ecosystems and open more lands and waters for hunting, fishing, and recreation. This will bolster local economies and is good for communities today and for generations to come.” Sources Democratic National Committee. 2012. Democratic National Committee and Obama for America Announce 2012 Convention Platform Committee, July 12. Accessed August 1, 2017. http://www.p2012.org/chrnconv/dnc071212pr.html. Republican National Committee. 2016. Republican Platform 2016, July 18. Accessed August 1, 2017. https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/.

campsites that are now on federal controlled land would be too much for states in the West to handle. • That privatization is a potential threat to the freedom to hunt, fish, and hike on public lands. The contention is that if the land is sold to private individuals and corporations, it will no longer be available to the general public. • That state governments are more likely to be influenced by business interests than by environmental and public interests. • That the national government should charge more for the commercial use of public lands—for example, increasing grazing fees on public lands, charging royalties for hardrock mineral removal from public lands, and

281

282

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

eliminating timber harvesting in the national forests when the government loses money on the sales (Klyza 1996). Both major parties draw their position on the issue from the two approaches described above. Many Democrats . . .

• Consider that public lands are owned by the general public and should thus be used mainly for recreational and conservational purposes, rather than resource extraction • Perceive an obligation to future generations to preserve the land • Believe that when the land is used by ranchers, loggers, drillers, etc., the public is entitled to just compensation • Assert that public land must also be preserved as wildlife habitat to protect species • Call for regular evaluations of the environmental impact of activities on public land • Argue that increased investments in renewables will lessen pressure on the use of public lands for fossil fuel development • Oppose privatizing, selling, or transferring control of America’s public lands Many Republicans . . .

• Prioritize the economy of the West and the role of public lands in protecting the grazing rights of ranchers • Oppose short-term leases on public land use, arguing that such leases are not long enough to secure the loans needed • See resource use on public lands as a way of protecting jobs for the middle class and people of modest means • See deregulation of public lands as a way to reduce bureaucratic red tape • Favor state control of federal lands • Favor privatizing, selling, or transferring control of some of America’s public lands

Overview

Most Americans who spend their lives in urban or suburban areas of the United States never stop to consider that the nation’s population actually lives on only about 2 percent of the land mass of this country. Agriculture constitutes 17 percent of the land used, while forests, rangeland, and deserts make up about 67 percent

P ub lic L a nd s

of the total geography. The federal government owns about 30 percent of the land, most of which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Resource management of public lands is found in all 50 states and is a more critical issue in western states, where federally owned land constitutes as much as 50–80 percent of individual states (Loomis 2002). At the national level, the Department of the Interior oversees the administration of public lands. Management is conducted primarily by three agencies: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Public lands are valued for their minerals, oil and gas, timber, fish, and wildlife, as well as their recreational resources. Public lands have three essential uses: commercial, recreational, and conservational. Balancing these interests leads public policy makers and agency administrators into major controversies, because the three are often at cross-purposes, each with its own interest groups and constituencies. Commercial uses of public lands include mining, logging, oil and gas extraction, grazing, and commercial fishing— activities that are often seen as being at odds with use of the land for recreation and conservation. The history of industrial uses of public lands has often led to a depletion of natural resources and a negative impact on the environment. For example, many environmentalists believe that the practice of fracking (extracting oil and gas from shale rock formations) has led to air and water pollution, earthquakes, and a marred landscape (Loki 2015). The result has been general discontent about how the government can balance economic, commercial, and recreational uses of the land. Policy making with regard to public land was easier in the 19th century, when the major objective of the national government was to colonize the West. Government policy was aimed at encouraging development, so public land was made available for free to private individuals, the states, and corporations. As a result, grazing, mining, and logging went largely unregulated. In later years, those interested in public lands for use as wildlife refuges, as destinations for outdoor recreation, and for resource conservation developed constituencies of their own. This has intensified the conflict over how public land resources are allocated, and it has led the two major political parties to level intense criticism at each other’s philosophy of public land management. The difficult position the government finds itself in is exemplified by a situation in Farmington, New Mexico. During the Obama administration, the BLM proposed new regulations on natural gas and oil extraction to target the methane emissions that are contributing to climate change. The new regulations received strong support from Democratic political leaders and heads of environmental organizations (Graham 2016), but they were criticized by the gas and oil industries and their GOP allies as being extreme, with the potentional for loss of jobs and major devastation to the Farmington economy (Saeger 2016). Nationally, public opinion seems to side with the Democratic position rather than the Republican one. Surveys persistently show that the public strongly supports government conservation of public lands (Kennedy 2016). Protection

283

284

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

of the air, water, and land is seen as a major priority. In fact, there appears to be bipartisan support for the role of government as steward of the land. The public recognizes that much of government land is fragile and needs strong laws to protect it. Not only do most Americans support strong environmental laws, but they also support proposals to set aside additional land for protection. This is especially the case in the West, where public lands are a major source of recreational activity. Public lands are used to hike, fish, ski, hunt, climb, explore, picnic, and observe wildlife. For many people in the West, it takes little more than looking out their windows or walking out their front door to observe the beauty of nature, much of which is on public land (Fielder 2013). Surveys also show that the vast majority of those living in the West see public lands as belonging to all Americans, rather than to the people of individual states (Chaney Missoulian 2015). A majority opposes having state governments assume control—and by extension take on the potential cost of managing public lands. In addition, most approve of the job that national government agencies are doing in their particular state, even though they generally disapprove of the job the federal government is doing (Weigel and Metz 2014). Although the general public supports existing national policy on public lands, people who identify themselves as Democrat or Republican are clearly divided. For example, according to one poll Republicans favor fracking on public lands by a 66-percent to 20-percent margin. In the same poll, the Democrats took the opposite view, with only 26 of Democrats favoring fracking and 54 percent expressing opposition (Swift 2015). The parties also differed when asked about oil drilling on U.S. coastal and wilderness areas that are now off limits to exploration. Republicans favor drilling by an overwhelming 80 percent, while only 39 percent of Democrats support drilling. It seems clear that when people are asked about balancing economic development and environmental protection, there are stark party differences (Newport 2008). This public opinion data suggests that by advocating such conservative policies as privatization and transfer of land to the states, Republicans may be taking a chance of alienating many voters on this issue (Caiazza 2014). Nonetheless, most of the Republicans who campaigned for their party’s presidential nomination in 2016 were outspoken advocates of these policies. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), for example, proclaimed that if he were elected president, he would work with Congress to make sure that the states and tribes, not the national government, had the primary role in overseeing the permits for energy development. This change in policy is seen as enabling the states to open up public lands to developers at the expense of all other constituencies (Gentile and Lee-Ashley 2015). A similar view was expressed by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) in an ad that ran a few days before the Nevada caucuses. In the ad, Cruz criticized the fact that 85 percent of Nevada land is owned by the federal government, and he vowed that, if elected, he would return all federal public land in Nevada to state control (Le 2016).

P ub lic L a nd s

The two major parties are clearly divided on the best way to manage public lands. Although it was not among the top national issues in the presidential campaign of 2016, there is much to suggest that in the future the issue of public lands may make its way onto the national agenda. Public lands are being connected to such nationwide issues as climate change, drought, and renewable energy sources; further, as the supply of fossil fuels continues to decline, recovering what remains will become costlier and have a more detrimental effect on the environment (Yardley 2016). Republicans on Public Lands

Given the Republican Party’s long-standing position on public land management, most of the GOP’s 2016 candidates for president expressed sentiments squarely in line with party orthodoxy. When campaigning in Nevada, for example, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said, “I think it is completely indefensible that the federal government is America’s largest landlord. If I am elected president, we have never had a president who is as vigorously committed to transferring as much federal land as humanly possible back to the states and back to the people” (Barker 2016). Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) espoused a similar view: “The feds are the overseers of too much land. Who can’t agree with that?” Ben Carson agreed with his fellow GOP candidates, stating, “The fact that the government owns 2.4 billion acres of land is ridiculous. What do they need with all that land? I would advocate returning land to the states. It’s not like they’re irresponsible people who don’t care what happens, you know. I just don’t see any benefit from the government owning this much land.” The only candidate who disagreed with the Republican idea of transferring federal land to the states was Donald Trump, who ultimately secured both the GOP nomination and the White House in late 2016. He stated, “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble?” (Barker 2016). It has also been argued that Republican candidates for office tend to support development of public lands because it benefits them politically. Many big-money donors to Republican candidates have an economic interest in opening up more federal land to economic development. Also, this position allows the Republican candidates for president to appeal to the party’s far right, many of whom are more likely to vote in primary elections (Gentile and Lee Ashley 2015). Democrats on Public Lands

The two Democratic candidates for president in 2016 took positions on public land management that were squarely in their party’s mainstream. Hillary Clinton, who ultimately won her party’s nomination, declared that “as America moves

285

286

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

toward ending fossil fuel extraction on public lands, we should start with the most polluting sources, and we should in the meantime ensure that taxpayers are getting a fair deal for current production” (Williams 2016). Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who mounted a formidable challenge to Clinton, declared this: In my view, we must strengthen, not weaken our public lands system. Our public lands are national treasures for future generations. Public lands should be managed for the benefit and enjoyment of all Americans, and not just the oil and gas, mining, and timber companies that have had disproportionate influence in management decisions on federal lands. We can balance natural resource conservation AND appropriate the use of public lands to create jobs and promote economic growth. But to my mind, we must end the sweetheart mining concessions and leasing rate practices that allow these industries to profit at the expense of American taxpayers. We must ban all fossil fuel extraction from public land, and I have co-sponsored important legislation to do just that. The debate over ownership of public lands cannot, and must not affect Native American treaty rights and Tribal Sovereignty. We cannot let the actions of a fringe group of extremists undermine the United States’ historic trust responsibilities to Native peoples. It is time to modernize that trust relationship, by moving away from paternalism and control, and toward deference and support. As president, I pledge to do just that, and I will look to Native American leaders to guide me in that goal. (Astral66 2016)

Joe Gaziano Further Reading Astral66. 2016. “Bernie Draws Line in Nevada Desert: Vows to ‘Ban All Fossil Fuel Extraction from Public Land.’” Daily Kos, February 18. Accessed April 6, 2016. www .dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/18/1487255/-Bernie-Draws-Line-In-Nevada-Desert -Vows-To-Ban-All-Fossil-Fuel-Extraction-From-Public-Land. Barker, Rocky. 2016. “GOP Candidates Divided Over Public Land in Idaho, West.” Idaho Statesman, February 19. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.idahostatesman.com /news/politics-government/election/article61349767.html. Botkin, Ben. 2015. “Cruz Favors Returning Federal Land to States.” Las Vegas ReviewJournal, December 14. Accessed April 10, 2016. https://www.reviewjournal.com /uncategorized/cruz-favors-returning-federal-land-to-states-video/. Caiazza, Tom. 2014. “Bipartisan Poll Finds Western Voters Oppose Transfer of America’s Forests and Public Lands to State Ownership.” Center for American Progress, September 25. Accessed April 10, 2016. https://www.americanprogress.org/press /release/2014/09/25/97816/release-bipartisan-poll-finds-western-voters-oppose -transfer-of-americas-forests-and-public-lands-to-state-ownership/. Chaney Missoulian, Rob. 2015. “Poll Finds Montanans Believe Federal Land Belongs to U.S. Not State.” Montana Standard, February 10. Accessed April 10, 2016. http:// mtstandard.com/news/local/poll-finds-montanans-believe-federal-lands-belong-to-u -s/article_055cf5a6-8716-5b65-87c0-797ed9d45910.html. Edwards, Chris, and Randal O’Toole. 2012. “Reforming Federal Land Management.” DownsizingtheFederalGovernment.org., February 1. Accessed March 17, 2016. http:// www.downsizinggovernment.org/interior/reforming-federal-land-management.

P ub lic L a nd s

Fielder, John. 2013. “Valuing Our Western Public Lands: Safeguarding Our Economy and Way of Life.” National Wildlife Federation. Accessed April 10, 2016. https://www.nwf​ .org/pdf/Tribal-Lands/NWF_PublicLands_Final_HighRes.pdf. Gentile, Nicole, and Matt Lee-Ashley. 2015. “The Dog-Whistle Politics of Seizing and Selling American Lands and Energy Resources in the West.” Center for American Progress Action Fund, October 27. Accessed April 6, 2016. https://cdn.americanprogress.org​ /wp-content/uploads/2015/10/27054523/SellingPublicLands.pdf. Graham, Edward. 2016. “New Methane Rule Has Support in Northern New Mexico.” Durango Herald, February 13. Accessed April 10, 2016. http://m.durangoherald.com​ /article/20160213/NEWS01/160219794/-1/defaultNewsAjax/New-metha. Kennedy, Brian. 2016. “Public Support for Governmental Regulations Varies by States.” Pew Research Center, February 25. Accessed April 10, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org /fact-tank/2016/02/25/public-support-for-environmental-regulations-varies-by-state/. Klyza, Christopher McGrory. 1996. Who Controls Public Lands?: Mining, Forestry, and Grazing Policies, 1870–1990. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Le, Matt. 2016. “Ted Cruz Vows to Sell Off or Give Away Nevada’s Public Lands.” ThinkProgress, February 19. Accessed April 10, 2016. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016 /02/19/3751233/ted-cruz-public-lands-ad/. Loki, Reynard. 2015. “8 Dangerous Side Effects of Fracking That the Industry Doesn’t Want You to Hear About.” Alternet.org, April 28. Accessed April 12, 2016. http:// www.alternet.org/environment/8-dangerous-side-effects-fracking-industry-doesnt -want-you-hear-about. Loomis, John Bl. 2002. Integrated Public Lands Management. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press. Moser, Claire. 2014. “Election Divides GOP on Whether to Seize and Sell America’s Public Lands.” ThinkProgress, November 7. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://thinkprogress.org /climate/2014/11/07/3590195/election-divides-gop-public-lands/. Newport, Frank. 2008. “Majority of Americans Support Drilling in Off-Limits Area.” Gallup, June 19. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108121/Majority -Americans-Support-Drilling-OffLimits-Areas.aspx?g_source=majority%20of%20 americans%20support%20drilling&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles. Richardson, Seth A. 2016. “Presidential Campaigns Address Western Issues at Reno Forum.” Reno Gazette-Journal, February 13. http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13 /presidential-campaigns-address-western-issues-reno-forum/80359042/. Saad, Lydia. 2001. “Americans Generally Dissatisfied with Nation’s Energy Policies.” Gallup, February 1. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/2056/americans -generally-dissatisfied-nations-energy-policies.aspx?g_source=mn1-services. Saeger, Chris. 2916. “Opposition to Stopping Natural Gas Waste on the Wrong Side.” New Mexico Political Report, March 15. Accessed April 10, 2016. http://nmpoliticalreport .com/36087/opposition-to-stopping-natural-gas-waste-on-the-wrong-side/. Stevens, Jan, and Richard Frank. 2009. “Current Policy and Legal Issues Affecting Recreational Use of Public Lands in the American West.” Discussion Paper. Resources for the Future. Accessed March 17, 2016. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/RFF_Report _RFrank.pdf. Swift, Art. 2015. “Americans Split on Support for Fracking in Oil, Natural Gas.” Gallup, March 23. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/182075/americans -split-support-fracking-oil-natural-gas.aspx?g_source=Americans%20Split%20 on%20support%20for%20Fracking&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles.

287

288

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Weigel, Lori, and David Metz. 2014. “Western Voter Attitudes toward Management of Public Lands.” Public Opinion Stategies, September 23. Accessed April 12, 2016. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-Western-Voter -Attitudes-Toward-Management-of-Public-Lands_analysis.pdf. Williams, David O. 2016. “Presidential Front-Runners Trump, Clinton Differ Dramatically on State Control of Public Lands.” Real Vail, March 17. Accessed April 6, 2016. http:// www.realvail.com/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-differ-dramatically-on-public-lands /a2909. Wychoff, J. B. 1977. “Allocation Problems of Public Lands in the West.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 2 (December): 11–20. Accessed June 22, 2017. http://citeseerx .ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=6013F78BB953C64723A3FEC0A6DCD2 E6?doi=10.1.1.513.9295&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Yardley, William. 2015. “Control of Federal Lands Emerges as Issue in the GOP Presidential Race.” Los Angeles Times, October 28. Accessed April 10, 2016. http://www.latimes .com/nation/la-na-sej-public-lands-debate-20151028-story.html.

Solar Energy

At a Glance

Of the two major parties, the Democratic Party demonstrates the strongest support for increasing the use of solar energy in the United States. Those in favor of solar energy argue that solar energy is a renewable energy source that is clean and cost-effective. They also emphasize that renewable energy sources can eventually replace fossil fuels, which Democrats view as contributing to global warming. Furthermore, the Democratic Party argues that by utilizing solar energy more, the country can become more energy-independent and can generate new, high-paying jobs in the energy sector. In light of these perceived benefits, they often support the use of government subsidies to help solar companies with start-up costs. While there is growing support within the Republican Party for employing solar energy, many Republicans continue to oppose the investments in solar energy in favor of traditional fossil fuel energy sources, including oil, gas, and coal. It is their contention that solar energy is still too expensive and that the technology incurs significant costs to taxpayers through subsidies. Some Republicans also argue that increasing solar energy usage will lead to the loss of jobs in the fossil fuel energy sectors and will increase energy bills for consumers. As such, Republicans tend to focus on reducing regulations related to the extraction of oil, gas, and coal, which they frame as keys to job creation and to reduced dependency on foreign sources of oil. Many Democrats . . .

• Believe solar energy is a clean and renewable energy source that decreases Americans’ reliance on fossil fuels • Believe solar energy should be subsidized by the government to offset some of the costs to solar companies • Believe solar energy will create jobs and boost the economy • Believe solar energy needs to be used more extensively to help combat the negative effect of global warming • Believe solar energy is a technology that can increase America’s energy independence

290

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Many Republicans . . .

• Believe solar energy is too costly and leads to increased energy bills for consumers • Believe solar energy should not receive government subsidies to assist with start-up costs for solar companies • Believe solar energy will lead to a loss of jobs among workers employed in fossil fuel energy sectors • Believe solar energy should not be the focus of America’s energy policies when fossil fuels could be extracted and utilized more readily, especially if those activities were less regulated

Overview

While the United States has historically relied more on fossil fuels to supply energy, concerns about the environmental and public health impact of fossil fuels and the country’s reliance on foreign sources of energy have led to an increased interest in renewable and clean energy sources. Solar energy is one such renewable energy source; it derives its energy from the sun and converts this energy into electrical or thermal energy. It is considered a clean energy source that does not pollute the environment in the same manner as such nonrenewable energy sources as oil and gas. Also, installation is easy for consumers, who typically pay a solar company to lease and install solar panels. These consumers often have the option to sell any extra power that the panels generate back to the utility power grid, a practice known as net metering. This ease of installation and the rewards stemming from excess energy generation, combined with its environmental benefits, have made solar power an increasingly popular energy option for Americans. In one Gallup poll (2015), 79 percent of respondents agreed that the United States should place a greater emphasis on developing solar energy over other energy sources. Similarly, a Pew Research Center study (2016) found that 41 percent of Americans surveyed were considering installing solar panels on their homes, and 89 percent favored increasing solar panel farms. In response to this demand, the federal government has passed legislation aimed at expanding the solar energy industry. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was signed into law by Republican president George W. Bush, included a solar investment tax credit for individuals and businesses that invest in solar energy systems, helping to spur the significant growth in the solar energy industry. Meanwhile, the economic stimulus package passed by congressional Democrats and signed by Democratic president Barack Obama in 2009 included major new investment programs for various green energy technologies, including solar energy. Boosted by these federal supports, the usage of solar energy in the United States increased by an estimated 60 percent from the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s (SEIA 2016).

S ol a r E ner g y

This growth has led to a dramatic increase in the number of solar jobs in the United States, with a 123 percent increase from 2010 (Fehrenbacher 2016). By 2016, the number of solar jobs surpassed the number of jobs in oil and natural gas extraction in the country, with an estimated 210,000 workers who are mainly employed as solar panel installers (Hirtenstein 2016). By the mid-2010s, meanwhile, solar companies in the United States employed 77 percent more workers than the domestic coal mining industry (Fehrenbacher 2016). This occurred at the same time as the oil and gas sectors cut over 350,000 jobs worldwide—another indication of the significant changes occurring in international energy usage and investment (Hirtenstein 2016). Many energy industry analysts expect continued growth in the solar sector, as tax credits for investments in solar companies and technologies have been extended a few times, with the most recent extension in 2015 lasting into the next decade. However, as of 2017, a gradual step-down in tax credits will begin in 2020, and after 2022, individuals will no longer receive these credits, even though businesses that invest in solar will still be eligible for a 10 percent tax credit. This growth will also be aided by the U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative, an Obama administration program launched in 2011 that seeks to reduce the cost of solar by 75 percent by 2020 by investing in solar research and improved solar technology. Through these tax credit extensions and other efforts to lower the cost of utilizing solar energy, the Obama administration sought to increase gains made in renewable energy and move the country toward less reliance on fossil fuels. The result is that solar energy has become the second largest source of new electricity generation in the nation (Walsh 2014). The federal government has also invested in solar energy by providing billions of dollars in loans, backed by the Department of Energy, to companies investing in renewable energy sources through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These loans were viewed as essential to launch the solar power industry at a time when companies were having difficulty obtaining loans due to uncertainties about the profitability of solar energy. While this loan program is currently turning a profit, there were, nevertheless, high profile defaults on loans by solar companies—particularly, Abound and Solyndra (Brady 2014). These early failures were setbacks to the development of solar power, and they raised questions from conservatives about subsidizing solar companies. However, as the cost of creating solar energy has declined and more companies that receive loans are remaining solvent, the solar industry and its business and environmental allies argue that continued public and private investment in solar technology and infrastructure will be a sound investment. Individual states are also making efforts to increase the usage of solar energy. As of 2016, 29 states had adopted a renewable portfolio standard and 8 states had adopted a renewable portfolio goal that seeks to increase the usage of renewable energy in the state by a given date (Durkay 2016). At the forefront, California has enacted a renewable portfolio standard that requires 50 percent of the state’s

291

292

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

energy sources to be derived from renewable energy by 2030, with most of this renewable energy coming from solar power. Consequently, California leads the country in solar energy production and has some of the largest solar power plants in the country. However, many states have rules and regulations that make it difficult for individuals to install and utilize solar energy. Ironically, this is true even for the southeastern United States, which is the sunniest part of the nation (Halper 2014). These restrictions are spurred by the utility lobby and the perceived costs to these companies, which they contend will result in a loss of money used to maintain electrical grids. Some of the restrictions that states have imposed include excessive taxes and fees that make the usage of solar power too expensive for many consumers, or the outright denial of lease agreements between consumers and solar companies (Halper 2014). The utility companys’ control over states’ energy sources appears to be weakening, however, as several states have begun to loosen the restrictions placed on the solar industry. For example, then–South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, a Republican, signed legislation in 2014 that allowed citizens and businesses within the state to lease solar equipment; the legislation also provided tax incentives for panel installation and established a modest renewable portfolio standard. Yet efforts to create a binding renewable portfolio standard at the national level have met with considerable resistance from Republicans. In 2007, the Support Renewable Energy Act was introduced in the House of Representatives by Tom Udall (at that time, D-NM). This bill would have established a renewable portfolio standard of 20 percent of the nation’s energy coming from renewable energy sources by 2020. However, this bill died in committee and never made it to a vote because of opposition from Republicans. The issue was taken up again in the next Congress with the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This bill, introduced by Representatives Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) and Edward J. Markey (previously, D-MA), also called for 20 percent of electricity from utility providers to be generated by such renewable resources as solar by 2020. Concerns were raised about whether the United States could meet these standards and whether states would challenge the legislation if it passed (Postelwait 2009). In the end, this legislation barely passed in the Democratic-controlled house with a 219–212 vote. The vote was largely along party lines with only 8 Republicans supporting the legislation and 44 Democrats voting against the bill. The bill was never voted on in the Senate, and consequently, President Obama was able to establish a renewable energy goal of only 20 percent by 2030 (Cama 2015). Democrats on Solar Energy

Democrats tend to laud the usage of renewable sources of energy, particularly solar energy, as these forms of energy are considered clean energy that do not create harmful emissions. It is Democrats’ contention that there needs to be less reliance on traditional “fossil fuel” sources of energy, which release emissions that

S ol a r E ner g y

Hillary Clinton on Solar Power During her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee and former secretary of state, expressed strong support for expanding solar energy usage in the United States. It is the contention of Clinton and other Democrats that solar energy is both better for the environment and also a means to create jobs and improve the economy. In fact, in the first presidential debate Clinton stated, “We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That’s a lot of jobs; that’s a lot of new economic activity” (Blake 2016). She also stated that she wants the United States to be the clean energy superpower of the 21st century and that $60 billion in grants should be awarded “to accelerate the deployment of clean energy,” including solar energy (Hillary for America 2016). It is Clinton’s contention that a shift away from fossil fuels to clean energy sources is necessary, due to the “extraordinary threats that climate change pose to our country and our world” (League of Conservation Voters 2016). Accordingly, Clinton, with the backing of fellow Democrats, desired to continue on the path started by the Obama administration: increasing the usage of clean energy sources and thereby fighting the negative effects of climate change. Sources Blake, Aaron. 2016. “The First Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate Transcript, Annotated.” Washington Post, September 26. Accessed October 19, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcriptannotated/?utm_term=.c8d88b15fc1d. Hillary for America. 2016. “Factsheets: Hillary Clinton’s Plan for Combatting Climate Change and Making America the Clean Energy Superpower of the 21st Century.” The Briefing. Accessed December 3, 2016. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets /2016/10/10/hillary-clintons-plan-for-combatting-climate-change-and-making-americathe-clean-energy-superpower-of-the-21st-century/. League of Conservation Voters. 2016. “In their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change.” Accessed October 29, 2016. http://cmsw.mit.edu/wp/wp-content /uploads/2017/02/LCV-2016-presidential-candidates-on-climate-change.pdf.

contribute to an increase in greenhouse gases responsible for climate change, that require environmentally invasive drilling and mining operations, and that generate higher levels of air and water pollution than green energy sources do. In fact, Hillary Clinton, who made expanding clean energy usage in the United States a key component of her presidential campaign in 2016, stated that “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” a prediction that was met with harsh words by Republicans. GOP opposition to scaling back the usage of fossil fuels is viewed by many members of the Democratic Party as obstructing a key action required to reduce emissions that are harmful to the environment. The Democratic Party’s platform

293

294

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

states that the United States must address the pressing issue of climate change, which is leading to rising sea levels and is threatening the country’s coastal areas. In order to do so, the United States would have to cut emissions levels dramatically, which is why the party’s platform advocates for 50 percent of electricity in the United States being generated by clean energy sources within a decade and for the installation of half a billion solar panels. The Democratic Party also advocates for the federal government being powered exclusively by clean energy. Democrats point to benefits beyond addressing climate change that would result from expanding the solar power industry. Specifically, the expansion of solar power usage has created thousands of jobs, with more growth expected soon. Indeed, the declining cost of installing solar has made solar more appealing and affordable to consumers, and it has contributed to the dramatic increase in solar energy workers. Another benefit is that the declining cost of solar panels should translate into lower energy bills for people who are using solar energy. Furthermore, Democrats emphasize the greater energy independence that the United States would gain by expanding the solar power industry and thus reducing reliance on foreign sources of oil. The Democrats also argue that the United States must be more economically competitive in the energy sector through the expansion of solar power production. As other nations dominate the solar energy industry, the United States continues to lag behind. Currently, China is the largest producer and installer of solar in the world, with a capacity that is almost double that of the United States; many Democrats want to close that gap and put the United States at the forefront of this industry (Fehrenbacher 2015). Consequently, Democrats have supported government subsidies for solar companies to grow the renewable energy sectors. While Republicans often oppose such subsidies, Democrats point out that the United States has a history of supporting budding industries by offering subsidies to offset start-up costs. Other countries, particularly China, also subsidize solar energy production. The Republican Party likewise has a history of supporting subsidies for companies in the fossil fuel industries, even though this industry is well established in the United States. Based on these precedents, the Democratic Party’s platform calls for extending incentives to businesses and individuals that invest in clean energy, while ending subsidies and tax cuts for fossil fuel companies that have a negative impact on the environment. Within the Democratic Party in Congress, opposition to curbing the usage of fossil fuels and increasing the usage of renewable energy has been limited. However, representatives from districts that are Republican-leaning or that include a sizable fossil fuel industry have shown support for the fossil fuel industries in order to keep their position within Congress. This is especially true of Democratic officeholders in coal-producing states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Kentucky, where voters have increasingly allied themselves with Republican candidates, even in areas once deemed Democratic strongholds. Several Democratic officeholders and candidates in these states have attempted to distance themselves from their party’s national push for renewable energy and its perceived war

S ol a r E ner g y

on coal, even at the risk of alienating voters concerned about the environment. These Democrats have included Alison Lundergan Grimes, the 2014 Democratic challenger to Republican Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Grimes stated, “When I’m in the U.S. Senate, I will fiercely oppose [Obama’s] attack on Kentucky’s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority” (Jaffe 2014). Even so, Grimes, like other Democratic candidates in these states, was defeated by her Republican opponent, who belonged to a party viewed as more friendly to the coal industry. Despite the support demonstrated for the coal, oil, and gas industries by Democrats in these districts, however, most Democrats continue to overwhelmingly support increasing solar energy. Thus, despite past failures to pass renewable energy legislation, the support for solar energy within the party indicates that legislation favorable to this industry will more likely be introduced by Democratic representatives. Republicans on Solar Energy

Republicans, on the other hand, have a record of resistance to employing renewable sources of energy in place of fossil fuels. Republicans argue that many workers in these nonrenewable energy sectors will lose their jobs if there is a shift toward renewable energy, and they emphasize that even renewable sources of energy can cause harm to animal and plant life (one example is bird mortality from wind turbines). Republicans also point to the cost of installing solar, which they fear will raise the cost of energy for consumers. Furthermore, Republicans tend to downplay the pollution associated with fossil fuels, and they either deny that this pollution is contributing to climate change or state that the contribution is trivial. Instead, the party’s platform argues that “climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue” and touts the usage of “clean coal” along with opening public lands and the outer continental shelf for exploration of fossil fuels. Republicans contend that energy sectors that rely on traditional sources of energy are overregulated, and the party platform refers to the Democratic Party’s emphasis on regulations as “an attack on American energy.” Consequently, Republicans often withhold support for regulations of traditional energy sectors that are geared toward decreasing emissions even as they seek to cut government spending on renewable energy. Such regulations are viewed by many Republicans as both preventing the United States from becoming more energy-independent and having a negative effect on the economy. According to the Republican Party’s 2016 platform, increasing domestic energy production will lessen energy price volatility in the United States and promote greater job growth. Republicans also contend that through deregulation, the more traditional energy sectors could provide energy at a much lower price than consumers would receive with energy sources that are renewable but are more expensive to produce.

295

296

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Donald Trump Discusses Solar Power on the Campaign Trail During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed some of the reservations concerning solar energy that are held by many within the Republican Party. Specifically, Trump claimed that solar energy was too expensive and that the failure of the Solyndra solar energy company, despite financial assistance from the federal government, was a warning sign. “We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one” (Blake 2016). Trump likewise expressed doubts concerning global warming and insisted that “we’re putting a lot of people out of work” with our current energy policies. Trump’s proposed solution for America’s energy challenges, which is supported by many Republicans, is to use more traditional sources of energy, including oil, gas, and coal. In a campaign speech, Trump asserted that “America is sitting on a treasure trove of untapped energy—some $50 trillion in shale energy, oil reserves, and natural gas on federal lands, in addition to hundreds of years of coal energy reserves. It’s all upside for this country—more jobs, more revenues, more wealth, higher wages, and lower energy prices. I’m going to lift the restrictions on American energy, and allow this wealth to pour into our communities” (League of Conservation Voters 2016). Sources Blake, Aaron. 2016. “The First Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate Transcript, Annotated.” Washington Post, September 26. Accessed October 19, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost .com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton presidential-debate-transcript -annotated/?utm_term=.c8d88b15fc1d. League of Conservation Voters. 2016. “In their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change.” Accessed October 29, 2016. http://cmsw.mit.edu/wp/wp-content /uploads/2017/02/LCV-2016-presidential-candidates-on-climate-change.pdf.

Republicans likewise argue that companies that produce energy based on fossil fuels may be at an unfair disadvantage in comparison to solar power companies, due not only to excessive regulation but also to government subsidies received by the renewable energy sector. Indeed, many Republicans have staunchly opposed the large subsidies given to renewable energy companies to help with start-up costs. In particular, Republicans have pointed to risky loans that resulted in defaults and a loss of taxpayer dollars, and they’ve blamed the Obama administration for extending these loans. The most notable default of a solar power company was the previously mentioned Solyndra, which failed to pay back a $533 million loan. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) referred to the Solyndra case as “a colossal failure” (Brady 2014). Republicans have also suggested that the sizable loan to Solyndra was a way to reward donors, since one of the investors was a major Obama fundraiser (Weiner 2012). This led Senate Republicans to launch an investigation into government subsidies to solar companies. The probe revealed that the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service do not have sufficient oversight of

S ol a r E ner g y

solar companies that receive subsidies, which could result in “double dipping in the federal tax incentives” (Mullins et al. 2016). These accusations did not stop the Obama administration from continuing to extend loans to companies in the renewable energy sector. To the contrary, one of the primary defenses of the Obama administration’s green energy investments is that for every Solyndra, dozens of solar and other green energy companies have become success stories thanks to start-up subsidies and other forms of support from the federal government. Hence, the dramatic increase in solar usage across the United States since 2009. Nonetheless, these green energy subsidies have remained a point of contention for Republicans. In fact, the 2016 Republican Party platform makes clear that the party’s support for the expansion of solar power is contingent on the use of private capital only, not government subsidies. Still, a growing minority of Republicans have openly advocated for using renewable sources of energy, particularly solar, alongside sources of energy from fossil fuels. A few conservative groups that advocate for clean energy and “energy choice” have been formed, including the Green Tea Coalition, Conservatives for Energy Freedom, and Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed; this last group was founded by former Republican representative Barry Goldwater Jr. According to Goldwater, it is the increasing competition from solar companies that is making utility companies and Republicans fight the rise in renewable energy through legislation (Wyler 2013). However, he argues that Republicans should embrace free market principles of competition and energy choice for consumers. In addition, these Republicans welcome the increased energy independence and jobs that the solar industry creates, especially in rural areas (Ryan 2016). The decline in costs of solar and the reduced dependency on government subsidies also make solar a much more affordable and appealing option for supportive Republicans. Moreover, the overwhelming public support for increasing solar energy usage, including among conservative Republicans, makes advocating for solar less risky for Republican representatives. A few Republicans have even touted the role that solar and other green energy technologies can play in combating climate change and improving environmental conditions. For instance, Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) stated in 2016 that “we need to prepare for sea level rise and advocate for clean energy solutions that can compete in a free market” (Ryan 2016). However, for most of these Republicans the embrace of solar power appears to be more focused on economics and on having a competitive and free market, not on concerns about climate change, which many Republicans still question. Even so, this shift in the Republican Party suggests that Republicans in Congress may become more open to using solar energy, particularly in combination with fossil fuels. For instance, the recent extension of tax incentives for renewable energy was supported by some Republicans in exchange for lifting the ban on oil exports. Thus, part of the Republican Party appears willing to embrace renewable energy

297

298

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

as long as fossil fuel industries are also supported. However, most Republicans have yet to fully support the expansion of solar, particularly when solar companies receive government subsidies. Furthermore, Republican president Donald Trump has indicated his desire to expand fossil fuel industries, and he has stated that he will cut “wasteful” spending on government programs devoted to addressing climate change. This suggests that the Trump administration will not be as friendly to the solar industry and other renewable energy sectors as some Republicans and most Democrats would like. Amy Stringer Further Reading Blake, Aaron. 2016. “The First Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate Transcript, Annotated.” Washington Post, September 26. Accessed October 19, 2016. https://www.washington​ post.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate -transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.c8d88b15fc1d. Brady, Jeff. 2014. “After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning a Profit.” National Public Radio, November 13. Accessed December 10, 2016. http://www .npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program -turning-a-profit. The Briefing. 2016. “Factsheets: Hillary Clinton’s Plan for Combatting Climate Change and Making America the Clean Energy Superpower of the 21st Century.” Hillary for America. Accessed December 3, 2016. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/fact​ sheets/2016/10/10/hillary-clintons-plan-for-combatting-climate-change-and-making -america-the-clean-energy-superpower-of-the-21st-century/. Cama, Timothy. 2015. “U.S. and Brazil Pledge 20 Percent Renewable Electricity by 2030.” The Hill, June 30. Accessed December 30, 2016. http://thehill.com/policy/energy -environment/246524-us-brazil-pledge-20-percent-renewable-electricity-by-2020. Detrow, Scott. 2016. “Trump Wants to Make Energy Production Great Again—Even as It Sets Records.” National Public Radio, May 27. Accessed October 28, 2016. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/27/479660989/trump-wants-to-make-energy -production- great-again-even-as-it-sets-new-records. Durkay, Jocelyn. 2016. “State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals.” NCSL (National Council of State Legislatures), December 28. Accessed December 30, 2016. http:// www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx. Fehrenbacher, Katie. 2015. “China Is Utterly and Totally Dominating Solar Panels.” Fortune, June 18. Accessed December 22, 2016. http://fortune.com/2015/06/18 /china-is-utterly-and-totally-dominating-solar-panels/. Fehrenbacher, Katie. 2016. “U.S. Solar Jobs Boom as Oil, Coal Struggle.” Fortune, January 12. Accessed December 1, 2016. http://fortune.com/2016/01/12/solar-jobs-boom/. Funk, Cary, and Brian Kennedy. 2016. “The Politics of Climate.” Pew Research Center, October 4. Accessed December 27, 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04 /the-politics-of-climate/. Halper, Evan. 2014. “Rules Prevent Solar Panels in Many States with Abundant Sunlight.” Los Angeles Times, August 9. Accessed December 16, 2016. http://www.latimes.com /nation/la-na-no-solar-20140810-story.html.

S ol a r E ner g y

Harder, Amy. 2014. “Democrats Increasingly Backing Oil and Gas Industry.” Wall Street Journal, August 11. Accessed December 27, 2016. http://www.wsj.com/articles /democrats-increasingly-backing-oil-and-gas-industry-1407790617. Hirtenstein, Anna. 2016. “Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S. Bloomberg, May 25. Accessed December 18, 2016. https://www.bloomberg.com/news /articles/2016-05-25/clean-energy-jobs-surpass-oil-drilling-for-first-time-in-u-s. Jaffe, Alexandra. 2014. “Democrats’ New Coal Headache.” The Hill, June 2. Accessed December 27, 2016. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/207942-democrats-new -coal-headache. League of Conservation Voters Staff. 2016. “In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Climate Change.” League of Conservation Voters, October 5. Accessed October 29, 2016. https://www.lcv.org/article/2016-presidential-candidates-on-climate-change/. Mullins, Brody, Ianthe Jeanne Dugan, and Richard Rubin. 2016. “Lawmakers Probe Tax Incentives Received by Solar-Energy Firms.” Wall Street Journal, September 15. Accessed December 28, 2016. http://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/lawmakers-probe -tax-incentives-received-by-solar-energy-firms-1473967056. Postelwait, Jeff. 2009. “A U.S. Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard: Potentials and Pitfalls.” Renewable Energy World, March 27. Accessed December 30, 2016. http://www .renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2009/03/a-federal-renewable-portfolio-standard -potentials-and-pitfalls.html. Riffkin, Rebecca. 2015. “U.S. Support for Nuclear Energy at 51%.” Gallup, March 30. Accessed December 15, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/182180/support-nuclear -energy.aspx. Ryan, Joe. 2016. “Republicans Are Warming Up to Renewable Energy.” Bloomberg, April 21. Accessed December 12, 2016. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20 /party-of-drill-baby-drill-slowly-warming-to-wind-solar-power. SEIA (Solar Energy Industries Association). 2016. “Solar Industry Data: Solar Industry Growing at a Record Pace.” Accessed December 4, 2016. http://www.seia.org /research-resources/solar-industry-data. Walsh, Bryan. 2014. “A Bright Year for Solar in the U.S.—But There Are Clouds on the Horizon.” Time, March 5. Accessed December 2, 2016. http://time.com/12952/solar -energy-surges-concern-over-china/. Weiner, Rachel. 2012. “Solyndra, Explained.” Washington Post, June 1. Accessed December 17, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/solyndra--explained /2012/06/01/gJQAig2g6U_blog.html?utm_term=.f730ecaf191e. Wyler, Grace. 2013. “A War Over Solar Power Is Raging within the GOP.” New Republic, November 21. Accessed December 28, 2016. https://newrepublic.com/article/115582 /solar-power-fight-raging-gop.

299

Sustainability

At a Glance

Some activists believe sustainability to be an ecological value that neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has embraced. This is because it requires limiting the pursuit of human interests when they conflict with nonhuman needs of a greater intensity. Instead, the parties emphasize the conservation of natural resources, with the understanding that such resources will be developed for future human use over the long term. Occasionally, the parties focus on environmental stewardship, a view that aims to preserve natural areas both for human use and for the sake of nonhuman species. Because the parties frequently aspire to the mantle of sustainability (and thus exhibit a common tendency to make sustainability mean everything and anything), this essay employs a strict ecological definition of the concept, which makes it distinct from conservation, stewardship, and environmentalisms of other stripes. The value of sustainability in the United States is properly traced back to the ecological holism first put into theoretical form by Aldo Leopold. Policies involving the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, and the Endangered Species Act all implicate sustainability as a value. Many Democrats . . .

• Frame environmental concerns in terms of preservation, with a focus on climate change, clean energy policy, green jobs, and environmental racism Many Republicans . . .

• Frame environmental concerns in terms of conservation, with a focus on private stewardship, public lands development, and states’ rights Overview

Sustainability is an umbrella term that refers to a condition of productive balance in human relationships with the natural world. Those committed to sustainability

S us ta i na b ili t y

believe that whatever communities they belong to must recognize and respect limits on the impacts they exert on other communities, which range from the macro (the atmosphere and solar system) down to the micro (the soil and microbiome). With the concept thus understood, a commitment to sustainability in politics will influence positions ranging from natural resource and energy policy, to agriculture policy, to economic development and human health. A concept this pervasive in its impact runs the risk of meaning something everywhere and thus meaning nothing anywhere. This fact is pertinent to the assessment of a commitment to sustainability in the political platforms of the two major parties in the United States. In 2016, neither party focused on sustainability, yet one can find its presence hovering in the background of the discussions on policies on energy, agriculture, public lands, and climate change. The modern sustainability movement is often dated with the rise of the ecology movement during the 1960s and 1970s. This movement had its roots in the development of the science of ecology, which in the United States was organized in the 1920s around the concept of the ecosystem (Worster 1994). Internationally, in 1972 the Club of Rome think tank published The Limits to Growth, which used the term sustainable in an ecological sense (Caradonna 2014, 138). Debate about the meaning of sustainability began in earnest after 1987, when the United Nations (UN) offered a broad definition of sustainable development (United Nations 1987). The UN argued that sustainability should extend beyond the environment per se to include the economic and social dimensions of human life. This new broad definition was attacked on the right as being too intrusive on the status quo and attacked on the left as being too vague. Activists and scholars who adhere to the ecological holism model of sustainability, though, argue that while both parties say they are in favor of sustainability, neither faces the hard choices needed to make sustainability a reality. Furthermore, while each party has gestured in the direction of sustainability, old rhetorical attachments—for the Republicans, to “conservation”; for the Democrats, to “preservation”—show remarkable persistence. Politics is the art of the possible, and each party has tried to build more or less plausible connections between its policies and sustainability. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace apply the concept in various ways to indicate more or less progress toward “sustainability.” An example would be Greenpeace’s “Seafood Sustainability Scorecard,” which it uses to rate grocery store seafood supply policies (Trenor 2012). The parties have been able to tread water on sustainability because environmental experts have not yet themselves agreed on a shared definition. Adherents of Aldo Leopold’s philosophy and other “deep ecology” views would define sustainability as a kind of relation, a harmonious and productive relation between humans and the natural world. This approach is defined by Leopold as an “ethic,” because it requires the recognition of limits on the human use of natural resources. While Leopold insisted on the independent value of the biotic community and ecological processes, he too leaned toward pragmatism and multiple approaches to achieving the land ethic (Budolfson 2014).

301

302

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Aldo Leopold and Ecological Sustainability The concept of sustainability is best understood as a policy position that grew out of the ecological holism of conservation biologist Aldo Leopold. Leopold was driven to a defense of the “intrinsic” worth of nature by what he perceived to be inadequate protection of ecological processes—resulting from the instrumental view of nature promoted by the conservation ethic. In his view, New Deal innovations like the Soil Conservation Service were good as far as they went, but they did not go far enough. The conservation movement remained committed to maximizing the farmer’s bottom line; all value was tied anthropocentrically back to human interest. In place of the conservation ethic, Leopold, in The Sand County Almanac, posited “the land ethic”: the view that “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” (Leopold 1949, 262). In this ethic, morality is relational; sustainability is a kind of harmonious and productive relationship between humans and nature, or as Leopold put it, “a state of harmony between man and the land” (243). How does this relationship differ from the one implied in stewardship? Leopold’s land ethic demotes humans from master and steward of the earth to “plain member and citizen” (240) of the biotic community. Neither of the major U.S. political parties has been attracted to the humble stance toward nature that this implies, yet it is arguably the key philosophical prop for the concept of sustainability. Source Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

While many agree in principle with the notion of limits, disagreement arises as soon as one tries to define what those limits are and how severe they should be. Ecology has operationalized these limits by introducing concepts like “ecosystem carrying capacity” and input variables like the “total material requirement” (TMR) measure (Paehlke 2004, 49). A host of sustainability metrics now vie for credibility in various respective fields, such as the Forest Stewardship Council’s certification, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, and the Ecological Footprint Analysis (EFA) employed by the World Wildlife Foundation (Caradonna 2014, 178–191). To date, these efforts to create a science of sustainability analysis are still in their infancy, and even popular understandings of sustainability—like “the triple bottom line” (combining measures of economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental impacts)—allow much cover for a politics of calculated ambiguity. The Republican Party was the original environmentalist party. Republican president Theodore Roosevelt’s alliance with John Muir and his forging of the National Park Service—America’s “best idea,” in the memorable phrasing of western writer and environmentalist Wallace Stegner—are still points of Republican pride. But

S us ta i na b ili t y

many environmentalists see the modern party as at best divided and more commonly antagonistic toward the ecological science and principles upon which sustainability rests. While Republican president Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, Republicans made sure it included state-based implementation. The West’s Sagebrush Rebellion during the late 1970s typified the national movement that lifted Ronald Reagan to the presidency and committed him to increasing commercial access to and development of such public land resources as fossil fuels, timber, and grazing lands. Reagan was considered by many to be an antienvironmentalist. He famously argued that expert opinion was in favor of drilling for oil in the sea off California because it would remove a potential hazard— namely, oil. The sea bottom in that area of the Pacific Ocean is badly fractured and in danger of rupture from earthquakes, which, as experts agree, will release the oil underneath (Reagan 1985). But even Reagan, when he signed the annual report of his Council on Environmental Quality in July of 1984, could note, “Our physical health, our social happiness and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources” (Reagan 1984). Reagan’s environmental critics, however, charged that declarations of more sustainable environmental policies are simply empty words if they are not also accompanied by concrete actions. There is, of course, some practical overlap between stewardship and sustainability. Good stewards will sacrifice low- and medium-range human interests when the urgent and vital interests of the land are at stake. Certainly, British Petroleum spent billions to shut down and mitigate its 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And a few lawmakers have at least considered the logic of a Leopoldian sustainability. But these have been outliers, such as Morris Udall among the Democrats and his fellow Arizonan John McCain among the Republicans. Defenders of a more holistic view of environmental policy have struggled to build political support. They run into trouble politically when they attempt to argue for the moral worth of uneconomic parts of the biotic community. For example, one can imagine the popularity of defending the place of mosquitoes in the ecosystem. The limited success of these policy entrepreneurs suggests that there is little popular support for the rigors of ecological sustainability. But sustainability as a concept has a certain political attraction, and as such there have been efforts to make the concept safe for democracy. This is how the notion of sustainable development, one originating in the field of economics, should be understood. “Sustainable development” reached the international limelight in 1987 when the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development issued its “Our Common Future” document. Commonly known as the “Brundtland Report,” after its primary author, the report defined sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations 1987, 41). This human-centered view of sustainability (“future generations” were understood to be human) was later reinforced at the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and it

303

304

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

continued through the 2002 UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. Thus, at the international level, focus on sustainability has meant how environmental policy impacts people—which provides rhetorical cover for using the term in the political arena. This trend continues in the UN’s framing of such issues as climate change, which is seen as a problem mainly because it impacts human activities like agriculture, and not because the way we conduct activities like agriculture are causing global warming in the first place. Democrats jumped out to an early lead in the sustainability rhetoric race in 1993, when President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12852, creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (Clinton 1993). Conservation and stewardship were emphasized, and sustainable communities were defined either solely in human terms or so that “natural and historic resources are preserved.” In this formulation of sustainability, the human community is privileged, and any limits on resource use will be tied to the goal of preserving nature so that human use can continue. As critics note, the trouble with this kind of “wise use” stance from a sustainability perspective is that, time and time again, user relationships have not been harmonious ones. Users have turned into abusers, with ecological catastrophe lurking in the background. A prime example occurred when western farmers in the 1920s and 1930s used up the thin topsoil of arid land in the West to the point of creating the Dust Bowl. Most advocates of sustainable relationships would argue that a premise of use value is insufficient; a commitment to ecological holism is needed in addition. Holism posits that economically unimportant or detrimental parts like nematodes or termites (and yes, even mosquitoes!) should be adequately valued both intrinsically and for their contribution to whole ecosystem processes. While the two parties do present real policy differences on environmental issues, neither has adopted the holist perspective associated with those who champion a robust commitment to environmental sustainability. The Democratic Party in its platform and policies has shown more willingness to defend policies like the Endangered Species Act, and the party has recognized the impact of industrial farming practices on climate change. Still, some critics assert that the Democrats’ positions, in terms of their ecological foundations, are not far removed from those of the Republicans. This suggests that sustainability remains an elite concept, a bridge too far for either of the popular parties. Certainly, the few surveys of the American public that ask questions about sustainability indicate as much. For example, in December 2015 a Kaiser Family Foundation poll asked respondents about their knowledge of the “sustainable development” goals the UN adopted in 2015. As many as 79 percent of the Americans polled said they had not heard of the goals, and only 6 percent said they knew a fair amount about them (DiJulio, Norton, and Brodie 2016, 11). In sum, both mainstream public opinion and political parties in the United States are not very familiar with sustainability as a concept. It is safe to conclude that the ecological meaning of the term has yet to find a place in the American political glossary. Aside from the rhetoric and the use of the word

S us ta i na b ili t y

itself, have the principles of sustainability made any discernible difference in the policy positions of the two parties? Republicans on Sustainability

In 2012, the Republican platform began its discussion of environmental policy by announcing that the GOP was the “party of sustainable jobs and economic growth” (Republican Party Platforms 2012, 15). Beyond that, sustainability as a word or concept was ignored. Even stewardship was demoted to “private stewardship” (18). This focus was repeated in the Republican’s 2016 Platform, which begins its environmental policy section with the statement that “Conservation is inherent in conservatism” (Republican Party Platforms 2016, 20). The platform goes on to affirm “the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country” (20). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is as close a proxy measure for sustainability as we have. The act was passed at what many consider the high-water mark of the ecology movement. While in large part its rationale is that humans benefit from endangered species (e.g., tourism dollars), it also specifically mentioned “species” and “ecosystems” as part of its protective intent and included “plants” in the list of the act’s beneficiaries. The first prominent case challenging the listing and protection of an endangered species occurred in the Tennessee Valley and pitted the life interest of a small fish, the “snail darter,” against the economic interests (via energy development) of a large human community. In weighing the balance in such cases, anthropocentrics side with the human community. Holists argue that extinction, because it is not only taking a life but also a kind of “superkilling,” should take precedence. If sustainability is the standard, holists argue, then the “intensity of need” of the life of the endangered species should trump the less intense, if more proximate (among the family of primates), human interest in economic development, and this arguably is the point of the ESA (Callicott 1999). On the ESA, the 2016 Republican Party platform comes down strongly on the side of human interests. It laments that “over the last few decades, the ESA has stunted economic development, halted the construction of projects, [and] burdened landowners” (Republican Party Platforms 2016, 22). The platform goes on to oppose “the listing of the lesser prairie chicken and the potential listing of the sage grouse. Neither species has been shown to be in actual danger and the listings threaten to devastate farmers, ranchers, and oil and gas production” (20). The 2016 Democrats, by contrast, state that they “oppose efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act to protect threatened and endangered species” (30). Economists have argued that environmental damage frequently is greatest in developing economies, while environmental protection generally increases in more advanced economies. This fact has encouraged the idea that natural resource management—which has come to mean the ability to extract resources from a

305

306

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

natural system without disrupting its carrying capacity stability—becomes more “sustainable” over time. This approach shows up, for example, in the 2016 Republican Party platform when the party endorses the timber industry’s “active, sustainable management of our forests.” It goes on to note that “states can best manage our forests to improve forest health and keep communities safe” (Republican Party Platforms 2016, 19). Biotic “health” is referenced here—for example, forest health. But it almost certainly is tied to the health of the carrying capacity and human use. The stance is similar to the principled position of the Global Farmer Network, which promotes synthetic nitrogen and herbicide use; the network supports “free trade and farmers’ freedom to choose the tools, technologies, and strategies they need to maximize productivity and profitability in a sustainable manner” (Global Farmer Network 2016). The adjective sustainable in this usage means, in effect, “by any means available.” The Republican Party platform of 2016 also attacks the Obama administration’s EPA policies toward clean water and carbon dioxide regulation. The EPA’s Waters of the United States rule expands federal government jurisdiction to farms and ranches, which, according to the Republicans, raises the specter of “the micromanagement of puddles and ditches on farms, ranches, and other privately-held property” (Republican Party Platforms 2016, 18). Since 2007, the EPA has been expanding its Clean Air Act authority to regulate carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas responsible for over 70 percent of global warming. The Supreme Court appeared to support this extension, until it issued a stay order in 2016 on the agency’s efforts to limit emissions from coal-fired power plants. The 2016 Republican Party platform applauded this move and went further: “We will . . . forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, something never envisioned when Congress passed the Clean Air Act” (21). Democrats on Sustainability

The 2008 Democratic Party platform has a promise to “promote sustainable and local agriculture,” but its focus is on “environmental stewardship” tied explicitly to “natural resources” (Democratic Party Platforms 2008, 46). The adjective sustainable is applied only to “[human] communities,” such as forest product promotion and green cities. In the 2012 platform, the environmental focus shifts to jobs, “clean efficient manufacturing,” and a “sustainable energy-independent future” (Democratic Party Platforms 2012, 39–40). Even when the preservation of “landscapes and ecosystems” is mentioned, it is immediately followed by a payoff in “bolster[ing] local economies” (56). While much in the 2016 platform echoes what came before, it could be argued that the Democrats made a shift toward sustainability in that they claim they will afford “particular attention to promoting environmentally sustainable agricultural practices” (Democratic Party Platforms 2016, 20). This is a signal difference from the 2012 platform. The Sustainable Communities Initiative is supported in both documents as part of an effort to fund

S us ta i na b ili t y

“sustainable developments such as passenger rail, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and other projects to support livable cities” (Democratic Party Platforms 2012, 54). Agriculture is indeed another area where the two parties make explicit connections to the environment in ways that have consequences for sustainability. But this is an area where increased economic development appears to exacerbate rather than alleviate environmental impact. The UN New York Summit in 2015 produced a new round of sustainable development goals, which included a recognition that agriculture policy must address biodiversity (United Nations 2015). The World Bank estimates that as much as 20 percent of human-generated global warming is caused by agriculture (World Bank Group 2008). A large amount of this impact comes from the methane gas produced by cows, sheep, and goats when they are fed processed grain and kept confined on concentrated feedlots. Thus, meat consumption has become an issue in climate change. In the 2016 platforms, neither party recognizes this threat. Democrats simply state that “agricultural lands account for nearly half of the total land area in America, and our agricultural practices have a significant impact on our water, land, oceans, and the climate. Therefore, we believe that in order to be effective in keeping our air and water clean and combating climate change, we must enlist farmers as partners in promoting conservation and stewardship” (Democratic Party Platforms 2016, 30). By contrast, the Republican base of support in the rural West is indicated by their strong 2016 endorsement of cattle ranchers, heralded as “among this country’s leading conservationists.” In addition to advocating expanding “exports [of meat] through the vigorous opening of new markets around the world,” they also suggest that ranch land can increase “wildlife habitat . . . while maintaining improved agricultural yields” (Republican Party Platforms 2016, 18). The tension between small-scale ranchers, who often do protect their lands, and large operators, who often do not, is elided in this formulation. The platform’s understanding of sustainable agriculture is epitomized in the statement about lands management policy: “This stewardship of the land benefits everyone, and we remain committed to conservation policies based on preservation, not the restriction, of working lands” (18). When the Supreme Court issued a stay order in 2016 on the EPA’s efforts to limit emissions from coal-fired power plants, the Democrats, in contrast to the Republicans, urged using “every tool available to reduce emissions now” (Democratic Party Platforms 2016, 27). The Democrats also endorsed, though less enthusiastically, Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which relied on EPA regulation and other measures to reduce carbon emissions and represented a key part of the U.S. agreement at the Paris Climate Summit of 2015. The Clean Power Plan was an integral part of Obama’s biannual Climate Action Plans, which he began in 2008 and which President Trump has vowed to eliminate. The parties, of course, are not monoliths. There is significant disagreement within them, which was on public display during the 2016 campaign season with the contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party

307

308

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

nomination and the numerous divisions within the crowded Republican field. Moderate Republican governors George Pataki and Chris Christie, for example, offered dramatically different views on environmental issues than conservative governors Rick Perry and Scott Walker. Pataki, for example, advocated for making the EPA into a cabinet-level appointment, while Perry argued that the EPA should be eliminated entirely. The disparity in positions was not as wide between the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. But while Sanders defended protecting “rare fetids and canids” (e.g., wild lions and wolves) because of their “intrinsic value” and denounced “animal cruelty,” Clinton’s commitment to sustainability was criticized by leading environmentalists like Bill McKibben early in her campaign because she did not speak out against the Keystone XL Pipeline (Geman 2015). James Simeone Further Reading Budolfson, Mark Bryant. 2014. “Why the Standard Interpretation of Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic Is Mistaken.” Environmental Ethics 36 (4): 443–453. Callicott, J. Baird. 1999. Beyond the Land Ethic: More Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Caradonna, Jeremy. L. 2014. Sustainability: A History. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Clinton, William J. 1993. “Executive Order 12852—President’s Council on Sustainable Development,” June 29. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://www.archives.gov/files​ /federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12852.pdf. Democratic Party Platforms. 2008. “2008 Democratic Party Platform,” August 25. The American Presidency Project. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=78283. Democratic Party Platforms. 2012. “2012 Democratic Party Platform,” September 3. The American Presidency Project. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=101962. Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform,” July 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. DiJulio, Bianca, Mira Norton, and Mollyann Brodie. 2016. “Americans’ Views on the U.S. Role in Global Health: Executive Summary.” Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/poll-finding /americans-views-on-the-u-s-role-in-global-health/. Geman, Ben. 2015. “How Green Is Hilary Clinton?” The Atlantic, July 17. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/how-green-is-hillary -clinton/446571/. Global Farmer Network. 2016. December Newsletter. Accessed December 5, 2016. globalfarmernetwork.org. Paehlke, Robert C. 2004. “Sustainability.” In Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities, ed. Robert F. Durant, Daniel J. Fiorino, and Rosemary O’Leary, 35–67. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reagan, Ronald. 1984. “Remarks on Signing the Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality,” July 11. The Reagan Library Presidential Archives. Accessed June 1, 2017. https://reaganlibrary.archives.gov/archives/speeches/1984/71184a.htm.

S us ta i na b ili t y

Reagan, Ronald. 1985. “Interview with Jerry Rankin of the Santa Barbara News-Press,” February 13. The American Presidency Project. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www .presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=38232. Republican Party Platforms. 2012. “2012 Republican Party Platform,” August 27. The American Presidency Project. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /papers/ pdf/101961.pdf. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform,” August 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu /ws/index.php?pid=117718. Trenor, Casson. 2012. The 2012 Seafood Sustainability Scorecard. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/the-2012-seafood-sustainability-scorecard. United Nations. 1987. “World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.” Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common -future.pdf. United Nations. 2015. “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp ?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. World Bank Group. 2008. “World Development Report.” Accessed June 1, 2017. http:// elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-6807-7. Worster, Donald. 1994. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

309

Transportation

At a Glance

Current transportation systems rely on fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming, acid rain, environmental degradation, and air and water pollution, which have a negative effect on human health. These problems put pressure on government to reduce the negative impacts of current transportation systems, including such infrastructure elements as roads, bridges, railways, sea ports and airports—many of which are in need of repair, replacement, resurfacing, modernization, or expansion. Historically, there has been bipartisan support for expanding transportation systems and the associated infrastructure, in large measure because transportation is so closely intertwined with general economic growth and activity. Support spans across Republican and Democrat presidents, governors, and mayors, as well as Congresses and state legislatures. As Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, stated in 2010, “Infrastructure is a bipartisan issue because we all deserve safe bridges, uncongested roads and sustainable transit options” (Building America’s Future 2017). Similar sentiments have been expressed by GOP leaders such as U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who stated, “Infrastructure spending is popular on both sides” (Grunwald 2014). But even though Republicans and Democrats agree that infrastructure spending creates jobs and stimulates economic growth, the parties frequently differ on how to pay for it and what areas of transportation should receive the most attention and support. In many instances, these differences have led to impasses over transportation policy. These divisions have become so great that the National Governors Association actually identified the rebuilding of infrastructure as one of the major concerns where bipartisan work is needed (Silva 2017). Many Republicans . . .

• Do not support tax increases to pay for transportation and infrastructure improvements, but instead support user fees • Are concerned about increasing the federal budget deficit in order to pay for infrastructure improvements

T r a ns po rtat i o n

• Support the states’ right to determine their own transportation priorities • Want to reduce the role of the federal government, as well as reduce federal funding, in transportation and infrastructure issues Many Democrats . . .

• Support an increase in national spending on transportation and infrastructure improvements • Support federal research into “greener” transportation alternatives • Believe the federal government should take on a stronger role in transportation policy • Believe in cooperative relationships between the federal government and state and local governments on transportation issues • Support tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans to pay for transportation and infrastructure improvements

Overview

Transportation is an activity that affects both humans and the natural environment to a great extent. Four industries—air, automotive, rail, and sea transport— make up the bulk of the transportation sector. In 2017, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) reported that 92 percent of fuel energy consumption in the transportation sector is from petroleum-based fuels, with 5 percent from renewable sources, and 3 percent from natural gas (C2ES 2017). The Center also reports that “more than one-quarter of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector, making transportation the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States after the electric power sector” (C2ES 2017). Transportation and its infrastructure are vital necessities for U.S. citizens and the U.S. economy. A 2013 report by the Transportation Research Board, a nonprofit organization that provides innovative, research-based solutions to improve transportation, indicates the enormous amount of people who rely on America’s transportation system: “250 million vehicles generate nearly 4 trillion passenger miles and 1.3 trillion motor carrier ton miles annually on 4 million miles of roadways. Transit systems account for 7.5 percent of work trips in the largest metropolitan areas; 22 billion passenger miles by bus and trolley transit; commuter and urban rail transit systems generate 30 billion passenger miles annually on almost 11,000 miles of track. Class I locomotives (one that generates revenues of $289.4 million or more each year) pull more than 1 million cars, generating 1.3 trillion ton miles on 96,000 miles of freight railroad track. 7800 commercial aircrafts generate 550 billion passenger miles annually between major airports. Ports and waterways account for more than $1 trillion in commerce moves in the nation’s 12 largest

311

312

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

ocean ports. More than 9,000 vessels and 30,000 barges move 157 billion ton miles annually on 25,000 miles of navigable channels of the Inland Waterway System” (Transportation Research Board 2013). Additionally, the annual number of cruise ship passengers is 20,335,000, with annual cruise revenue for the United States at $37.85 billion (Statistic Brain Staff 2017). Environmental groups warn that as the U.S. population grows and more people travel, the stress on the environment from the transportation sector will continue to increase unless major reforms are undertaken. Although transportation and its infrastructure are essential in meeting economic and social goals, current practices have massive impacts on land use, climate, and air and water quality. Nationwide, two-thirds of the carbon monoxide emissions come from transportation sources, with the largest contribution coming from highway motor vehicles. In urban areas, according to the EPA, the motor vehicle contribution to carbon monoxide pollution can exceed 90 percent. These emissions cause chronic respiratory illnesses, and they reduce the amount of oxygen that can be transported through the human bloodstream to the brain and heart. According to officials at the EPA, in typical urban areas, at least half of the ozone pollutants come from cars, buses, trucks, and such off-highway mobile sources as construction vehicles and boats. Surface water and groundwater, meanwhile, are contaminated by highway and runway runoff, while maritime travel contributes to air and water pollution and habitat disruption. Additionally, the burning of fossil fuels in the transportation sector releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are carbon dioxide emissions, resulting from the combustion of petroleum-based products, such as gasoline, in internal combustion engines. The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. Electric vehicle technology presents a shift from conventional modes of transportation to cleaner modes that are less dependent on petroleum-based fuel and emit less greenhouse gas. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and all-electric vehicles (EVs) use electricity either as their primary fuel or to improve the efficiency of conventional vehicle designs. HEVs and PHEVs are powered by an internal combustion engine that runs on conventional or alternative fuel and an electric motor that uses energy stored in a battery. EVs use a battery to store the electric energy that powers the motor; the batteries are charged by plugging the vehicle into an electric power source (U.S. Department of Energy 2017). Though EVs do not emit any dangerous gasses, plants generating the electricity may produce toxic emissions. Currently, electric vehicles make up only about 1 percent of total U.S. auto sales, but there was a 37 percent increase in sales from 2015 to 2016 (Coplon-Newfield and Lunetta 2017). The seven cities with the highest electric vehicle share in 2014 were San Francisco, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Portland, and Riverside. These cities had two to seven

T r a ns po rtat i o n

times the average U.S. electric vehicle share. “Among the seven leading electric vehicle-deployment cities, five are in states that have adopted California’s Zero Emission Vehicle program, and six have attractive consumer incentives” (Lutsey et al. 2015). The federal government has directly supported battery research and development for electric vehicles since 1976 through the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. It authorized, in the Energy Research and Development Administration, a federal program of research, development, and demonstration designed to promote electric vehicle technologies and to demonstrate the commercial feasibility of electric vehicles. The bill was enacted after a congressional override of Republican president Gerald Ford’s veto on September 17, 1976. The federal government and a number of states offer financial incentives, including tax credits, for lowering the up-front costs of plug-in electric vehicles (also known as electric cars, or EVs). The size of the tax credit depends on the size of the vehicle and its battery capacity. Electric locomotives, trams, shuttles, and cable cars have also been developed as part of broad legislative and corporate campaigns to develop “greener” transportation alternatives. But although electric locomotives are efficient, have low operating costs, high tractive efforts, and swift acceleration, the implementation costs of this system are so high that railroads choose “only to employ electrification when significant savings could be achieved, and only over short distances” (American Rails 2017). Infrastructure is a vital component of the American economy, and it is critical to national prosperity and public health and welfare. Inadequate funding for infrastructure repair impedes progress, worsens performance and safety issues, and leaves facilities without upgrades that could reduce pollution and other environmental problems (Transportation Research Board 2013). In 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave America’s cumulative infrastructure systems a grade of D+ (ASCE 2017) and estimated that the nation needs to invest $3.6 trillion by 2020. Kristina Swallow, president-elect of ASCE, had this to say: “If the current level of spending continues, total investment will fall short of that figure by $1.6 trillion” (Laverty 2017). Additionally, ASCE reports that to meet future needs and restore a global competitive advantage, the United States must increase investment from all levels of government and the private sector from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2025 (ASCE 2017). Though state and local governments are primarily responsible for infrastructure improvements, the federal government plays a significant role as well. Federal infrastructure spending can be broadly grouped into six types of projects: highways, mass transit and rail, aviation, water transportation, water resources, and water utilities. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the amount that federal, state, and local governments spent on transportation and water infrastructure in 2014 amounted to $416 billion, of which $96 billion came from the federal government. State and local governments accounted for 62 percent ($112

313

314

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

States Paving the Way in Transportation Federal, state, and local governments all play a role in making transportation policy and investment decisions. But federal funding for transportation and infrastructure is slow in coming—so state (as well as city) lawmakers are figuring out their own solutions to their funding transportation needs. Like the federal government, nearly all states have relied on cents-per-gallon gas taxes to fund their transportation systems. The states’ willingness and ability to address funding challenges builds momentum for increasing state control of transportation funding and decisions. Expanding public–private relationships also helps narrow the gap between public funding and local needs (Goff 2013). Since 2012, 25 states have approved plans to raise additional transportation revenues. The most high-profile of these states, though, might be California, which has been an environmental trendsetter since the 1960s. In recent years, the state has taken bold steps to tackle climate change, including “mandating an increase in zeroemission vehicles. The bottom line, say state officials, is to foster an economy where sustainability is profitable” (Hertsgaard 2012). California’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program, which began in 1990, is a state regulation that requires automakers to sell electric cars and trucks in California, and it has been adopted in nine other West Coast states. The program’s objective is to ensure that automakers research, develop, and market electric vehicles (EVs), which generate fewer global warming emissions than gas-powered cars do. Sources Goff, Emily. 2013. “Transportation and Infrastructure Policy: More State and Less Federal Control.” Heritage Foundation, March 13. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.heritage .org/transportation/report/transportation-and-infrastructure-policy-more-state-and-less -federal-control. Hertsgaard, Mark. 2012. “California Takes the Lead with New Green Initiatives.” Yale Environment 360, March 8. Accessed April 17, 2017. http://e360.yale.edu/features/california _takes_the_lead_with_new_green_initiatives. Levine, Dan, and Davis, Stephen Lee. 2015. “Capital Ideas II: State Transportation Funding Lessons from 2015, Challenges for 2016.” Transportation for America. Accessed April 20, 2107. http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/State-Funding-Report-2015.pdf.

billion) of capital spending (new purchases, improvements, and rehab of existing structures), and the federal government accounted for the remaining 38 percent ($69 billion). But state and local governments provide far more of the spending for the operation and maintenance of infrastructure, accounting for 88 percent ($208 billion) of that spending, while the federal government provided 12 percent ($27 billion) (CBO 2015). The CBO’s 2015 report notes that “the decline in real spending on transportation and water infrastructure in recent years has occurred at all levels of government, but it has been greatest at the federal level. Since 2003, federal spending has fallen by about 19%, and spending by states and localities has fallen by about 5%.”

T r a ns po rtat i o n

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction over all modes of transportation: aviation, maritime and waterborne transportation, highways, bridges, mass transit, and railroads. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation jurisdiction is more expansive; it includes communications, highways, aviation, rail, shipping, transportation security, merchant marine, the Coast Guard, oceans, fisheries, weather, disasters, science, space, interstate commerce, tourism, consumer issues, economic development, technology, competitiveness, product safety, and insurance. The Department of Transportation (DOT), created in 1967 by a Democratic-controlled Congress through legislation signed by Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson, is responsible for helping maintain and develop the nation’s transportation systems and infrastructure. Their goals include keeping the traveling public safe and secure, increasing their mobility, and ensuring that the transportation system contributes to the nation’s economic growth. Republicans on Transportation

The modern era of roads began in 1956 when Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, working with a Democratic majority in Congress, ushered the Federal Aid Highway Act into existence. The act authorized the creation of a 41,000-mile “National System of Interstate and Defense Highways” and allocated $26 billion to pay for the roads. Under the terms of the law, the federal government would pay 90 percent of the cost of expressway construction. The money came from an increased gasoline tax (3 cents, compared to 2 cents) that went into a nondivertible Highway Trust Fund, which disburses federal funds to build and maintain road and transit projects. The Senate approved the bill 89–1, with Senator Russell Long (D-LA) casting a nay vote because of his opposition to the gas tax increase. The House approved the bill on a voice vote (Weingroff 2017). After entering the Oval Office in early 1969, President Richard M. Nixon focused on developing, improving, and improving the accessibility of public transportation. To that end, he proposed substantial research and technology efforts into new ways of making public transit an attractive choice (Nixon 1969). In 1973, Nixon signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which provided funding for existing interstate and new urban and rural primary and secondary roads, funded highway safety programs, and, for the first time, allowed states to use Highway Trust Fund money for mass transit. In 1974, Nixon’s message to Congress on proposing transportation legislation emphasized the role of transportation in the economy and in global competition, with only a passing reference to environmental considerations: “It is apparent that we must further broaden our programs of public transportation assistance, providing more funds and giving greater flexibility to those who spend the money. . . . One of our highest priorities has been to help our cities reduce transportation pollution, energy consumption and congestion” (Nixon 1974).

315

316

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

When Gerald Ford became president in 1974, he declared his commitment to the development of a transportation system that would meet the needs of the citizens. Under his administration, the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 was signed into law. In his signing statement, Ford extolled both the act’s bipartisan character and its provisions aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the transportation sector. “This legislation represents a compromise in the best sense of the term,” he said. “Although different positions were set forth in the beginning—the views of the Administration, the Congress, Governors, mayors, and others—we were able to reconcile our differences and develop legislation to meet our most urgent needs in mass transportation at a cost which is not inflationary. This legislation is significant in our fight against excessive use of petroleum, in our economic battle, and in our efforts to curb urban pollution and reduce congestion. It assures that $11.8 billion in Federal assistance will be available to States and to cities to meet transit needs for the rest of the decade” (Ford 1974). Congress also established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and trucks during Ford’s presidency. This 1975 measure, passed in response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, sought to reduce oil consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles) produced for sale in the United States. In 1976, Ford vetoed the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, a bill crafted to establish a program to research, develop, and promote electric vehicle technology. Ford’s veto, however, was overridden by a Democratic-controlled Congress. After he entered the White House in 1981, President Ronald Reagan wanted to cut federal spending on transportation and give the states greater authority in transportation issues. He did, however, sign the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982, which continued strong federal involvement in transportation infrastructure; it authorized appropriations for construction of certain highways, for highway safety, and for mass transportation in urban and rural areas. The act also increased the gasoline tax by a nickel, the first increase since 1959 (Weingroff 2017). In Reagan’s 1982 national radio address about the passage of STAA, he stated, “The bridges and highways we fail to repair today will have to be rebuilt tomorrow at many times the cost. . . . The program will not increase the federal deficit or add to the taxes that you and I pay on April 15th. It’ll be paid for by those of us who use the system, and it will cost the average car owner only about $30 a year” (Reagan 1982). President George H. W. Bush emphasized “Jobs, jobs, jobs” when he signed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Section 2 of ISTEA states that it is the policy of the United States to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient and environmentally sound, that provides the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy, and that will move people and goods in an energy-efficient manner. The act provided authorizations for highways, highway safety, and mass transit for the next six years, and it redefined programs eligible for federal funding to include new

T r a ns po rtat i o n

kinds of transportation-related activities, such as those that contribute to cleaner air and provide facilities for bicyclists and car-poolers. It also gave states increased flexibility in determining how to spend federal dollars and gave new stakeholders a stronger voice. “ISTEA was hailed by many environmentalists as an environmental milestone to address America’s ever-growing transportation challenges, including the ancillary effects of the country’s long-standing reliance on the automobile” (McCann 1999). In 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), a massive $286.4 billion transportation bill that included more than 6,000 pet projects of lawmakers across the country, ranging from a crucial parkway linking two interstates in Illinois to a snowmobile trail in Vermont. The House (417–9) and the Senate (89–11) voted overwhelmingly to pass the six-year highway and mass transit legislation. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) opposed the bill, stating that the estimated $24 billion that lawmakers directed to special projects was “egregious” (Chen 2005). While SAFETEA included some sections that would benefit the environment, it also streamlined the environmental review process for transportation projects, which environmental groups found worrisome (Musselman 2006). Since 2005, Congress has not passed a transportation funding bill that lasts longer than two years. But President George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to slowly raise fuel economy standards to 35 MPG by 2020. During the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama, a bill known as the Transportation Empowerment Act was introduced on multiple occasions by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Representative Ron DeSantis (R-FL). This legislation, cosponsored by a number of other Republicans, would transfer almost all authority over federal highway and transit programs to the states over a five-year period and would lower the federal gas tax from 18.4 cents to 3.7 cents over the same time period. The bill failed to garner enough support in Congress for passage, however. During the 2016 presidential campaign, one of Republican candidate Donald Trump’s campaign promises was to invest $1 trillion to repair the nation’s infrastructure. He echoed this promise in his inaugural address, in which he pledged to “build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation.” In February 2017, President Trump asked Congress to pass legislation to pave the way for a $1 trillion public–private infrastructure project. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao said the Trump administration would unveil a $1 trillion infrastructure plan later in 2017, but she did not offer details of funding for projects. An advisor to the Trump White House on infrastructure asserted that whatever transportation infrastructure plan ultimately passes, it will respect the need for environmental protections for clean air and clean water (Belvedere 2017). Environmental groups and their Democratic allies in Congress, however, expressed deep skepticism that environmental considerations would be considered by the Trump administration or the GOP congressional leadership in any transportation

317

318

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

infrastructure legislation they seek to pass. They pointed, for example, to the fact that in March 2017, the Trump administration proposed a 13 percent reduction in the Department of Transportation’s discretionary budget for fiscal year 2018. The Trump budget proposed to make this reduction through cuts to programs like the Obama administration’s “TIGER” grant program, a program that has been used to fund a variety of “green” transportation projects, including high-speed and intracity rail, highway construction, and transit bus systems (CNBC 2017). Democrats on Transportation

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Urban Mass Transportation Act, one of the first “green” transportation bills in U.S. history. The legislation created the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), which was charged with providing federal assistance for mass transit projects, and for financing mass transportation research, planning, and operations in the United States principally through federal grants and loans. Johnson also signed legislation creating the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1966. DOT would be responsible for helping maintain and develop the nation’s transportation systems and infrastructure from roads to airlines to railways. During the 1970s and 1980s, Democrats became increasingly attentive to linkages between various transportation sectors and the environmental impacts of said sectors, whether they took the form of increased air pollution or loss of green space to suburban sprawl or degradation of wilderness in pursuit of oil. But while environmental organizations and their “green” allies in Washington (primarily, though not exclusively, Democrats) called for increased investments in mass transit systems and renewable fuel research in order to decrease U.S. energy consumption and reduce development pressure on natural or rural areas, they made only halting progress. “For many years,” explained one analyst, “bills designed to increase federal allocations for high-speed rail and other mass transit systems [were] buried under the weight of partisan gamesmanship; lobbying from automotive, road construction, and other groups; and recognition that automobiles and the ‘open road’ are embedded deep in American culture and mythology” (Hillstrom 2010). During the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton, however, some incremental movement toward mass transit planning could be glimpsed. For example, Clinton signed the Swift Rail Development Act of 1994, which provided funding for planning national high-speed rail initiatives. It passed the House 281–103, with 213 Democrats voting for and 16 against. Of the Republicans, 67 supported the bill; 87 did not. In 1998, Clinton signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), authorizing funds for federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs—which greatly increased highway spending. The bipartisan-supported bill was introduced by Republican Bud Schuster (R-PA); it was cosponsored by 118 members—61 Democrats and 57 Republicans. It passed

T r a ns po rtat i o n

the Senate 88–5, with 49 Republicans and 39 Democrats voting for the bill and 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting against. TEA-21 poured money into highway improvements and new construction, which reinforced Americans’ dependency on vehicle transportation and thus contributed to increased emissions and greenhouse gases. President Barack Obama may have been considered the “transportation president” had he been working with unified government. He worked for eight years (from January 2009 to January 2017) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as raise the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But working against a Republican-controlled Congress for most of his two terms, he lost several battles on transportation proposals that would have dramatically increased “green” transportation investment. Still, during his first two years in office, working with a Democratic-controlled Congress, Obama managed to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Among its many provisions to boost the economy, it provided funding for the construction of 20,000 electric charging stations and included a discretionary grant program called the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER). The grants, issued by the Department of Transportation, were designed to incentivize development to better environmental problems and reduce U.S. dependence on energy. It is a popular program, and from 2009 to 2016 the TIGER grant program provided a combined $5.1 billion to 421 projects in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and tribal communities (U.S. Department of Transportation 2017). During Elaine Chao’s confirmation hearings for Secretary of Transportation, she stated, “From all of my meetings with members of Congress there seems to be one area of great agreement and that’s the utility of the TIGER grants” (Schmitt 2017). In 2009, a historic agreement of the federal government, state regulators, and the auto industry established a national program to implement these first meaningful fuel-efficiency improvements in over 30 years and the first-ever global warming pollution standards for light-duty vehicles. In 2011, President Obama introduced GROW AMERICA, a four-year, $300 billion transportation bill, which included a 22 percent increase in highway funding, a 70 percent increase in transit funding, and a provision allowing states to put tolls on interstates. The bill was dependent on tax reform for much of its financing. Democrats were on board, but Republicans opposed it, as they did Obama’s $50 billion “roads, rails and runways” proposal in 2010, and then again when it was expanded and incorporated into his American Jobs Act in 2011. They also blocked Obama’s plans for an infrastructure bank and a national high-speed rail network (Grunwald 2014). In 2012, President Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The act provided more flexibility for funding recipients, which some saw as potentially weakening the requirements and incentives for spending on sustainable transportation initiatives. Though it would increase highway spending, it also provided funding for clean transportation alternatives.

319

320

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

In 2015, Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. FAST maintained the highway program structure of MAP-21, including annual funding for the transportation alternatives, but it also boosted public transportation investment aimed at reducing motor vehicle use and its negative impact on the environment. Teri J. Walker Further Reading American Rails. 2017. “Electric Locomotives, the Definition of Efficiency.” Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.american-rails.com/electric-locomotives.html. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2017. “2017 Infrastructure Report Card.” Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/americas-grades/. Belvedere, Matthew J. 2017. “Trump Only Wants Projects That Can Break Ground Immediately, Says Billionaire Infrastructure Advisor.” CNBC, March 10. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/trump-ready-to-build-infrastructure-real-estate -mogul-richard-lefrak.html. Building America’s Future. 2017. “Federal Analysis: Now Is the Time for Smart Transportation Infrastructure Investment.” Accessed July 26, 2017. http://action.bafuture.org /news/federal-analysis-now-time-smart-transportation-infrastructure-investment. C2ES. 2017. “Transportation Overview: U.S. Emissions.” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.c2es.org/energy/use/transportation. CBO (Congressional Budget Office). 2015. “Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2014.” Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.cbo.gov/sites /default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/49910-Infrastructure.pdf. Chen, Edwin. 2005. “Bush Signs Transportation Bill, Says It Will Deliver Jobs.” Los Angeles Times, August 11. Accessed July 26, 2017. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/11 /nation/na-bush11. CNBC. 2017. Trump to Unveil $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan in 2017: Official. Reuters, March 30. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/30/trump-1-trillion -infrastructure-plan-2017.html. Coplon-Newfield, Gina, and Lunetta, Mary. 2017. “2016 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Soar: Jumping 80 Percent over Previous December and 37 Percent over 2015.” Sierra Club Compass, January 5. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.sierraclub.org/compass /2017/01/2016-us-electric-vehicle-sales-soar-jumping-80-percent-over-previous -december-and-37. DeFazio, Peter. 2017. “Investing in America: A Penny for Progress Act.” The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Accessed April 19, 2017. http://demo​ crats.transportation.house.gov/investing-america-penny-progress-act. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. “On the Road.” February 22. Accessed April 19, 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/epahome/trans.htm. Ford, Gerald. 1974. “Remarks on Signing the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974,” November 26. The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4589. Goff, Emily. 2013. “Transportation and Infrastructure Policy: More State and Less Federal Control.” Heritage Foundation, March 13. Accessed April 20, 2017. http:// www.heritage.org/transportation/report/transportation-and-infrastructure-policy -more-state-and-less-federal-control.

T r a ns po rtat i o n

Grunwald, Michael. 2014. “The Huge Obama Transportation Bill You Heard Nothing About.” Time, April 30. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://time.com/83073/barack-obama -transportation-republicans/. Hillstrom, Kevin. 2010. U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: A Documentary History. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Laverty, Deborah. 2017. “$3.6 Trillion Needed for U.S. Infrastructure by 2020.” The Times, January 20. Accessed April 19, 2017. http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/trillion -needed-for-u-s-infrastructure-by/article_fd5f41c1-9699-5806-a48d-66aaf85d9407 .html. Lutsey, Nic, Stephanie Searle, Sarah Chambliss, and Anup Bandivadekar. 2015. “Assessment of Leading Electric Vehicle Promotion Activities in United States Cities.” White Paper. International Council on Clean Transportation. Accessed April 21, 2017. http://www .theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EV-promotion-US-cities_20150729 .pdf. McCann, Liam A. 1999. “NOTE: Tea-21: Paving Over Efforts to Stem Urban Sprawl and Reduce America’s Dependence on the Automobile.” Fall. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 23 (857). Accessed April 21, 2017. https://litigation -essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype =smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=23+Wm.+%26+Mary+Envtl.+L.+%26 +Pol%27y+Rev.+857&key=e263ca76ea9725f7d2c18ba21595609a. Musselman, Jenna. 2006. “SAFETEA-LU’s Environmental Streamlining: Missing Opportunities for Meaningful Reform.” Ecology Law Quarterly 33 (3): 825–869. Accessed May 4, 2017. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1812&context =elq. Nixon, Richard. 1969. “Special Message to the Congress on Public Transportation,” August 7. The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.presidency .ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2183. Nixon, Richard. 1974. “Special Message to the Congress Proposing Transportation Legislation,” February 13. The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 20, 2017. http:// www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4349. Reagan, Ronald. 1982. “Radio Address to the Nation on Proposed Legislation for a Highway and Bridge Repair Program,” November 27. Accessed April 20, 2017. https:// reaganlibrary.archives.gov/archives/speeches/1982/112782a.htm. Schmitt, Angie. 2017. “3 Highlights From Elaine Chao’s Very Vague Confirmation Hearing.” Streetsblog USA, January 11, 2017. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/11/3 -highlights-from-elaine-chaos-very-vague-confirmation-hearing/. Silva, Mark. 2017. “Infrastructure and Health Care Top Issues Facing Governors.” U.S. News & World Report, January 25. Accessed April 17, 2017. https://www.usnews .com/news/national-news/articles/2017-01-25/on-issues-such-as-infrastructure -bipartisan-governors-see-ways-to-work-with-trump. Statistic Brain Staff. 2017. “Cruise Ship Industry Statistics.” Statistic Brain Research Institute. http://www.statisticbrain.com/cruise-ship-industry-statistics/. Transportation Research Board. 2013. “Critical Issues in Transportation.” Accessed April 19, 2017. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/general/criticalissues13.pdf. U.S. Department of Energy. 2017. “Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Cars.” Alternative Fuels Data Center. Accessed April 20, 2017. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric.html. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2017. “TIGER Discretionary Grants.” January 20. Accessed April 17, 2017. Last Updated January 20, 2017. https://www.transportation .gov/tiger.

321

322

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Weingroff, Richard F. 2017. “The Greatest Decade 1956–1966.” U.S. Department of Transportation: Highway History. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov /infrastructure/50interstate.cfm. White House. 2014. “FACT SHEET: President Obama Lays Out Vision for 21st Century Transportation Infrastructure.” Press Release. Office of the Press Secretary, February 26. Accessed April 20, 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014 /02/26/fact-sheet-president-obama-lays-out-vision-21st-century-transportation-i. Zanona, Melanie. 2017. “GOP Pans Democrats’ $1T Infrastructure Package.” The Hill, January 24. Accessed April 19, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315963 -gop-pans-democrats-1-trillion-infrastructure-package.

Wetlands

At a Glance

Democrats and Republicans have taken different approaches to the protection and restoration of wetlands, most notably with the “no net loss” policy and the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. First supported by President George H. W. Bush during his 1988 presidential campaign and established as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy in 1989, every president since has affirmed “no net loss” of wetlands as a staple of environmental policy. This policy allows for development of wetlands as long as any loss of wetland acreage is offset elsewhere by wetland reclamation, mitigation, or restoration efforts (University of Florida Levin College of Law 2011). The WOTUS rule, if enacted, would expand protections by emphasizing upstream water quality and defining the streams, lakes, rivers, and marshes that fall under jurisdiction of the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as granted by the Clean Water Act. The no net loss policy can be a tool for compromise between conservationists and developers. It can also be interpreted to accommodate the very damages from development it was intended to prevent. For example, Democratic president Bill Clinton chose not only to work to make sure the policy continued, but also to expand wetlands acreage in the country. In his Clean Water Action Plan, President Clinton called for a net wetlands acreage increase of 100,000 acres per year starting in 2005 (Sibbing 2004). Though agencies differ slightly in their estimates of wetlands mitigation acreage, progress towards Clinton’s target was made in the remaining years of his administration (Baker 1999). In contrast, President George W. Bush interpreted the policy as focusing on the environmental value of wetlands, meaning that if wetlands were lost in one area, wetlands could be created in a different location where they might might be more environmentally valuable (BEAT 2016). President Barack Obama supported financing wetlands efforts through additional funding for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, extended Swampbuster provisions in the Farm Bill to discourage agricultural exploitation of wetlands for commodities, and proposed an amendment to the Clean Water Act (CWA) through the WOTUS rule. By reducing eligibility for federal farm benefits, the Swampbuster provisions attempt to

324

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

discourage converting wetlands to cropland use. The Obama administration had mixed success achieving these goals, with efforts ongoing toward the end of his tenure in office. Overall, Democrats primarily advocate policies featuring stricter pollution standards and higher protection of wetlands. Some moderate Democrats will cross party lines to vote with Republicans in support of policies that prioritize development over wetland conservation. The challenge for both parties is to adapt to the changing legal regime surrounding wetlands protections while also balancing competing interests of development, conservation, and constituents. Many Democrats . . .

• Believe federal protections for wetlands and similarly sensitive ecosystems should be expanded to protect more waters under the CWA • Believe the WOTUS rule could provide clarification regarding which waters the EPA and Army Corps may regulate under the CWA and could effectively protect waters of the United States • Believe wetland ecosystems such as the Florida Everglades and southern Louisiana should receive greater protection from commercial development and damaging agricultural practices Many Republicans . . .

• Believe federal protections for wetlands and other waters of the United States should be balanced with development projects and agricultural needs • Believe the WOTUS rule jeopardizes agricultural and business interests by expanding the regulatory authority of the Army Corps and EPA beyond what the CWA intended • Believe pollution standards for wetland ecosystems such as the Florida Everglades should be reduced in favor of development for agricultural companies (specifically sugar companies in the case of the Everglades)

Overview

Nicknamed “biological supermarkets” by the EPA, wetlands provide countless benefits to ecosystems due to their ability to cleanse pollutants and sediments, to renew freshwater supplies, and to support a wide array of flora and fauna (Environmental Protection Agency 2017c). They can also help slow the release of floodwaters and snowmelt; provide habitat for wildlife, fish, and plants; and provide recreational opportunities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). Wetlands

W et la nd s

comprise four main types: bogs, swamps, marshes, and fens (fens are low marsh areas or frequently flooded land). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) is the main federal agency responsible for monitoring wetlands. FWS collects data for the Wetlands Status and Trends report, which includes all lands regardless of whether they are publicly or privately owned, and information for the National Wetlands Inventory. In “Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009,” the FWS stated that the country had 110.1 million acres of wetlands, making up 5.5 percent of the country’s surface area. Approximately 95 percent of these areas (104.3 million acres) were freshwater wetlands, and the remaining 5.8 million acres were intertidal or saltwater wetlands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). Based on data provided by the EPA, 60,000 acres of wetlands are lost annually due to agricultural runoff, invasive species, development, and effects from climate change (Environmental Protection Agency 2004). During the 2004–2009 timeframe, freshwater wetlands in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain and the Lower Mississippi River lost the most acres (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). Yet, the EPA claims that because of wetlands preservation efforts and “mitigation banks,” there has been “no net loss” of wetlands since 1980. The Natural Resources Conservation Service defines wetland mitigation banking as “the restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable impacts to wetlands at another location” (NRCS 2016). The first wetland bank was established in 1983 with the oversight of the FWS to compensate for development impacts from projects run by the Department of Transportation (DOT)—and subsequently for agriculture effects as well (Environmental Protection Agency 2017a). A developer or producer would purchase credits from a wetlands mitigation bank to compensate for wetlands losses that were caused by construction activities or agriculture-related actions. Two additional federal agencies with responsibilities for wetlands are the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Army Corps of Engineers manages the permit system authorized under the CWA. The NRCS, under the Department of Agriculture (USDA), collects data for the National Resources Inventory (NRI) on rural nonagricultural lands only. The NRCS coordinates with the FWS to play a role in the critical protection effort of wetland mitigation banking. Many USDA projects require conservation compliance, which means that beneficiaries of certain USDA programs must complete a form stating the producer will not drain, dredge, or fill a wetland in order to grow a commodity crop. These wetlands conservation programs were originally introduced in the 1984 Farm Bill and included in the 2014 Farm Bill. If on-site mitigation is difficult or unavoidable, off-site mitigation is allowed with a permit (NRCS 2016). In 1992, 42 banks were permitted; by December 2016, almost 3,000 banks were listed in the Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) database developed by

325

326

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Legal Landmarks in Wetlands Regulation United States v. Riverside Bayview 474 U.S. 121 (1985): In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Army Corps of Engineers had jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to Lake St. Clair, which is part of the Great Lakes system. This was an expansive interpretation of “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act, establishing federal authority to control intrastate waters. The decision was later limited by Rapanos v. United States (2006). Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers 531 U.S. 159 (2001): In a 5–4 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Army Corps of Engineers lacked the authority to regulate isolated wetlands. The Corps used the migratory bird rule to regulate these wetlands, but the Court held that only “navigable waters” meeting the “significant nexus” test fell under §404, and thus the Corps could not regulated discharges into isolated wetlands or waters. Rapanos v. United States 547 U.S. 715 (2006): In this case, federal authority to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act was challenged by developer John Rapanos, who wanted to build a mall and condominiums, filling the wetlands on-site. In a split decision, the majority ruled against the Army Corps’ definition of navigable waters as it applied to isolated wetlands, but the four conservative justices wrote a concurring opinion in favor of a more restrictive definition of navigable waters and wanted to remand the case for a new “continuous surface water connection” standard. Justice Kennedy did not join either the liberal or the conservative justices, and the Court failed to issue an Opinion of the Court. Sources Ferrey, Steven. Examples and Explanations: Environmental Law. 6th ed. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2013. Kusler, Jon. 2001. “The SWANCC Decision: State Regulation of Wetlands to Fill the Gap.” Association of State Wetland Managers. Last modified March 4, 2004. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://www.aswm.org/pdf_lib/swancc_decision_030404.pdf.

the Army Corps, in coordination with the EPA, FWS, Federal Highway Administration, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. As of 2016, 1,539 banks were listed as approved in RIBITS (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2016). The fourth and final agency helping to implement federal wetlands laws is the EPA. In addition to its statutory responsibilities under the CWA, the EPA conducts data for the National Wetland Coalition Assessment (NWCA). This survey was first conducted in 2011, and sampling for the second assessment occurred throughout 2016. Data gathered by the EPA is intended to provide regional and national information on the ecological integrity and biological status of the country’s wetlands, in hopes of enabling cooperation across multiple jurisdictions responsible for coordinating wetland policy.

W et la nd s

Beginning in the late 1800s, a series of federal statutes and agencies regulating wetlands and the inhabitants were passed. One of the earliest federal laws governing wetlands is the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This law authorizes Army Corps of Engineers to regulate construction activities that may involve dredging, filling, or obstructing navigable waters. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 allowed the Army Corps to refuse to grant a permit for construction in a wetland area if there would be an “adverse environmental effect.” The Corps’ strongest regulatory mandate came from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), also known as the Clean Water Act. Under Section 404 of that law, the Corps must regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material of a wetland through a permit system in accordance with EPA guidelines. Anyone wishing to discharge into a wetland must get a permit and a Water Quality Certification. More than 20 states have enacted their own wetland protection statutes under Section 404. In these cases, states receive EPA approval to administer their own permit programs, which are enforced by local boards, and the EPA maintains veto authority over any permits granted if the agency feels that the state permits do not meet Section 404 requirements (Ferrey 2013, 547). Additional state efforts to protect wetlands include expanding water quality programs to cover isolated wetlands and other types of wetlands, passing legislation to protect affected wetlands, and establishing cooperative regulatory programs. Democrats on Wetlands

On May 24, 1977, Democratic president Jimmy Carter issued Executive Order (EO) 11990—Protection of Wetlands. This EO instructed federal agencies to reduce the destruction, loss, and degradation of wetlands; coordinate federal efforts through the NEPA to minimize wetland damage; evaluate any appropriations or authorizations submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for actions in wetlands, to determine if they comply with the EO; and consider a series of factors relevant to the survival and quality of wetlands. These factors included public health, water supply, pollution, erosion maintenance of natural systems, and uses of wetlands in the public interest (Environmental Protection Agency 2016b). With an Executive Order issued by a president, evaluating success of the order itself is subjective and difficult to determine because of other legislation and policy initiatives passed by Congress or the agencies. On December 11, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Water Resources Development Act. This bill provided the statutory authorization for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), a 30-year plan with an estimated cost of $7.8 billion, dedicated to restoring and protecting one of the largest wetlands in the world (White House 2000). The Everglades ecosystem originally covered more than 3 million acres, until settlers in the early 1900s drained it for development and crops and to create a channel system to protect from floods. Of these acres, 1 million in the northern area became the Everglades Agricultural Area,

327

328

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

used now for sugarcane; 500,000 acres in the middle were turned into a water conservation area that had a flood control system of canals, dams, and dikes; and the remaining 1.5 million acres was established as the Everglades National Park in 1947 (Exploring the Environment Project 2005). CERP’s intent is to “restore, preserve, and protect the south Florida ecosystem while providing for other waterrelated needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection” through a federal–state partnership with Florida (National Park Service 2015). The Obama administration took several different approaches to wetlands, building on the work of its predecessors. On January 18, 2012, President Obama announced receivership of the first area of land for the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area in South Florida. This receivership of land for the refuge and conservation area was a coordinated effort with local landowners and ranchers, with both sides working to determine which land would be protected and designated. Illustrating the Democratic perspective on environmental protection overriding development, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA)—then the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, today a U.S. senator for Massachusetts—stated that “the Everglades are treasured by every American, and this new public–private agreement means farmers and families, ranchers and road-trippers can enjoy the land for generations to come. While these protected lands support wildlife and livestock, they also help provide drinking water supplies to South Florida residents. . . . Oil companies and other industries already have enough refuges—from taxes, from safety regulations, and other breaks. We shouldn’t hand over our wildlife refuges . . . to industries that want to pollute our public lands to make a quick buck” (House Natural Resources Committee 2012). In addition to the receivership work in the Everglades described above, President Obama pursued a controversial new regulation called the WOTUS rule (Environmental Protection Agency 2016a). “This rule will provide the clarity and certainty businesses and industry need about which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, and it will ensure polluters who knowingly threaten our waters can be held accountable,” asserted Obama. “My administration has made historic commitments to clean water, from restoring iconic watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes to preserving more than a thousand miles of rivers and other waters for future generations. With today’s rule, we take another step towards protecting the waters that belong to all of us” (Hopkinson 2015). The rule also clarifies which streams, lakes, rivers, and marshes fall under the jurisdiction of the EPA and Army Corps. Effective on August 28, 2015, the WOTUS rule states that the EPA has authority over streams, wetlands, tributaries, or other flowing waters that affect protected waters downstream. Landowners pursuing actions or developments that could harm the waters would be required to obtain a permit (Jalonick 2015). Though not exclusively focused on wetlands, the rule would expand protections by emphasizing upstream water quality. In October 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a national stay for the WOTUS

W et la nd s

rule. The decision expanded a stay issued the previous August by a court in North Dakota that affected only 13 states at the time. “A stay allows for a more deliberate determination whether this exercise of executive power, enabled by Congress and explicated by the Supreme Court, is proper under the dictates of federal law” (Cama 2015a). If the WOTUS rule is successfully revised and implemented, its supporters believe it could resolve confusion created by Supreme Court litigation over wetlands and navigable waters. Overall, Democrats supported the rule, but 3 moderate members of the Senate and 24 members of the House joined the Republicans to vote against the final rule (Cama 2015b). As illustrated by presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama, the Democrats’ strategy for wetlands has been to invest significant financial resources and establish standards for conservation and preservation. Each president’s approach built on that of his predecessor, and each sought to continue protecting sensitive wetland ecosystems—particularly, the Florida Everglades. These presidents have faced opposition from developers and Republicans but have continued to pursue proconservation laws. Republicans on Wetlands

In 1991, President George H. W. Bush announced that his administration’s wetland policy would strike a balance between environmental protection and development. He remarked, “Wetlands serve an important role in flood control. They help filter waste from water. They provide an important habitat and breeding ground for fish, birds and animals and they are an important recreational resource” (Associated Press 1991). President George W. Bush’s approach resembled his father’s by advocating a similar balance between environmental protection and development. In 2008, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a report highlighting successes of such public–private partnerships as Coastal America’s Corporate Wetland Restoration Partnership (CWRP) and the FWS Joint Ventures (JVs). CWRP included over 400 businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and partners who matched funds for wetlands restoration and projects. The JVs implement the American Waterfowl Management Plan. They are self-directed, but they coordinate with all levels of government and NGOs to preserve habitat needed by waterfowl and migratory bird populations (CEQ 2008). Each of these public– private partnerships was consistent with the policy of the White House under President W. Bush’s administration, and they demonstrate the coordination Bush wanted to see between federal environmental agencies and private organizations. In response to the WOTUS rule proposed by President Obama, the Republicancontrolled House of Representatives passed the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act (H.R. 1732) on May 12, 2015. This act specifically called for the WOTUS rule to be withdrawn by the EPA (Ryan 2015). House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) spoke out strongly against the WOTUS rule in his statement following the House vote. He said, “The administration’s decree to unilaterally expand federal authority

329

330

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

is a raw and tyrannical power grab that will crush jobs. . . . the rule is being shoved down the throats of hardworking people with no input, and places landowners, small businesses, farmers and manufacturers on the road to a regulatory and economic hell” (Hopkinson 2015). During Boehner’s tenure as Speaker, the House voted 261–155 to block the rule, calling for the EPA to consult with state and local actors before proposing a new rule (Jalonick 2015). Several conservative representatives—including Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Chris Stewart (R-UT), in their capacities as chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and chair of the House Subcommittee on the Environment, respectively—also wrote a letter the White House budget office, protesting the EPA’s action. They argued, “Such unrestrained federal intrusion poses a serious threat to private property rights, state sovereignty and economic growth. . . . By rushing through this process, the Agency not only violates the law, but ignores its commitments to Congress and the American people. This rushed rulemaking is a clear attempt to rubber stamp the pre-determined regulatory agenda” (Goodyear 2013). In response to the WOTUS rule on the Senate side, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) expressed his opposition to the rule: “The administration’s cavalier attitude toward expanding the federal government’s authority into our backyards is absolutely outrageous. . . . Not only were small businesses—who will be dramatically impacted by expanding of the definition of ‘waters of the United States’—inappropriately excluded from the rule-making process, but the federal government shouldn’t be regulating puddles on private property in the first place” (Hopkinson 2015). Over 40 energy companies and more than 20 power companies have actively lobbied against the rule since its initial proposal (Hopkinson 2015). The Senate response to the WOTUS rule continued with John Barrasso (R-WY) introducing S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, on April 30, 2015. Much as the House had done, the Senate called for greater transparency by the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA and for more consultation and input from governors, state water regulatory agencies, state agriculture departments, and local governments in making policy. The bill also requested that the Army Corps and EPA demonstrate their compliance with the regulatory process 30 days before issuing the proposed regulations (Federal Water Quality Protection Act 2015). Joining this congressional opposition were numerous conservative organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau Federation, Dairy Farmers of America, homebuilders, flood control districts, and real estate developers (Hopkinson 2015). In a partisan vote, the Senate passed S. 1140 by 57 to 41 on November 4, 2015. The House passed its final version on January 13, 2016, with a vote of 253 to 166, similarly on partisan lines. Nearly every Republican supported the bills, while nearly every Democrat opposed them in the respective chambers. On January 19, 2016, President Obama vetoed S.J. 22, the joint resolution of the House and Senate, which proposed nullifying the WOTUS rule (White House 2016). The Senate failed to override the veto on January 21, 2016 with a vote of 52-40, short of the 60 votes required. Both political parties then began preparing

W et la nd s

for the presidential election/transition and began seeking other legal and policy options. By May 2016, more than 150 litigants in over 40 states filed lawsuits challenging WOTUS in court. Republicans and such conservative organizations as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association also began pursuing defunding through fiscal appropriations in Congress; they hope to have the Supreme Court make a final decision once a ninth justice is nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate. President Trump’s administrator of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, expressed opposition to the WOTUS rule in his capacity as Oklahoma’s attorney general (Liebesman 2017); as administrator of the EPA, Pruitt is expected to pursue overturning the rule. The legal stay of the WOTUS rule remains in place at the time of publication. Elizabeth Wheat

Further Reading Associated Press. 1991. “Bush Draws Environmentalists’ Anger with Wetlands Proposal: Resources: President’s Plan Rejects the Theory That ‘Every Mud Puddle Is a Wetland,’ a Spokesman Says.” Los Angeles Times, August 11. Accessed November 30, 2016. http:// articles.latimes.com/1991-08-11/news/mn-730_1_mud-puddle. Baker, Beth. 1999. “Government Regulation of Wetlands Is under Siege from All Sides.” BioScience 49 (11): 869. Accessed April 11, 2017. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience /article/49/11/869/219965/Government-Regulation-of-Wetlands-Is-Under-Siege. BEAT. 2016. “A History of Wetlands Protection in the United States.” Berkshire Environmental Action Team.org. Last modified October 2016. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://www.thebeatnews.org/BeatTeam/history-federal-wetland-protection/. Cama, Timothy. 2015a. “Court Blocks Obama’s Water Rule Nationwide.” The Hill, October 9. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment /256493-court-blocks-obamas-water-rule-nationwide. Cama, Timothy. 2015b. “Democrats Buck Obama on Water Rule.” The Hill, May 28. Accessed January 1, 2017. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/243299 -democrats-buck-obama-on-water-rule. CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2008. “Conserving America’s Wetlands 2008: Four Years of Partnering Resulted in Accomplishing the President’s Goal—Appendix B: Conserving Wetlands.” Accessed November 30, 2016. https://georgewbush-white​ house.archives.gov/ceq/wetlands/2008/appendix-b.html. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. “Wetlands Overview.” EPA 843-F-04-011a, Office of Water. Last modified December 2004. Accessed July 27, 2017. https://nepis.epa .gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/500025PY.PDF?Dockey=500025PY.PDF. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016a. “Clear Protection for Clean Water.” Clean Water Rule. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanwaterrule/what -clean-water-rule-does.html Environmental Protection Agency. 2016b. “Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order No. 11990.” Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Last modified September 15, 2016. Accessed July 27, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/protection-wetlands. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016c. “How Does EPA Keep Track of the Status and Trends of Wetlands in the US?” Wetlands. Last modified October 6, 2016.

331

332

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Accessed July 27, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/how-does-epa-keep-track -status-and-trends-wetlands-us. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017a. “Mitigation Banking Factsheet.” Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Last modified February 22, 2017. Accessed July 27, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/mitigation-banking-factsheet. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017b. “National Wetland Condition Assessment.” National Aquatic Resource Surveys. Last modified May 8, 2017. Accessed July 27, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/nwca. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017c. “Why Are Wetlands Important?” Wetlands. Last modified February 27, 2017. Accessed July 27, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/wetlands /why-are-wetlands-important. Exploring the Environment Project 2005. “Exploring the Environment: Florida Everglades.” Last modified, April 28, 2005. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://www .cotf.edu/ete/modules/everglades/FEeverglades1.html. Federal Water Quality Protection Act, S. 1140, 114th Cong. 2015. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1140. Ferrey, Steven. 2013. Examples and Explanations: Environmental Law. 6th ed. New York: Aspen Publishers. Goodyear, Sarah. 2013. “Republicans Criticize EPA Move to Protect Streams and Wetlands.” Next City, November 7. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry /republicans-criticize-epa-move-to-protect-streams-and-wetlands. Hopkinson, Jenny. 2015. “Obama’s Water War.” Politico, May 27. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/epa-waterways-wetlands-rule-118319. House Natural Resources Committee. 2012. “Markey: Obama Administration Everglades Protection Spurns GOP Attacks on Wetlands, Wildlife Refuges.” News Release. January 17. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov /media/press-releases/markey-obama-administration-everglades-protection-spurns -gop-attacks-on-wetlands-wildlife-refuges. Jalonick, Mary Clare. 2015. “House Votes to Block EPA Water Rules That Have Angered Farmers, Landowners.” U.S. News &World Report, May 12. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/05/12/farmers-worry-over -reach-of-epa-water-rules. Kusler, Jon. “The SWANCC Decision: State Regulation of Wetlands to Fill the Gap.” Association of State Wetland Managers. Last modified March 4, 2004. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://www.aswm.org/pdf_lib/swancc_decision_030404.pdf. Liebesman, Larry. 2017. “U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Gift to the Trump Administration.” The Hill, January 20. Accessed January 20, 2017. http://thehill.com /blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/315339-us-supreme-courts-waters-of-the -us-gift-to-the-trump. National Park Service. 2015. “Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).” Last modified 2016. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature /cerp.htm. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2016. “Conservation Compliance and Wetland Mitigation Banking.” U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/farmbill /?cid=nrcseprd362686.

W et la nd s

Ryan, Paul. 2015. “Speaker Boehner on the Latest EPA Power Grab.” Press Release, May 27. Accessed November 30, 2016. http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-boehner -latest-epa-power-grab. Sibbing, Julie. 2004. “Nowhere Near No-Net-Loss.” National Wildlife Federation. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://www.nwf.org/pdf/Wildlife/Nowhere_Near_No-Net-Loss .pdf. University of Florida Levin College of Law. 2011. “No Net Loss Policy,” June 6. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/academics/centers-clinics/clinics /conservation/resources/no_net_loss.pdf. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. “RIBITS Regulatory In-Lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System.” Accessed November 30, 2016. https://ribits.usace.army.mil /ribits_apex/f?p=107:158:15278518231063::NO:RP:. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. “Questions and Answers About: Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009.” National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents /Questions-and-Answers-About-Status-and-Trends-of-Wetlands-in-the-Contermi​ nous-US-2004-to-2009.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. “Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009.” National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Status-And-Trends-2009/KeyMessages.html. White House. 2000. “World’s Largest Environmental Restoration Will Restore Natural Flow to Florida Everglades.” Press Release. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://clinton​ whitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/new/html/Mon_Dec_11_154136_2000.html. White House. 2016. “Veto Message from the President—S.J. 22.” Press Release. Office of the Press Secretary, January 19. Accessed November 30, 2016. https://www.white​ house.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/19/president-obama-vetoes-sj-22.

333

Wilderness Conservation

At a Glance

Both Republicans and Democrats generally support wilderness conservation. However, Republicans are often reluctant to support wilderness conservation policies if they see them as a threat to economic growth and prosperity. Republicans argue that private property rights and protections should be guaranteed in all cases, and they assert that wilderness protection sometimes interferes with preferable market-based conservation practices. Additionally, Republicans express concern that federal designations of wilderness often fail to consider the needs of local citizens by imposing long-term goals and denying critical short-term needs. Democrats tend to argue that protecting wilderness is part of America’s heritage and that present generations are obligated to preserve wild spaces for future generations. They do not see this as incompatible with short-term economic growth or that it places limits on the use of the lands for such recreational sports as hunting and fishing—both of which are hugely profitable industries. Additionally, Democrats support creating spaces for the protection of wildlife in the wilderness areas. Many Republicans . . .

• Believe wilderness conservation is critical but that it must be balanced with economic concerns • Believe wilderness conservation is often in conflict with private property rights • Believe wilderness conservation is sometimes less preferable to marketdriven conservation models • Believe wilderness conservation is sometimes in conflict with the needs of the people in the localities • Believe wilderness conservation is part of a long-term policy goal once the short-term economic goals are secured Many Democrats . . .

• Believe wilderness conservation is critical to ensuring that present and future generations can enjoy America’s rich natural heritage

Wil d er nes s C o ns er vat io n

• Believe wilderness conservation is essential for outdoor recreation and sports like hunting and fishing • Believe wilderness conservation is compatible with a healthy economy • Believe wilderness conservation is part of both short-term and long-term policy goals

Overview

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many Americans sought ways to escape the crowds of the growing cities. Camping, bird watching, and other outdoor leisure activities gained popularity, joining the popular (and sometimes essential) practices of hunting and fishing. To promote these activities during this time, several federal policies were established and some land in America was set aside. Passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, however, marked the culmination of a long crusade by environmentalists to protect pristine wildlands, and it established a new momentum toward laws that expanded federal responsibility for managing public lands (Turner 2009). The Wilderness Act declared wilderness to be “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (Gorte 2011). Since the passage of the Wilderness Act, Congress (the only branch of government that has the formal authority to designate wilderness) has set aside nearly 110 million acres of land designated as wilderness (Wilderness Society n.d.). This includes 765 different areas protected in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), which amounts to approximately 5 percent of the entire territory of the United States (Wilderness Connect 2016). The smallest of the wilderness areas is the Pelican Island Wilderness in Northern Florida, which covers five and a half acres, and the largest is the Wrangell–Saint Elias Wilderness in Alaska, which covers more than 9 million acres. The National Park Service (NPS) and the National Forest Service (NFS) manage most of the wilderness lands. Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Oregon are the states with the most wilderness areas protected under federal regulation. This has led to heated political debates over federal land use policies in the West, culminating in the Sagebrush Rebellion movement of the late 1970s. The Wilderness Act of 1964 was in many ways the outgrowth of decades of debate and political battles about the management of public lands. Western expansion in the early American era was encouraged by the government. In 1812, the General Land Office (GLO) was created to manage all public domain lands of the United States. The GLO operated within the Department of the Treasury until 1849, when it was transferred to the newly establish Department of the Interior. The Morrell Act of 1862 granted 40-acre parcels to homesteaders who demonstrated an ability to make a living off the land. America’s railroad companies also secured a great deal of land during this initial western push. The goal was to complete the transcontinental railroad and connect the two coasts of the vast continent. When settlers began to experience difficulties making ends meet (for a variety of

335

336

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

reason, including poor environmental conditions), the federal government ended up with vast swaths of land that had not yet been claimed for any use. Around the same time, public lands were being surveyed to identify potential mineral mining or logging opportunities. By the turn of the 20th century, several prominent conservationists began to make a case for an act of Congress that would permanently set aside land to be preserved “in a world of shifting desires” (Wilderness Connect n.d.). Conservation giants Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), Robert “Bob” Marshall (1901–1939), John Muir (1838–1914), and many others—including famed photographer Ansel Adams (1902–1984)—tried to bring the vast American landscape to the public’s attention, and they ultimately created the movement of preservationist conservation (Chapman n.d). This is different from the utilitarian conservationism that supports balancing preservation with what would later become known as the wise use policies. The “wise use” agenda is focused on the notion that the loss of the economic value of both private and public lands should be prohibited. Proponents argue that there should be no constraints on the use of private lands nor any restriction to the use of public lands. This includes logging, mining, drilling, and the use of motorized recreational vehicles. A growing number of ecological studies done throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries led to initial private, state, and federal efforts to protect wilderness and habitats. The goal was to slow the encroachment of humans into all remaining wild spaces in America. By this time, much of the landscape had already been significantly altered. Air and water pollution was also being recognized alongside habitat destruction, as reasons for the dramatic decline in populations of some of the most iconic animals of the American wild. A variety of protections were put into place that limited the availability of certain lands for logging, mining, and, in some cases, recreational use. The key historical acts include the General Mining Act of 1872, the Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897 [the Organic Act], the Antiquities Act of 1906, the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 [the Organic Act], the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the Wilderness Act of 1964, the National Historic Preservation Act 1966, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, and the National Forest Management Act of 1979. The push back against the expansion of wilderness protection in the West came from both parties, as well as from extractive industries that were dependent to one degree or another on access to public lands. A fierce libertarianism streak exists in the West, and in the 1970s and 1980s this streak could be found in Democrats as well as Republicans. Fights over the designation of wilderness lands had persisted since the creation of the NWPS. The Sagebrush Rebellion, the most famous of these protests, originated when supporters of private land use for commercial purposes, on some land in Nevada called the Sagebrush Steppes, organized individuals to garner political support to push for more state control over the lands, or even privatization. The philosophy behind this movement survives today, and while proponents are generally more often Republicans, support for it does come

Wil d er nes s C o ns er vat io n

from both parties. Environmental issues are sometimes difficult to place on political maps, and wilderness protection is one clear case of this complexity, especially in the American West. Despite these political debates and opposition, America leads the world in wilderness protection. The extensive protection of wild lands in America not only provides diverse types of outdoor recreational opportunities for Americans and visitors, but also protects wildlife biodiversity and generates an estimated $656 billion in economic benefits to local communities, including rural as well as more populous areas (Wilderness Society 2014). Advocates from both political parties argue that such public spaces represent national values and patriotism, and that they promote both a spiritual connection to and respect for the natural world, thus making protection of wilderness an enduring national priority. Four key agencies manage these lands: the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. Republicans on Wilderness Conservation

While Theodore Roosevelt’s Republican administration created both the national parks system and the national forest reserve system in America, the decades since have resulted in Republican policy platforms that increasingly favor private land management or state direction of public lands over federal control. The election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980 ushered in a conservative opposition to environmentalism, which had been a fairly prominent element of the GOP as recently as the 1970s, when Republican Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency (1973) and other key foundations of the modern federal environmental regulatory regime. During the Reagan era, however, many conservatives grew increasingly concerned that the growing array of regulations was cumbersome to economic development because these rules and laws placed too many limitations on access to America’s vast natural resources. Reagan declared himself a sagebrush rebel, and the Republicans saw a political opportunity to push back against federal authority over state lands. Republicans increasingly sided with natural resource industries that framed this denial of access to valuable public lands as hindering the nation’s economic progress. In the early years of the Wilderness Protection Act, Republicans and Democrats often made compromises regarding environmental and economic concerns. But with the Reagan administration in power, Republicans began to promote more commercial activities on public lands and pushed to slow new wilderness designations. This perspective remains strong within the GOP of today. Many Republicans feel that the areas now available for development, mining, and drilling are not extensive enough. While developers already have access for energy development activities on about 75 percent of public lands not designated as wilderness, Republicans in Congress have been pushing for more. In addition to drilling rights, Republicans

337

338

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Presidents on Wilderness Conservation Republicans Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to excess, it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so. —Theodore Roosevelt [Seventh Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1907] You’re worried about what man has done and is doing to this magical planet that God gave us, and I share your concern. What is a conservative after all, but one who conserves? —Ronald Reagan [Remarks at Dedication Ceremonies for the New Building of the National Geographic Society, June 19, 1984] Our National Parks belong to each of us, and they are natural places to learn, exercise, volunteer, spend time with family and friends, and enjoy the magnificent beauty of our great land. —George W. Bush [Announcement of National Park Week, April 16, 2008]

Democrats There is nothing so American as our national parks. . . . The fundamental idea behind the parks . . . is that the country belongs to the people, that it is in the process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us. —Franklin D. Roosevelt [Radio Address from Two Medicine Chalet, Glacier National Park, August 5, 1934] National parks and reserves are an integral aspect of intelligent use of natural resources. It is the course of wisdom to set aside an ample portion of our natural resources as national parks and reserves, thus ensuring that future generations may know the majesty of the earth as we know it today. —John F. Kennedy [World Conference on National Parks, June 23, 1962] It’s not just the iconic mountains and parks that we protect. It’s the forests where generations of families have hiked and picnicked and connected with nature. —Barack Obama [Remarks on the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, February 16, 2011]

continue to support grazing rights for ranchers—who are already protected under the Wilderness Act. Republicans also argue that the hundreds of thousands of administrative policies that currently manage wilderness lands are excessive, so they are pushing for deregulation in a number of places. The party rhetoric of favoring conservation as fundamental to conservative policy making seems disconnected from preferred wilderness management. A poll conducted in 2016, however, shows that Republican voters do favor strong protections for the environment, especially wilderness conservation. The League of Conservation Voters tracks both public opinion and congressional voting records on all environmental policy making, and their results show that public opinion among Republicans includes support for strong environmental regulation; however, with a few notable exceptions, Republican lawmakers

Wil d er nes s C o ns er vat io n

tend not to vote in favor of continued or new regulations (League of Conservation Voters 2016). A recent example of this was seen in 2015, when Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) proposed an amendment to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to continue its 50-year federal funding program for protecting wilderness in America. The only opposition votes came from Burr’s fellow Republicans. Republicans in Congress also tried unsuccessfully to limit President Obama’s authority, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, to declare “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land” (American Antiquities Act 1906). Republican leaders have argued that the president has overstepped his bounds in the number of designations he has made. Obama is not the only president to have engaged in land protection, however, as both Democratic president Bill Clinton and Republican president George W. Bush preserved millions of acres under the act during their times in office. However, conservation remains a strong central party issue for many Republicans. The organization ConservAmerica, which was originally called Republicans for Environmental Protection when it was created in 1995, declares that its mission is to “educate both the public and elected officials on conservative approaches to today’s environmental, energy, and conservation challenges” (ConservAmerica 2016). The group has pushed back against legislation like 2015 House Bill H.R. 3650, which was introduced from the House Committee on Natural Resources by Don Young (R-AK). This bill would provide for states to select and acquire for commercial purposes lands that are currently managed by the National Forest System (State National Forest Management Act of 2015). ConservAmerica reported, “In its annual Conservation in the West poll, Colorado College reported 68% of westerners view public lands as belonging to all Americans, not just the residents of a specific state. 75% of those polled say a candidate’s support for public lands is an important factor in making their decision in the voting booth” (Roosevelt, Crow, and Sisson 2016). This evidence suggests that Republican Party politics related to land conservation and wilderness areas are not easily defined. Often the opposition is not antienvironmental as much as it is antifederal. The election of Republican Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016 might be signaling an even deeper divide, as the candidate made several pledges during his campaign to end what he described as burdensome regulations of public lands and to open them up to more drilling and mining. However, he has said he will not support the party’s official platform policy agenda of giving states control of federal lands. In a January 2016 interview with Field and Stream magazine, Trump said, “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do” and “We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land” (Flores 2016). His position seems to be in support of increased energy extraction from the public lands under federal control while also calling for minimal damage to the lands.

339

340

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

This latter approach is consistent with the proposals in the Republican Party platform that stress the need to use public lands for energy and mineral extractions. The platform also encourages public use of the lands for such purposes as livestock grazing or increased recreation. There also has been a push from Republicans to increase recreational use in national parks to allow roads for motorized vehicles, access for snowmobiles, and more river rafting. Democrats on Wilderness Conservation

Democrats often make arguments for policies that emphasize the role that government can play in protecting the public interest. The wilderness advocates were able to build on the many policies of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society program, which promoted the government’s role in providing public goods ranging from education to environmental protections. Those who were pushing to protect more public lands from development and the incursions of roads to support motorized vehicles were able to appeal to the ideals of national interest. A variety of civil society groups that crossed party lines to support wilderness conservation ranged from the decades-old Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society to women’s groups, organized labor, and even some corporations that saw the public relations value in being associated with wilderness conservation causes. This kind of broad constituency would be short-lived, however, and by the 1980s the Democratic Party was the only one of the two main parties that remained broadly supportive of expanding wilderness protection efforts. The Wilderness Act of 1964 was most visibly championed by Democrats like Senators Frank Church (D-ID), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Clinton Anderson (D-NM) and by President Johnson himself (Turner 2009). Wilderness designation was established to preserve what remained of America’s vast wild lands. Its management includes protecting watersheds, providing habitat protection, and ensuring overall ecological stability, including soil and water health, as well as monitoring how the lands are used by visitors for hiking, camping, birding, hunting, or fishing. This management requires providing federal funding to the various agencies that are charged with these responsibilities. Democrats have traditionally supported funding these institutions. Democrats have remained committed to advancing the protections of public lands by working through the political system, promoting legislation that guarantees the continued government oversight of public lands. In many ways, the Democratic Party adopted the same strategies for environmentalism as they had used for other rights-based social issues of the 1960s and 1970s. They argued (and they continue to argue) that a clean safe and healthy environment is a basic right of the people. Democratic leadership remained strong in advocating the expansion of federal regulation for managing public lands. Republican president Richard Nixon responded to the growing momentum created by public concern over environmental issues by declaring the first Earth Day on April

Wil d er nes s C o ns er vat io n

22, 1970, and subsequently creating the Environmental Protection Agency and supporting the passing of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (Turner 2009). Since that time, however, the mantle of environmentalism has remained largely within the Democratic Party. According to the 2016 Democratic Party platform, the party supports continuing the federal government’s stewardship of public lands, as well as creating more policies and federal investments to keep public lands public. Additionally, the platform calls for the creation of an American Parks Trust Fund that would expand local, state, and national recreational opportunities to hold America’s wilderness in trust for future generations while encouraging increased outdoor recreational activities and job opportunities (Democratic Party Platforms 2016). The party opposes drilling in wilderness areas and favors an overall phaseout of fossil fuel extraction from all public lands. Early in his administration, President Obama had allowed considerable drilling on public lands as part of his administration’s wider economic stimulus efforts. During his second term, however, his administration’s policies focused more on conservation of public lands than on development. In August 2016, Obama created the world’s largest marine reserve off the coast of Hawaii (dramatically expanding a national monument first established by Republican president George W. Bush in 2006), and in November 2016 he designated three national monuments in the California desert: Mojave Trails National Park, Sand to Snow National Monument, and Castle Mountains National Monument. These new monuments connect existing congressionally designated wildlife areas in order to provide ample space for animals and plants to thrive. All told, Obama protected 265 million acres of land, more than any prior administration. In the closing months of his administration, he also banned gold mining from areas near Yellowstone National Park and cancelled dozens of drilling leases on public lands in Colorado and Montana (Mosbergen 2016). The League of Conservation Voters tracks congressional voting on all acts and bills that pass through Congress that are related to the environment. The organization found that during Obama’s second term, several bills dealing with issues that impact wilderness conservation and public land management—including drilling and fracking on public lands, selling public lands, and funding the continued federal management of public lands—consistently split along party lines, with Democrats casting votes in favor of environment protections and Republicans voting in favor of development (League of Conservation Voters 2016). While the Wilderness Act stipulates that only an act of Congress can create new wilderness areas, President Obama tried to circumvent this, much to the frustration of congressional Republicans. The Wilderness Act describes wilderness as areas where people may only visit and not remain; this has been one of the most contentious issues in the political debates, as it leaves unclear exactly what kinds of lands can be designated as wilderness. The questions over shared federal and state lands, lands that were previously mined or harvested for timber, and lands with existing pack trails left over from another age often end up the focus of political battles (Allin 1982).

341

342

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

These battles tend to be split along party lines, with Democrats arguing in favor of conservation. Brenda M. Kauffman Further Reading Allin, Craig W. 1982. “Understanding the Wilderness Act of 1964.” In The Politics of Wilderness Preservation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Accessed August 1, 2017. https:// www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/355/allin-wilderness%20act.pdf. American Antiquities Act.1906. https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm Accessed November 26, 2016. Campbell, Austin. 2016. “10 Presidential Quotes about Nature in America.” CloudLine Hiking and Backpacking Blog (blog), February 15. Accessed November 26, 2016. https://www.cloudlineapparel.com/blogs/cloudline/92855494-10-presidential -quotes-about-nature-in-america. Chapman, Ann. n.d. “American Conservation in the Twentieth Century.” National Park Service. Accessed November 18, 2016. https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/massachusetts _conservation/American_Conservation_in_the_Twentieth_Century.html. ConservAmerica. 2016. “Our Mission.” Accessed November 26, 2016. http://conservamerica .org/about/. Deaton, Jeremy. 2015. “Republican Politicians Are Betraying Their Party’s Legacy of Conservation.” ThinkProgress.org, October 2. Accessed November 18, 2016. https:// thinkprogress.org/republican-politicians-are-betraying-their-partys-legacy-of -conservation-529e791bfae#.65nejo5dc. Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform,” July 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. Flores, Reena. 2016. “Donald Trump: Don’t Hand Federal Lands to States.” CBS News. com, January 23. Accessed November 26, 2016. http://www.cbsnews.com/news /donald-trump-dont-hand-federal-lands-to-states/. Gorte, Ross W. 2011. “Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted Uses.” CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report. Accessed November 26, 2016. http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/Wilderness%20Laws-Statutory%20 Provisions%20and%20Prohibited%20and%20Permitted%20Uses.pdf. League of Conservation Voters. 2016. “2015 Scorecard Vote: Land & Water Conservation Fund.” National Environmental Scorecard. Accessed November 26, 2016. http:// scorecard.lcv.org/roll-call-vote/2015-43-land-water-conservation-fund-lwcf. Mosbergen, Dominique. 2016. “In the Weeks before Trump Takes Office, Obama’s Mad Dash to Save Public Lands.” HuffPost, November 25. Accessed November 28, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-public-lands-trump_us _5837f4ece4b09b6056006007. Roosevelt, Theodore, Trammell S. Crow, and Rob Sisson. 2016. “Our Public Lands Make America Great.” Accessed November 26, 2016. https://coloradopolitics.com /roosevelt-crow-sisson-public-lands-make-america-great/. State National Forest Management Act of 2015. H.R. 3650. Accessed November 26, 2016. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3650.

Wil d er nes s C o ns er vat io n

Turner, James Morton. 2009. “‘The Specter of Environmentalism’: Wilderness, Environmental Politics, and the Evolution of the New Right,” Journal of American History 96 (1): 123–148. Accessed August 24, 2016. http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/1/123 .ful. doi:10.2307/27694734. Wilderness Connect. 2016. “The Beginnings of the National Wilderness Preservation System.” Wilderness.net/The University of Montana. Accessed August 30, 2016. http:// www.wilderness.net/NWPS/fastfacts. Wilderness Connect. n.d. “Environmental Timeline Overview.” Wilderness.net/The University of Montana. Accessed November 18, 2016. http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS /history. Wilderness Society. 2014. “America the Beautiful Leads World in Wilderness Protection.” Accessed August 31, 2016. http://wilderness.org/blog/america-beautiful-leads -world-wilderness-protection. Wilderness Society. n.d. “Why Protect Wilderness?” Accessed August 29, 2016. http:// wilderness.org/article/why-protect-wilderness.

343

Wind Energy

At a Glance

Democrats are stronger proponents of developing wind energy in the United States than Republicans are. Democrats argue that wind energy is a clean, renewable resource that will reduce the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels and decrease carbon emissions—which in turn will reduce global climate change. Democrats and other supporters of wind energy argue that the manufacturing and operation of wind turbines will provide high-paying jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans and that the output of these turbines will provide low-cost electricity to millions of Americans. Republicans, on the other hand, are more skeptical of wind energy and are much more likely to support such traditional fossil fuel sources as oil, coal, and natural gas. Republicans tend to be deeply skeptical of climate change, so from their perspective there is no urgent need to worry about carbon emissions. Furthermore, Republicans object to the wind industry’s reliance on government subsidies in the form of tax credits. From a practical standpoint, Republicans argue that the cost of wind energy is artificially low because a significant amount of the cost is offset by these tax credits. From an ideological standpoint, conservative Republicans do not believe that it’s the government’s place to interfere with the free market or show favoritism to certain energy producers. Many Democrats . . .

• Believe wind energy can provide clean and renewable energy at a costeffective price • Believe wind energy can reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil • Believe wind energy can decrease harmful carbon emissions that contribute to global climate change • Believe wind energy can create high-paying jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans

Wi nd E ner g y

• Believe wind energy should be subsidized by the government through tax credits Many Republicans . . .

• Believe wind energy should not be subsided by the federal government through tax credits • Believe wind energy should not be considered cost-effective when compared to the unsubsidized oil, natural gas, and nuclear industries • Believe wind energy does not affect climate change, because either the climate is not changing or, if it is, humans are not the cause of it • Believe wind energy should be manufactured and operated independent of government interference; if wind energy is cost-effective, individuals and companies should be free to invest in it without the benefits of government tax breaks

Overview

How Wind Energy Works As an energy source, wind provides an alternative to such fossil-fuel sources as oil, coal, and natural gas. Wind is ultimately caused by the Sun heating the Earth in an uneven fashion. Due to differences in surface temperature and uneven terrain, the air in the atmosphere moves in often predictable patterns of wind. Wind is harnessed as an energy source by wind turbines, which are essentially the modern technological version of windmills, which have been around for millennia. To create energy, the wind spins the blades of the turbine, which rotates a center shaft (usually 30–60 times per minute). This shaft is attached to series of gears, which eventually increase the number of rotations to 1,000–1,800 times per minute. The final gear is attached to a generator to produce an electrical current (U.S. Department of Energy 2017). The electricity produced by the wind turbine’s generator is then connected to the larger power grid. At maximum capacity, a typical utility-grade wind turbine will produce 2–3 megawatts (MW) of electricity (this assumes wind speeds between 27 and 56 miles per hour); typically, turbines operate at 15–30 percent capacity over long stretches of time (National Wind Watch n.d.). Therefore, a single 2-MW turbine operating at 25 percent capacity will produce 4,380 megawatt hours (MWh)—or 4,380,000 kilowatt hours (kWh)—of electricity over the course of a year. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, the average U.S. household uses 10,656 kWh per year, which means that under the stated conditions, a turbine will produce enough electricity to power 411 homes each year.

345

346

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

However, because wind speed is variable, electricity manufacturers cannot rely on “average” results to always occur. At lower wind speeds, especially below 30 miles per hour, very little energy is actually produced because the electrical output decreases by a factor of eight when the turbine speed is halved (National Wind Watch n.d.). As a result, relying entirely on wind for a community’s energy supply is not possible; backup power must also be readily available. Wind energy production is growing dramatically in the United States, and the nation is the largest wind energy producer in the world, generating 190.9 million MWh. In 2015, wind accounted for 4.7 percent of all electricity produced in the country. However, this production is uneven and largely focused in the Great Plains states and on the West Coast, with Iowa leading the nation, producing 31 percent of its energy by wind. Wind energy production in the United States is expected to continue to increase as manufacturing costs decline and offshore wind farms become operational. The first wind farm is expected to begin producing electricity in 2016 off the coast of Rhode Island, though there are 10 other projects in various stages of development as well (Hensley 2016). Advantages of Wind Energy The primary advantage touted by wind energy advocates is that wind represents a renewable, non-carbon-producing energy source that is readily abundant throughout the world. Advocates for the increase of wind energy production stress that these factors make further development of the resource vital in the 21st century. Even though domestic oil production is currently at an all-time high and oil prices have dropped precipitously in the past few years, advocates warn that an overreliance on oil (as well as other fossil fuels like coal and natural gas) would be a strategic mistake for the country. First, wind is ultimately inexhaustible; though wind patterns often fluctuate, there is no fear that wind will eventually cease. This is obviously not the case with fossil fuels, which are finite in supply. Second, reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil has been a stated goal of every president since Richard Nixon. Every watt of energy produced domestically by wind, or any other source, is one less watt that must be obtained from foreign sources. Increasing the amount of energy that is produced domestically allows the United States to make decisions in international relations without having to worry about the effects those decisions will have on energy prices or availability. At the risk of engaging in counterfactual speculation, one could imagine that the United States would have created vastly different policies in the past decades regarding Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Russia, and Libya if policy makers did not have to worry about how their actions would affect energy supplies. Third, the development of wind energy has led to a “turbine manufacturing boom.” The American Wind Energy Association, an industry interest group, points out that as of 2015, the wind energy sector directly employs over 88,000 individuals in the manufacturing, construction, and maintenance of wind turbines. This

Wi nd E ner g y

number represents a 20 percent increase over the prior year and is expected to continue to grow. The organization also adds that such jobs are well-paying and are dispersed across 500 factories in 43 different states, strongly implying that it is not just the Great Plains states that are benefiting from this industry (Hensley 2016). Wind energy is also an affordable energy source. For several years, the American government has subsidized the production of wind energy through the use of tax credits for the production of wind turbines. The costs of turbines has been rapidly declining in recent years, dropping by 60 percent from 2009 to 2015 (Lazard 2015). Despite recent sharp declines in the market price of natural gas, utilityscale wind power remains cost-competitive with traditional generation technologies, even without subsidies, and wind energy production is on track to be cheaper than fossil fuel production within a decade (Bump 2016). The reason for this is that the major cost of wind energy production is the manufacturing of the turbines, accounting for up to 70 percent of the total cost of a land-based wind project (American Wind Energy Association 2013). Once the turbines are built, the manufacturing of the turbine is a sunk cost and the wind energy is produced essentially for free, with the only major costs being maintenance of the turbines. Furthermore, the development of taller, lighter turbines has led to increases in capacity and in the predicted lifespan of modern turbines, decreasing the overall cost of wind projects. Finally, and perhaps most important for the future of the Earth, wind energy production is carbon-neutral after the turbines are installed, meaning that a greater reliance on wind energy will lead to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and curb the effects of global warming in the future. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that wind projects avoided the generation of an estimated 132 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2015, which is the equivalent of eliminating the emissions 28 million cars. In addition, wind energy reduces the emission of such pollutants as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which cause smog and trigger asthma attacks (Hensley 2016). Disadvantages of Wind Energy Despite the benefits of wind energy stated above, the industry does have its detractors. One technological and political hurdle is derived from the fact that wind energy is often harnessed in remote, sparsely populated areas. Transmitting the power over long distances to where the electricity is in high demand is costly and inefficient. The farther the distance that the electricity needs to travel, the more energy that is lost. Also, the electrical grids in remote areas are often too small for the amount of power that wind farms would need to efficiently move the electricity to a larger market. To resolve this issue, transmission lines often need to be installed or upgraded, which is both costly and unpopular with local residents (Wald 2008). Some critics point to the potential environmental consequences of large wind farms. Land-based wind farms are almost always placed on land that has already

347

348

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Trump and Obama on Wind Energy Donald Trump, Republican nominee for president, in 2016: Wind is very expensive. I mean, wind, without subsidy, wind doesn’t work. You need massive subsidies for wind. There are places for wind but if you go to various places in California, wind is killing all of the eagles. You know if you shoot an eagle, if you kill an eagle, they want to put you in jail for five years. And yet the windmills are killing hundreds and hundreds of eagles. . . . They’re killing them by the hundreds. Despite that, I’m into all types of energy.

Barack Obama, U.S. president, in 2012: And at a moment when we want to pursue every avenue for job creation, it’s homegrown energy like wind that’s creating good, new jobs in states like Iowa. . . . We can listen to folks who want to take us backwards by doubling down on the same economic policies that got us into a fix several years ago and that we’re still fighting out of. Or we can keep moving forward to a future with more good, American jobs, more sources of homegrown, American energy, greater energy independence, and cleaner, safer environments for our kids.

Sources Bump, Philip. 2016. “There’s a Lot to Unpack in Just One of Donald Trump’s Answers about Energy Policy.” Washington Post, May 26. Accessed August 11, 2016. https://www .washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/26/theres-a-lot-to-unpack-in-donald -trumps-answers-about-energy-policy/. White House. 2012. “Remarks by the President on Wind Energy.” Office of the Press Secretary. Press Release, August 14. Accessed August 11, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov /the-press-office/2012/08/14/remarks-president-wind-energy.

been cleared, but that does not mean there is a completely neutral effect on animal life. Most often, critics point to the number of bats and birds that are killed by turbines. A study conducted by Loss, Will, and Marra (2013) concludes that between 140,000 and 328,000 birds are killed annually by collisions with turbines and finds evidence that increasing the height of turbines, which has been a clear trend in recent years, will also increase the number of bird deaths. Presumably, increasing the number of turbines in the country will also increase the number of bird deaths. However, proponents of wind energy argue that perspective is needed when the ecological impact of turbines is being assessed. Wind energy replaces the burning of fossil fuels, thereby eliminating harmful carbon dioxide and other pollutants that would also harm birds and other animals. Further, the number of bird deaths is not nearly as high as the large numbers make it seem; for comparison, skyscrapers cause the deaths of between 365 and 988 million birds a year (Milius 2014).

Wi nd E ner g y

Other criticisms include the noise of the wind turbines when they are operational. According to Thomas Kellner, writing on behalf of the turbine manufacturer General Electric, a typical turbine produces about 105 decibels of sound, about the same as a running lawn mower. However, turbines are usually installed in vast, open spaces, and the noise declines precipitously with distance. Wind turbines are practically never installed within 300 yards of a home; and at 400 yards, the turbine is about as loud as a refrigerator (40 decibels). Still, the sound of a wind turbine is audible for about one mile. Finally, some complain about the aesthetics of wind turbines, believing them to be eyesores on the landscape. This concern is often heighted when offshore wind farms are visible from the coast or visible from people’s homes. Democrats on Wind Energy

It would be overly simplistic to assert that one political party favors wind energy and the other does not; at least in the abstract, “wind energy” is very popular among both Democratic and Republican voters. However, it clear that the Democratic Party has been more supportive of wind energy production than the Republican Party, both historically and at present. Support among Democrats for increasing wind energy production to achieve energy independence is rooted primarily in two values: reducing the threat of climate change and increasing the number of jobs. The party believes that government can promote wind energy production primarily through the use of tax incentives and government subsidies of wind production to make the production and operation of wind turbines more affordable in comparison to fossil fuel energy, at the same time eliminating tax breaks for fossil fuel companies. The 2016 Democratic Party platform calls climate change an “urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time,” citing rising sea levels, droughts, wildfires, flash floods, and record high global temperatures as compelling evidence. The platform goes on to say that the best science tells us that humanity needs to take immediate action to cut greenhouse gasses and carbon pollution (Democratic Party Platforms 2016, 27). The Democratic Party wishes to reduce greenhouse gasses by 80 percent of 2005 levels by 2050 and keep the pledge of the Paris Agreement on climate change to keep global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Democrats argue that to achieve these goals, America must get 50 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2020 and must run entirely on clean energy by the middle of the 21st century (27). Presumably, wind power would need to be a major part of implementing this ambitious agenda, though solar energy and hydroelectric power would also need to play a role. The Democratic Party platform also sees the transition to clean energy as a potential economic catalyst, saying that “we must help American workers and businesses compete for jobs and investments in global clean energy” (Democratic Party Platforms 2016, 8). Importantly, the platform repeatedly stresses that clean energy

349

350

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

jobs are “good paying jobs” and the (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010) reports that the engineers, wind turbine technicians, machinists, and welders who would be needed in order to create and run a wind farm all typically earn much more than what is considered the minimum for a living wage. The Democratic Party does not see a conflict between the two goals of halting climate change and achieving economic prosperity, explicitly arguing that there is no need to “choose between protecting our planet and creating good-paying jobs” (27). To accomplish the goal of increasing wind energy production, the platform says that Democrats will “incentivize” wind and other types of renewable energy (Democratic Party Platforms 2016, 28). What the term incentivize implies is that wind energy must be protected in the tax code through subsidies. In a separate section, the platform argues that the tax code must be updated to eliminate tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies (27), which would make wind production comparatively more cost-effective, as well as promising to extend tax incentives for clean energy, which would have a direct effect on decreasing the cost of wind energy. Though wind energy, like other forms of renewable energy, is broadly popular with the public, it is particularly popular among self-identified Democrats in the limited polling that is available on the issue. A 2013 poll showed that 84 percent of Democrats supported increasing funding for research into renewable energy (compared to 60 percent of Republicans), and 67 percent favored eliminating all subsidies for the fossil fuel industry (compared to 52 percent of Republicans) (Leiserowitz et al. 2014). With a fairly broad consensus among the party’s voters, it is not surprising that Democratic politicians are often very eager to promote themselves as being in favor of promoting the wind energy industry. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the party’s two main rivals for the 2016 presidential nomination, both stressed their commitment to developing wind and other renewable energy resources (League of Conservation Voters 2016). There is very little disagreement among congressional Democrats regarding the promotion of wind energy. Though some members who represent coal- and oil-producing areas might be less inclined to outwardly support wind and other alternative energies, zero Democrats signed a letter from Americans for Prosperity (a conservative group funded by the Koch Brothers, who are heavily invested the fossil fuel industry) that calls for the elimination of tax credits for wind production, compared to 65 Republicans who have done so (Fitzpatrick 2016). Though the alternative energy industry would not make any lists of the top political contributors, the industry gave over $11 million in contributions to Republican and Democratic candidates from 2008 to July 2016, 63 percent of which has gone to Democrats. However, the industry is becoming increasingly bipartisan in its political donations, giving 45 percent of its donations to Republicans since 2014 (Center for Responsive Politics 2016a).

Wi nd E ner g y

Republicans on Wind Energy

The Republican Party has traditionally been very skeptical of developing wind energy production in the United States. Instead, party leaders and GOP voters usually have preferred to promote domestic fossil fuel extraction to achieve energy independence. In 2008, Republicans at their national convention chanted “Drill, Baby, Drill” in support of domestic oil production and in mockery of then-Senator Barack Obama’s stated support for renewable energy. Four years later, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney pledged to end the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) and did not include wind power or other forms of renewable energy in his official energy plan, instead focusing on oil and natural gas development and expansion (DiMugno 2012). The 2016 Republican Party platform gives substantial praise to fossil fuel energies like coal and oil, even going so far as to call coal a “clean” resource (Republican Party Platforms 2016, 19). Wind energy is mentioned only once, with the platform stating that the party “encourage[s] the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources—wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy—by private capital” (20). In other words, the Republican Party’s official stance is in direct opposition to the wind energy production tax credits that are promoted by the Democrats. In that same section, the platform omits wind from a list of energy forms that are “marketable in a free economy without subsidies” (20). The Republican opposition to wind energy likely stems from three sources: the party’s deep connections to the oil and gas industry, the party’s adherence to free market principles, and the party’s widespread denial of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. First, the oil and gas industry competes directly with the wind industry to produce and provide energy for Americans. Every watt of power provided by wind turbines is one less watt of power that could be delivered by fossil fuels, so the oil and gas industry has a direct stake in slowing the development of renewable resources. The political contributions of the oil and gas industry have ensured that the Republican Party shares in that stake. Since 1990, more than 80 percent of political donations from the oil and gas industry have gone to Republican candidates. In 2012, the oil and gas industry gave $79.5 million dollars to political candidates, 89 percent of whom were Republican (Center for Responsive Politics 2016b). The second contributor to the Republican opposition to wind energy development is the party’s adherence to free market principles. Republicans are overwhelmingly conservative, and conservatives believe in a reduced government role in the economy. The government has chosen to encourage the development of domestic wind energy for the reasons stated earlier, but because the production of wind turbines is expensive, wind energy producers receive tax credits in order to offset the costs of production and to make the consumer price for wind energy competitive with fossil fuel sources. This economic strategy runs counter to conservative ideology, which would argue that the free market would provide the most pricing mechanism.

351

352

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Lastly, a major benefit touted by wind energy proponents is that running the wind turbines does not produce any carbon emissions, which are a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Many Republicans, however, are very skeptical of climate change in general, especially when it comes to the role of humanity in causing it. Among those running for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee all questioned the scientific evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing and that the change is primarily caused by human activity. A few Republican governors in the field, however, bucked GOP orthodoxy on the issue. New Jersey’s Chris Christie was originally skeptical of climate change but changed his position, believing finally that climate change is at least partially human-caused, though not “a crisis.” Meanwhile, Ohio governor John Kasich thought climate change to be real, but still did not think that emissions should be regulated. These beliefs are reflective of the beliefs of Republican voters. A recent Gallup poll (Saad and Jones 2016) showed that just 38 percent of Republican respondents believed increases in global temperatures were the result of human activity, compared to 85 percent of Democrats. Further, just 20 percent of Republicans thought that global warming would pose a threat in one’s lifetime (Saad and Jones 2016). In light of these poll results, it should not be surprising that Republicans are often opposed to wind energy; by and large, they do not see the need to reduce the carbon emissions caused by burning fossil fuels. The Republican Party shows some signs of softening its stance against wind energy, though it might be more accurate to describe the party as conflicted on the subject. In late 2015, Republican Party leaders in Congress reached an agreement with Democrats to extend the wind energy production tax credits until 2020 in exchange for a repeal of the 40-year ban on oil exports. Despite the rhetoric opposing such subsidies, this measure was included in a large spending bill that was easily passed into law. Analysts suggest that bipartisan compromises like this are reached because wind energy production is a fast-growing industry that is particularly concentrated in heavily Republican rural areas (Fitzpatrick 2016). According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are wind farms in 67 Republican-held congressional districts (compared to 38 Democratic districts). To quote a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, “The windy states are conservative” (qtd. in Fitzpatrick 2016). Still, it would be simplistic to say that the Republican position will rapidly change in favor of wind energy production simply due to geography. Plenty of congressional Republicans from wind-producing states like Texas and Oklahoma vocally opposed the tax credits, including Senator James Lankford (R-OK) and Representative Kenny Marchant (R-TX), both of whom sponsored bills that attempted to repeal the wind tax credits in 2016. Steven P. Nawara

Wi nd E ner g y

Further Reading American Wind Energy Association. 2013. “The Cost of Wind Energy in the U.S.” Accessed August 11, 2016. http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5547. Bump, Philip. 2016. “There’s a Lot to Unpack in Just One of Donald Trump’s Answers about Energy Policy.” Washington Post, May26. Accessed August 11, 2016. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/26/theres-a-lot-to-unpack -in-donald-trumps-answers-about-energy-policy/. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. “Green Jobs: Careers in Wind Energy.” Accessed August 11, 2016. http://www.bls.gov/green/wind_energy/. Center for Responsive Politics. 2016a. “Alternative Energy Production and Services: LongTerm Contribution Trends.” Accessed August 11, 2016. https://www.opensecrets.org /industries/totals.php?cycle=2016&ind=E1500. Center for Responsive Politics. 2016b. “Oil and Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends.” Accessed August 11, 2016. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle =2016&ind=e01. Democratic Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Democratic Party Platform,” July 21. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117717. DiMugno, Laura. 2012. “What Are Mitt Romney’s Wind Energy Plans?” North American Wind Power, August 28. Accessed August 11, 2016. http://nawindpower.com /what-are-mitt-romneys-wind-energy-plans. Fitzpatrick, Jack. 2016. “Wind and Solar Energy Subsidies Aren’t Just for Democrats Anymore.” Morning Consult, March 7. Accessed August 11, 2016. https://morningconsult .com/2016/03/07/political-calculus-changes-on-wind-solar-tax-credits/. Hensley, John. 2016. “Top Nine Wind Energy Trends of 2015.” Into the Wind (AWEA blog), April 12. Accessed August 11, 2016. http://www.aweablog.org/top-nine-wind -energy-trends-of-2015/. Kellner, Tomas. 2014. “How Loud Is a Wind Turbine?” General Electric Reports, August 2. Accessed August 11, 2016. http://www.gereports.com/post/92442325225/how-loud -is-a-wind-turbine/. Lazard. 2015. “Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 9.0: Key Findings.” Accessed August 11, 2016. https://www.lazard.com/media/2392/lazard-s-levelized-cost-of-energy -analysis-90-key-findings.pdf. League of Conservation Voters. 2016. “In Their Own Words: 2016 Presidential Candidates on Renewable Energy.” Accessed August 11, 2016. https://www.lcv.org /article/2016-presidential-candidates-on-renewable-energy/. Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, G. Feinberg, and S. Rosenthal. 2014. “Public Support for Climate and Energy Policies in November 2013.” Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Accessed July 26, 2017. https://www.climatechangecommunication.org /wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Nov.-2013-Public-Support-for-Climate-and-Energy -Policies.pdf. Loss, Scott R., Tom Will, and Peter P. Marra. 2013. “Estimates of Bird Collision Mortality at Wind Facilities in the Contiguous United States.” Biological Conservation 168 (December): 201–209. Accessed August 11, 2016. https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf /management/lossetal2013windfacilities.pdf

353

354

TODAY ’S ENVIRON M ENTA L ISSUES

Milius, Susan. 2014. “Stop Blaming Cats: As Many as 988 Million Birds Die Annually in Window Collisions.” Washington Post, February 3. Accessed August 11, 2016. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/stop-blaming-cats-as-many-as -988-million-birds-die-annually-in-window-collisions/2014/02/03/9837fe80-8866 -11e3-916e-e01534b1e132_story.html. National Wind Watch. n.d. “FAQ—Output.” Accessed August 11, 2016. https://www .wind-watch.org/faq-output.php. Republican Party Platforms. 2016. “2016 Republican Party Platform,” July 18. The American Presidency Project. Accessed March 31, 2017. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws /index.php?pid=117718. Saad, Lydia, and Jeffrey M. Jones. 2016. “U.S. Concern about Global Warming at EightYear High.” Gallup, March 16. Accessed August 11, 2016. http://www.gallup.com /poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx. U.S. Department of Energy. n.d. “The Inside of a Wind Turbine.” Wind Energy Technologies Office. Accessed July 26, 2017. https://energy.gov/eere/wind/inside-wind-turbine-0. Wald, Matthew L. 2008. “Wind Energy Bumps into Power Grid Limits.” New York Times, August 26. Accessed August 11, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27 /business/27grid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Glossary

Acid rain: a broad term that includes any form of precipitation with acidic components, such as sulfuric or nitric acid, that falls to the ground from the atmosphere in wet or dry forms. This can include acidic rain, snow, fog, and hail—or even dust that is acidic. Adjacent wetlands: wetlands that are next to or share a common border with a navigable waterway. Animal units: an animal equivalent of 1,000 pounds live weight (equates to 1,000 head of beef cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 swine weighing more than 55 pounds, 125 thousand broiler chickens, or 82 thousand laying hens or pullets). Anthropogenic: resulting from the influence of human beings on nature; namely, environmental pollution or pollutants. Appropriations: a sum of money set aside by formal action for a specific use. Best Available Technology (BAT): according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the technology that provides the “best available economically achievable performance.” BATs are “intended to represent the greatest pollutant reductions that are economically achievable for an industry.” Snowmobiles permitted entrance to Yellowstone National Park are required to be BAT snowmobiles. Biodiversity/Biological diversity: the variety of all life forms on earth—the different plants, animals, and microorganisms and the ecosystems of which they are a part. Biofuel: a hydrocarbon, made by or from a living organism, that humans can use to power something; a liquid fuel such as ethanol. Bipartisan: legislation or statements marked by cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties. Brownfield: a site where past industrial or commercial use has caused contamination and thus has affected current or future use. Brownfields are contaminated industrial sites that can be cleaned more easily than typical Superfund sites and can be redeveloped to be used for industrial purposes again. Bureau of Land Management (BLM): a federal department established in 1946 and placed within the Department of the Interior. The BLM manages diverse landscapes and resources across the nation, especially in the west. Congress directed the BLM to administer the nation’s public lands in a way that both protects and conserves natural resources for future generations. The BLM manages land for a variety of uses, referred to as multiple-use and sustained-yield management. CAFE standard: government requirement that the average fuel economy of the fleet of automobiles produced by each auto manufacturer (its “Corporate Average Fuel Economy,” or CAFE) must meet a specified minimum miles-per-gallon efficiency level. Cap and trade, or carbon market: a term for policies that establish markets for carbon dioxide emissions. Permits to emit carbon dioxide are issued to large emitters. Those

356

Gl ossa ry

permits may be bought and sold. This gives emitters an incentive to lower their emissions, in order to avoid the need to buy more permits, or to sell their unused permits. The total number of permits issued can be decreased over time to lower the level of allowed emissions. Carbon emissions: the production or discharge of carbon dioxide by natural or human sources. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): human-made compounds containing carbon, chlorine, and fluorine, which formerly were widely used in refrigerants, aerosols, and foam insulation. When CFCs come into contact with the ozone layer, they cause ozone molecules to break apart, resulting in ozone depletion. Clean Air Act: federal legislation, passed in 1970 and amended in 1990, that gave the EPA authority to establish and enforce outdoor air quality standards. Clean energy: sources of energy that produce no or limited pollution. Examples are environmental sources of energy, such as solar and wind power. Clearcutting: the method of timber harvest in which all or most of the trees in an area are cut down at once or within a few years of each other. Climate change: the warming and cooling of the planet’s surface temperatures, affecting the rise and fall of oceans, the expansion and retreat of glaciers, and the distribution and functioning of ecosystems and their associated flora and fauna. Anthropogenic climate change refers to the share of change that can be attributed to human behavior. Coal mining: the process of taking coal from the ground through surface mining (also known as “opencast mining”) or underground mining (also referred to as “deep mining”). Coal seams in the ground are exposed by explosives; the coal is extracted and then transported to coal preparation plants or directly to where the coal will be used. Command-and-control regulation: a policy that relies on direct regulation (permission, prohibition, standard setting, and enforcement); the regulator specifies what the industry can and cannot do. Conservationist: a person who supports using the land in a conscientious and respectful manner that provides benefits for the larger society. A conservationist is not necessarily opposed to resource development or recreational use of land, but wants to be respectful in how these activities are conducted in order to maintain the environment (see also Preservationist). Constituent: a person who is represented politically by a designated government official or officeholder. Deep Geological Repository: an underground storage site for nuclear waste. An ideal site has stable rock formations, ensuring that if the containers storing the waste leak, the material will not contaminate the environment or harm nearby populations. Deregulation: the process of removing or reducing federal or state regulations or restrictions from an industry. Ecological footprint (environmental footprint): measures the ecological assets that a given population requires in order to produce the natural resources it consumes; the amount of the environment needed to produce the goods and services to support a particular lifestyle. Ecosystem: a complex system that includes all living organisms (biotic factors) in an area as well as its physical environment (abiotic factors), functioning together as a unit. An

Gl o s s a ry

ecosystem is made up of plants, animals, microorganisms, soil, rocks, minerals, water sources, and the local atmosphere, interacting with one another. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): authorized under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), documents required to be prepared by an industry in cases where certain actions could “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” Environmental refugee: person displaced by deteriorating environmental conditions. Environmental security: relationship between (1) the quality of the environment and stocks of natural resources and the social fabric of societies that depend on them, including the health of their economies, and (2) the increasing propensity for conflict as competition for necessary resources intensifies. Executive Order: a directive from the President that does not require congressional approval and that has much of the same power as a federal law. Federal Land Management Policy Act: law that made the retention of public lands a stated federal policy and required that the Bureau of Land Management manage lands under its jurisdiction on the basis of the multiple-use doctrine. Federalism: a governmental structure in the United States where power is shared by the national government and the state governments over the same geographical region. This relationship may cause conflict between people who believe states should maintain national parks within their boundaries and people who believe that the national government is the sole protector of national parks. Fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas; nonrenewable resources that formed from organic material over the course of millions of years. Fracking: see Hydraulic fracturing. Free market: an economic system without government interference or regulation. Generating unit (hydropower): transforms mechanical energy into electricity. In hydropower plants, this combination of generator and turbine is called a generating unit. Genetically Modified Organism (GMO): organism in which DNA have been modified through human intervention. Geothermal energy: heat from the Earth that is clean and sustainable. Great Lakes Compact: a 2008 agreement between eight U.S. states and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario, creating a framework for the parties to manage and regulate resources of the Great Lakes. Green energy: energy derived from such renewable natural sources as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, plants, algae, and geothermal heat. Greenhouse gases: a group of emitted chemicals—water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases—responsible for holding heat at or near Earth’s surface. As the concentration of these gases rises, the amount of thermal energy from the Sun retained in the atmosphere and the oceans also rises. Herbicides: pesticides that control or destroy weeds. Hydraulic fracturing: process of extracting natural gas from shale or tight-rock formations by pumping high-pressured water into holes drilled into the ground. Infrastructure: fundamental systems or facilities of a country, such as roads, bridges, mass transit systems, airports, and seaports. Insecticides: pesticides that control or destroy insects.

357

358

Gl ossa ry

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): international organization created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, composed of scientists and representatives from governments around the world to review the state of knowledge on climate change and prepare reports for the public and for policy makers. Isolated wetlands: wetlands that are not connected by the hydrological cycle to waters of the United States. Kyoto Protocol: international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which commits its parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets. Mass transit: shared passenger-transport service that is available for use by the general public—for example, trains, subways, buses, trams, trolleys, and ferries. Moratorium: temporary prohibition of an activity. Mountaintop removal mining: a form of surface mining in which miners expose coal seams by removing the land, such as a summit or mountain ridge, above the seams. Excess fill material from mountaintop mining is traditionally disposed of in nearby streams and valleys. Multiple use: defined in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 as “the management of all the various renewable surface resources . . . so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people.” Multiple Use Doctrine: the doctrine that federal public lands shall be administered on the basis of various uses, which might include such contradictory activities as preservation, recreation, extraction, and scientific study. National monument: a historic or geographic area of land that has been set aside for protection by the federal government using the Antiquities Act of 1906. This land may be protected by Congress or the President through the Antiquities Act—or through special legislation, in the case of some national parks. National parks are a subset of national monuments, but not all national monuments are national parks. National Wilderness Preservation System: a network of federally protected undeveloped wilderness areas, authorized by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Navigable waters: waters of the United States, including territorial seas, as defined in Section 502 of the Clean Water Act. Off-road vehicle: also commonly referred to as Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV). Refers to snowmobiles, jet skis, four-wheelers, fan-boats, and other motorized vehicles that are “designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain.” Partisan polarization: also known as political polarization; policy differences between Republicans and Democrats that become so severe that the groups are unable to reach consensus. Party platform: statement of a political party’s beliefs and policy proposals that is adopted by the party’s delegates at a national convention. Pesticides: substances or organisms used by people, organizations, and societies to control or destroy pests. Polluter Pays: the practice of levying an excise tax on the production of toxic or hazardous waste so that a fund can be used to clean up those sites that are abandoned.

Gl o s s a ry

Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB): type of industrial compound used in many forms of lubricants and plastics. These toxic chemicals are harmful to the environment and public health. Preservationist: person who believes that nature must be protected from the interference of humans, regardless of the minimal benefit humans may gain. A preservationist would oppose any form of resource development or recreational use that interferes with the natural environment (see also Conservationist). Privatization: transfer of public land to private ownership. Progressive Era: period in U.S. history, roughly from 1890 to 1920, in which Americans responded to rapid industrialization with a range of liberal social and economic policies. Public land: land owned by the government. Radon: a potentially deadly, gas-based radioactive element that can be found naturally in the ground. Because radon is odorless and has no color, it can seep into homes and build up without the occupant’s knowledge. Reclamation: the restoration process in which mined or otherwise developed land is returned to a natural state or an economically usable form. Sagebrush Rebellion: a movement in the western United States during the 1970s and 1980s in which activists sought to transfer the control of public lands from the federal government to the states and change federal land use policies to favor commercial use. Shale: a sedimentary rock rich in minerals that can be split into slabs. Some types of shale, such as black organic shale, are the source of oil and natural gas deposits. Sick Building Syndrome: a broad term that refers to a variety of health problems that can affect humans residing in a polluted building. Spent fuel: nuclear fuel rods that are removed from active use when they are no longer capable of sustaining nuclear reactions. These rods may be stored in cooling pools or placed in sealed steel cylinders; still, they remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Stakeholder: person(s), group, or organization that has an interest or a concern regarding environmental policy, an agency’s regulations or actions, or corporate activity and decisions. Subsidy: a government-provided discount, usually in the form of tax credits or rebates, that is designed to encourage alternative energy production. Superfund: government program created in 1980 to clean up toxic waste sites. Sustainability: a tenet of ecological holism that guides and limits human action by acknowledging the ethical value of all members of the biotic community. Sustainable development: human-centered view of sustainability, defined as a use of nature that allows the present generation to meet its needs without compromising the needs of future generations. Transfer policy: Moving public lands from national government control to state control. Triple bottom line: popular method for assessing sustainable development that includes measures for economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental impacts. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): the international accord created in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in which the signatories agreed to stabilize emissions of greenhouse gases at a level required to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change.

359

360

Gl ossa ry

Wetlands: as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers, “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” Wilderness Act of 1964: an act passed by Congress designating vast tracts of publicly owned land as wilderness, to be left “untrammeled by man.”

Selected Bibliography

Andrews, Richard N. L. 1999. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Beard, Daniel P. 2015. Deadbeat Dams: Why We Should Abolish the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Tear Down Glen Canyon Dam. Boulder, CO: Johnson Books. Bedford, Daniel, and John Cook. 2016. Climate Change: Examining the Facts. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Bocking, Stephen. 2017. Ecologists and Environmental Politics: A History of Contemporary Ecology. 2nd ed. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press. Brinkley, Douglas. 2009. The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America. New York: HarperCollins. Bryant, Bunyan, ed. 1995. Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions. Washington, DC: Island Press. Burch, John R., Jr. 2015. Water Rights and the Environment in the United States: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press. Conca, Ken, and Geoffrey D. Dabelko, eds. 2014. Green Planet Blues: Critical Perspectives on Global Environmental Politics. 5th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Dobson, Andrew. 2016. Environmental Politics: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Dowie, Mark. 1995. Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Foreman, Christopher H., Jr. 1998. The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Hays, Samuel P. 1987. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955–1985. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hillstrom, Kevin. U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: A Documentary History. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2010. Jackson, Kenneth T. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. Klyza, Christopher McGrory, and David J. Sousa. 2013. American Environmental Policy: Beyond Gridlock. Upd. and exp. ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Larmer, Paul, ed. 2004. Give and Take: How the Clinton Administration’s Public Lands Offensive Transformed the American West. Paonia, CO: High Country News Books. Lewis, Michael, ed. 2007. American Wilderness: A New History. New York: Oxford University Press. Limerick, Patricia Nelson. 1988. The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West. New York: Norton. Merchant, Carol, ed. 2012. Major Problems in American Environmental History: Documents and Essays. 3rd ed. Boston: Wadsworth/Cengage. Mooney, Chris. 2012. The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality. New York: Wiley.

362

S e l e c te d Bi b li ogra p hy

Reisner, Marc. 1993. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. Rev. and upd. ed. New York: Penguin. Rosner, David, and Gerald Markowitz, eds. 1987. Dying for Work: Workers’ Safety and Health in Twentieth-Century America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Shafie, David M. 2013. Presidential Administration and the Environment: Executive Leadership in the Age of Gridlock. New York: Routledge. Smith, Zachary A., and John Freemuth, eds. 2016. Environmental Politics and Policy in the West. 3rd ed. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Turner, James Morton. 2013. The Promise of Wilderness: American Environmental Politics Since 1964. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Vig, Norman J., and Michael E. Kraft, eds. 2016. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. 9th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press. Wilson, Randall K. 2016. America’s Public Lands: From Yellowstone to Smokey Bear and Beyond. Rep. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Index

Acid rain, 7, 31–38, 183, 310; and Clean Air Act, 250; and Montreal Protocol, 14 Acid Rain Program, 7 Act to Prevent Pollution, 177 Agriculture Act, 25 Air pollutants: indoor 147–151; National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 33; outdoor, 248–250 Air pollution. See Indoor air pollution; Outdoor air pollution Air Pollution Control Act, 249 Alaska, 87, 159–165, 206–209, 238–239, 335. See also Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 163, 209, 238 Alpine Lakes Area Management Act, 160 Ambient Air Quality Standards, 33, 151, 250 American Association for the Advancement of Science, 92 American Enterprise Institute (AEI), 58 American Farm Bureau Federation, 330 American Geosciences Institute (AGI), 183 American Jobs Act, 319 American Lung Association, 80, 148–150 American Medical Association, 92 American Parks Trust Fund, 207, 341 American Petroleum Institute, 130 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 9, 138, 142, 319 Antarctica, 3, 15, 259. See also Arctic Anthropogenic climate change, 3, 356, 359 Antibiotic resistance, 23, 27. See also Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

Antiquities Act of 1906, 49, 108, 163, 175, 196, 198, 202, 203–204, 205–208, 244, 336, 339; Democrats, 209; Republicans, 204, 206–207 Arctic, 2–4; climate change, 15; drilling, 238, 243–244; national parks, 206–207; noise pollution, 219, 223; water, 171–172. See also Antarctica; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), 206, 238 Argentina, 89 Army Corps of Engineers, 66, 68, 137–138, 172, 183, 323–327, 330 Asthma, 80, 150, 347 Atlantic Seismic Airgun Protection Act, 222 Atomic Energy Act, 228 Barnes, James, 150 Barnett Shale, 126 Barrasso, John, 161, 330 Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act), 178 Bears Ears National Monument, 108 Begich, Mark, 164 Big oil, 142 Bingaman, Jeff, 7, 127 Biodiversity, 40, 91, 158, 163, 337; and United Nations, 307 Biopesticides, 268 Bird sanctuaries, 176 Boehner, John, 329–330 Boxer, Barbara, 165, 244 Brazil, 89 Brown, Sherrod, 186

364

In de x

Brownfields, 58; Democrats, 147; Republicans 118–121. See also Environmental justice Brundtland Report, 303 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 44, 100–102, 187, 190, 283 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), 126 Bureau of Reclamation, 135–139, 144 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), 126 Burns, Conrad, 194 Burr, Richard, 339 Bush, George H. W.: on acid rain, 31, 33–35, 38; Basel Convention, 117; Clean Air Act, 252; climate change, 7; environmental and economic growth, 45, 329; Environmental Equity Workgroup, 57; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 323; Exxon Valdez, 174; hazardous waste, 117; Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), 316; National Parks, 205; oil and gas production, 242; Oil Pollution Act, 175; ozone, 265; public lands, 104 Bush, George W.: on Antiquities Act 175, 178, 203; Clean Air Act (CAA), 9; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 24; Clear Skies, 253; economic development, 206–209, 329; Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), 76, 79, 81; energy independence, 317; Energy Policy Act, 129, 140; environmental justice, 57–58; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 277; Great Lakes, 66; Healthy Forest Initiatives, 160; logging, 160–161; Montreal Protocol, 265; motorized vehicles and public lands, 195–197; National Energy Policy Development Group, 242; Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument,

175; Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 78; Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 159; Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), 317; Small Business Liability Relief, 118; Superfund, 121; solar energy, 290; as Texas governor, 118; wetlands, 323; wilderness conservation, 338–339, 341; Yucca Mountain, 227–234 Bush, Jeb, 352 Byrd–Hagel Resolution, 37 Byrne, Jane, 220 CAA. See Clean Air Act CAFE Standards. See Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards CAFOs. See Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Canada, 15, 33, 41, 65 Cap and trade, 7–9, 12, 14–15, 153, 253. See also Emissions trading Cantwell, Maria, 141, 164–165, 234 Carbon monoxide, 36, 147–149, 197, 249–250, 312 Carbon taxes, 2, 15, 82 Carson, Ben, 285, 352 Carson, Rachel, 118–119, 249. See also Silent Spring Carter, James “Jimmy,” 48, 55; on air, 254; and Alaska, 209; Antiquities Act, 208–209; energy, 77, 243; Executive Order 12114, 262; federal land, 107; grazing, 101; logging, 162–163, 205; Love Canal, 114–115, 119; oceans, 177; off-road vehicles, 196–197; ozone, 258–262; Superfund, 55, 114–115; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 119; waste, 228; wetlands, 327, 329 Carvel, Elbert N., 176 Casey, Robert, 127 Center for American Progress, 14 Center for Biodiversity, 82, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 23, 271

I nd ex

CERCLA. See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Cheney, Dick, 127–129, 242–243 Chesapeake Bay, 49, 328 Chicago Department of Aviation, 216 China, 150 Chinese Hoax, 37 Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 258–260, 356 Christie, Chris, 9, 124, 131, 308, 352 Chu, Steven, 127, 232, 234 Church, Frank, 340 Clean Air Act (CAA), 9, 23–24, 33, 36; 53, 55, 58, 66, 148, 152, 248–250; amendments, 7, 33, 259–262 Clean coal, 143, 150, 295 Clean Development Mechanism, 5 Clean Power Plan, 9, 38–39, 56, 255, 307 Clean Water Act (CWA), 23, 53, 62, 172, 179, 240–243, 326–327; Good Samaritan, 186; Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, 323. See also Federal Water Pollution Control Act Clear-cutting, 156–157, 162 Climate change, 1–17; acid rain, 4, 14; Byrd–Hagel Resolution, 37; Chinese hoax, 37; Clean Air Act, 7, 9; climate modeling, 3; Democratic position, 6–10; economic conditions, 4; Greenhouse effect, 2; human mortality, 4; Kyoto Protocol, 5, 7, 37, 358; military conflicts, 4; Paris Agreement, 5, 10, 16–17, 37, 349; Republican position, 10–16; UNFCCC, 5, 7, 9. See also Emissions trading; Greenhouse gases Climate Stewardship Act, 7 Clinton, Hillary: on energy, 293, 350; Flint, Michigan, 70; fossil fuels, 293; fracking, 129; GMOs, 275; public lands, 285–286; sustainability, 308; Yucca, 234 Clinton, William “Bill,” 254; Antiquities Act, 205–206; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), 244;

as Arkansas governor, 71–72; BEACH Act, 178; on emissions, 7; endangered species, 48; energy, 254; environmental justice, 54–56; grazing, 105–108; hazardous waste and Superfund, 117, 120–121; Northwest Forest Plan, 163; ozone, 263; public lands, 196–209; Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 160–163; sustainability, 304; transportation, 318; water and air 69, 327; wetlands, 323 Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, 178 Coastal Commission, 177 Coastal erosion, 252 Community Accountability Act, 222 Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFL), 79 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 23, 113,115. See also Superfund Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), 21–28; Clean Air Act (CAA), 24, 26; Clean Water Act (CWA), 23, 24, 27; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 23–25; concerns, 22; Democrat position, 26–28; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 23–25; factory farms, 22, 27; Republican position, 24–26; subsidies, 21, 25. See also Farm bills Continental drift, 2 Conservationists, 10, 191, 196, 198, 208, 273, 307, 323, 336 Cook, Paul, 196–198 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, 74–82, 316 Cruz, Ted, 124, 284–285, 352 Cuomo, Andrew, 15, 124 Dairy Farmers of America, 330 Dakota Access Pipeline, 70 Daley, Richard J., 220 Daley, Richard M., 220 Deforestation, 6, 157–158

365

366

In de x

Democratic National Committee, 144, 274, 281 Department of Commerce, 41, 242, 264 Department of Defense (DoD), 4 Department of Energy (DOE), 55, 79, 138, 242–243; efficiency standards, 80–81; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 137; renewable energy loans, 291; SunShot Initiative, 291; waste sites, 229; Yucca, 230; Department of Environmental Quality, 63 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), 116, 249–250 Department of the Army, 138 Department of the Interior (DOI), 41, 138, 156, 191, 283, 325, 335; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), 239; economy, 264; endangered species, 48; grazing, 100; methane, 130; offshore drilling, 244; snowmobiles, 195 Department of Transportation (DOT), 215, 315, 318–319, 325; Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, 75 DeSantis, Ron, 317 Developing countries, 5–6, 10; and Montreal Protocol, 150, 260 Dilution, 170–171, 173, 179 Diversion, 69, 137 Dust Bowl, 106, 304 EarthJustice, 159 Earth Day, 48, 174, 340. See also Nelson, Gaylord Ecological Footprint Analysis (EFA), 302 Ecology, 302; ecology movement, 301, 305; and snowmobiles, 195 Economic development, 104, 301; Democrat position, 46, 136, 254, 284; and endangered species, 40, 305; Republican position, 46, 136, 204, 251, 263, 285, 337; and sustainability, 307 Ecosystem carrying capacity, 302 EISA. See Energy Independence and Security Act

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 104; Antiquities Act, 206; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), 238; Federal Aid Highway Act, 315; on logging, 160 EJ 2014, 54–57 Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, 313, 316 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 23–25 Emissions trading, 31–39; acid rain, 31, 33–34, 38; Clean Air Act (CAA), 33–35; 38; climate change, 35–37; Democrat position, 37–39; emission levels, 36; Kyoto Protocol, 34, 27; Republican position, 34–37; technology, 35–36. See also Cap and trade Endangered species, 40–49; Democrat position, 47–49; public lands, 33–34; Lacey Act, 41–42; listing of species, 40, 43–48; Republican position, 44–47; wildlife conservation, 40, 43–44, 47. See also Endangered Species Act Endangered Species Act 10, 42, 44, 193, 300, 304–305; George H. W. Bush 45–46, 58; and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 160, 197, 216; Richard M. Nixon, 10, 42; party comparison, 46 Energy development, 138; and endangered species, 305; methods, 237; public lands, 337 Energy independence, 125, 126, 141, 148, 243; solar, 289, 294; wind, 349, 351 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), 76–81 Energy Policy Act, 77, 127, 138, 140, 242, 290–291 Energy Policy Modernization Act, 141 Energy Research and Development Administration, 313 Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), 160, 194, 197, 262

I nd ex

Environmental movement, 42, 47, 52, 58, 62, 65, 101, 106, 137, 162, 172, 196, 203, 208 Environmental justice, 52–58; Democrat position, 55–57; environmental equity, 53, 56–58; Executive Order 12898, 55–56; hazardous waste, 52–54; racism, 52–55, 57–58; Republican position, 57–58; United Church of Christ, 54; Warren County, North Carolina, 52–53; PCBs, 52–53. See also Clean Power Plan Environmental Justice Interagency Working Group, 56 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 53–55, 57–58, 67, 113, 126, 148–149, 151, 174–175, 270–271 Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, 32 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 251 EPCRA. See Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Esch, John, 140 European Union (EU), 5, 7, 92, 214, 260 Everglades, 49, 207, 324, 327–329 Executive Orders: 12114, 262; 12291, 263; 13547, 178; 13676, 27 Extinction rate, 4 Exxon Valdez, 174, 242 Factory farms, 22, 27 Farm Bill, 21, 25, 323, 325 FDA. See Food and Drug Administration Federal Aid Highway Act, 315 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 214–215, 221; and Chicago, 215, 220 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, 184 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 137–138 Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, 53 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 176, 270–271, 275 Federal Power Act, 137, 140

Federal Power Commission (FPC), 137 Federal Radon Action Plan, 149 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 62, 172, 327. See also Clean Water Act (CWA) Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 176 Federal Water Quality Protection Act, 330 Feinstein, Dianne, 197–198, 234 FERC. See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, 320 Flint, Michigan, 55, 63, 121, 255 Foley, Thomas, 231 Food & Water Watch, 22 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 92, 270 Ford, Gerald, 10, 234, 242, 251; Antiquities Act, 204; electric cars, 313; Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) signed, 116, 149, 160; transportation, 316 Foreign oil, 76, 80, 237–238 Forest Reserve Act, 156, 191 Forest Service: history and mission, 10, 100, 156–157, 191, 335–337; logging, 157, 160–165; national parks, 208; off-road vehicles, 194; public lands, 281 Forest Service Organic Administration Act, 336 Fossil fuels, 6, 11, 183, 285, 290–291, 310, 312; developing countries, 6; and wind energy, 346, 348, 351 Fox River, Wisconsin, 137 Fracking. See Hydraulic fracturing Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act), 127, 245 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 24 Freshwater use and pollution, 61–71; Bipartisan efforts, 61–62, 67; bioterrorism, 61; Democrat position, 68–71; Flint, Michigan, 63; most polluted waterways, 63; public and wildlife health, 62–63, 67–71; Republican position, 64–68; water

367

368

In de x

rights, 64–65, 68, 70. See also Clean Water Act (CWA); Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) Fuel and energy efficiency standards, 74–82; benefits, 75, 80–82; Democrat position, 80–82; economic effects, 75–76, 79; national security, 75, 80; Republican position, 77–80; savings, 74–75, 77–78, 81–82. See also Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards; Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA); Incandescent lightbulbs Fuel economy, 74–74, 78–82, 255, 316–317. See also Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards Fungicides, 268 General Land Office (GLO), 100, 335 General Mining Act, 336 General Motors Corporation, 259 Genetic engineering, 89, 91–92. See also Genetic modification; Genetically modified foods; Genetically modified organism Genetic modification, 89 Genetically modified foods, 87–96; agribusinesses, 90, 93, 96; Congress, 87; crops, 89–92; Democrat position, 95–96; insecticide-resistant, 89; labeling of GMOs, 87–90, 92–96; pesticides, 90–92; producing countries, 89; public opinion, 87; Republican position, 94–95; safety of, 87, 91–92, 95; state efforts, 93; Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, 88–89, 93–94; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 88–90, 92–93, 95. See also Genetic engineering; Genetic modification; Genetically modified organism Genetically modified organism (GMO), 87–96; and pesticides, 267, 269–270, 273–277. See also Genetic engineering; Genetic modification Giant Sequoia National Monument, 163

Gibbs, Lois, 115 Gillibrand, Kirsten, 124, 129 Gingrich, Newt, 35–36, 114, 205, 253 Global Farmer Network, 306 Global warming, 5, 7, 12, 22, 34, 304, 306–307, 347; Chinese Hoax, 37; Democratic Party and, 254, 263, 289; Democrat position, 248–249, logging, 158; transportation, 310, 314, 319; Trump, 296; Republican position, 248. See also Climate change GMO. See Genetically modified organism Grant, Ulysses S., 10, 201–202 Grassroots Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act, 67 Grazing, 99–108; Bundy Ranch, 101–103; Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 100–104,106; conflicts, 99, 102–103, 107–108; Democrat position, 106–108; grazing fees, 101–102, 104–105, 107–108; harm, 99–100, permits, 100–101, 103, 106; public lands, 100–101, 103–108; Republican position, 103–106; Taylor Grazing Act, 100, 104, 106; western governors and senators, 107; westerners versus nonwesterners, 99, 101 Grazing permit, 99–101, 103, 106, 208 Great Britain, 41 Great Lakes, 49, 65–69, 170, 178, 207, 251, 326, 328 Great Pacific Garbage Patch, 173 Greenhouse gases: and climate change 1, 9, 10–11, 13–14; drilling and mining, 293; logging, 158; outdoor air pollution, 250; transportation 31–33, 37–38, 319. See also Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency Greenpeace, 8, 301 Grijalva, Raul M., 108, 128, 186–187, 274 Groundwater contamination, 22, 63, 126, 240 Groundwater depletion, 63–64, 69 GROW AMERICA, 319 Gulf of Mexico, 239, 241, 244, 303

I nd ex

Habitat protection, 40, 49, 160, 340 Halliburton Company, 125, 129, 240 Halliburton loophole, 70, 129, 242 Halons, 260, 262 Hardy, Cresent, 186 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act, 67 Harrison, Benjamin, 10, 156, 160 Hastings, Doc, 175 Hazardous waste, 112–121; Democrat position, 118–121; Gibbs, Lois, 115; health impact, 114–116, 119, 121; National Priority List (NPL) sites, 114; Republican position, 116–118; responsibility, 114; Ruckelshaus and EPA, 117; solid waste management, 116; waste sites, 116–120. See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Environmental justice; Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA); Superfund Healthy Forests Initiative, 160 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), 147 Hice, Jody, 187 Holt, Rush, 163, 197 Hoover Dam, 137 Hudson River, 142 Humphrey, Hubert, 340 Hydraulic fracturing (fracking), 124–131, 239–240, 242–245; bans, 124, 127–128, 130–131; Democrat position, 126–129; economy and job creation, 124–125, 128; harm, 124–126; Marcellus Shale, 124; Republican position, 129–131; private land, 125; public lands, 125, 283–284, 341. See also Offshore drilling Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), 265 Hydroelectric energy, 135–144; benefits, 136, 129, 139–140, 143; clean energy, 136, 139 141–144; Democrat position, 142–144; Federal Water Power Act, 137;

Federal Power Commission (FPC), 137; history of, 137; ownership, 138, 140; Republican position, 140–142; types of plants, 137. See also Bureau of Reclamation; Department of Energy; Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act; Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act, 136, 145 Incandescent lightbulbs, 78–79, 81 Indoor air pollution, 147–153; asthma, 150; Democrat position, 150–152; green jobs, 151; Indoor Radon Abatement Act, 152; lead, 149, 151; Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 152; pollutants, 148–151; radon, 147, 149, 151–152; Republican position, 152–153. See also Clean Air Act (CAA); Low-income communities Indoor Air Quality Act, 151–154 Indoor Radon Abatement Act, 152 Industrial Revolution, 3, 6, 213 Infrastructure, and energy, 121, 135, 142–144, 158, 161, 291; transportation, 310–322; water, 61–64, 66 Inhofe, James, 12–14, 79, 129, 230, 233 Insecticide resistance, 89 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), 316 Internal Revenue Service, 296 ISTEA. See Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Japan, 5, 173, 228 Jewell, Sally, 128 Jindal, Bobby, 124 Johnes-Esch Act, 140 Johnson, Lyndon B., 55; Clean Air Act (CAA), 253; solid waste, 119; transportation, 315, 318; wilderness and water, 162, 176, 340

369

370

In de x

Kasich, John, 124, 130, 352 Kennedy, John F., 176; air pollution, 253; dinner speech, 177; conservation, 338; and marine pollution and protection, 177; as Senator, 176 Kerry, John, 38, 233 Keystone XL Pipeline, 308 Krishnamoorthi, Raja, 217, 219 Kyoto Protocol, 5, 7, 20, 34, 37 Labeling: and GMOs, 88, 93; organic regulations, 27 Lacey Act, 41–42 Lamborn, Doug, 187 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 339 Latino community, 52, 55. See also Environmental justice Lead, 36, 52, 55, 63, 121, 149, 151, 249–250, 254–255 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), 302 Lee, Mike, 317 Leopold, Aldo, 300–303, 308, 336; and ecological sustainability, 302 Lieberman, Joseph, 7 Lincoln, Abraham, 10 Livestock industry, 23, 99–100, 104–105, 107 Logging on public lands, 155–165; Alpine Lakes Area Management Act, 160; court cases, 159, 161, 164; Democrat position, 162–165; EarthJustice, 159; economic benefits, 158; federalism, 158, 162; harvesting options, 157; Healthy Forest Initiative, 160; Forest Service, history and mission, 156–157; opponents, 158; proponents 158; Republican position, 159–162; state efforts, 165. See also Forest Service; National Forest System; Roadless Area Conservation Rule Long, Russell, 315 Low-income communities: emissions trading, 32; environmental justice, 52, 54; fuel and energy efficiency,

75, 82; hazardous waste disposal, 121; fracking, 126, indoor air pollution, 149–150; outdoor air pollution, 249, 255 Malaria, 4, 268 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 103, 166 Marcellus Shale, 124, 240 Mariana Trench, 175 Marine National Monument, 49, 175, 178–180 Marine pollution and protection, 170–179; BEACH Act, 178; bird sanctuaries, 176; Democrat position, 176–179; Dilution, 170–171, 173, 179; Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 176; food chain, 172–173, 179; John F. Kennedy, 177; national marine monuments, 175, 179; negative impacts, 171; Ocean Champions, 170; Republican position, 174–176; sources of pollution, 171. See also Clean Water Act (CWA); Ocean Dumping Ban Act Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), 172, 174 Markey, Ed, 7–9, 39, 292, 328 Marine Pollution Protocol, 177 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 9 McAuliffe, Michael, 218 McCain, John, 7, 232, 303, 317 McConnell, Mitch, 141, 272, 295, 310 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 138–139 Mercury, 63, 69, 79–81, 172, 179, 211, 259–250, 253–255, 257 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), 250, 255 Methane, 2–3, 31, 37, 130, 183, 251, 283, 307 Methyl bromide, 260, 264 Microbead Free Water Act of 2015, 170 Microbiome, 301 Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 176

I nd ex

Mileage-based user fees, 82 Mining, 182–187; Clean Water Act (CWA), 186; climate change, 183; commodities, 183–184; Democrat position, 185–186; employment, 182, 185, 187; fossil fuel generation, 183; harmful effects, 183–184; regulations, 182, 184–185; Republican position, 186–187 Missouri v. Holland, 41 Mitchell, George, 151 Mixing zones, 173, 179 Moniz, Ernest, 128, 133 Monsanto, 90, 94, 267, 270 Montreal Protocol, 14, 258–261, 263, 265 Morrell Act, 335 Motorized recreation on public lands, 190–198; Democrat position, 196–198; National Park Service, 192–195, 197; Organic Act, 191, 193; Republican position, 194–196; snowmobile ban, 192–194. See also Public lands; Yellowstone National Park Mount Rainier, 202 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), 319–320 Muir, John, 202, 302, 336 Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSY), 157 Murkowski, Lisa, 141, 161, 164–166, 206, 234, 242, 296 National Academy of Sciences, 18, 92 National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, 27 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 261, 264, 266 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 33, 250, 253–254 National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), 61, 67 National Association of Local Boards of Health, 23 National Clean Energy Summit, 129

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 33, 250 National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), 77 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 10, 157, 341; Democrats, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 143; drilling, 240; environmental justice, 53; logging, 165; Nixon, 10, 160, 303; off-road vehicles, 197; oceans, 216; waste, 228; wetlands, 327 National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act, 161 National Forest Management Act, 157, 162, 336, 339 National Forest Service (NFS), 335; Forest Service, history and mission, 10, 100, 156–157, 191, 335–337; logging, 157, 160–165; national parks, 208; off-road vehicles, 194; public lands, 281 National Historic Preservation Act, 336 National Marine Fisheries Services, endangered species, 41; noise pollution, 216 National Mass Transportation Assistance Act, 316 National Ocean Policy, 175, 178 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 13, 172, 216, 326; and Jane Lubchenco, 216 National Park Service (NPS), approval rating, 201; conservation, 335–337; logging, 164; parks, 191, 203–204; public lands, 283; snowmobiles, 191–195, 197; sustainability, 302. See also National Park Service Organic Act National Park Service Organic Act, 191, 203, 336 National parks, 201–210; battle over ownership, 201–202, 204–207; Democrat position, 208–210; designation, 208–209; economic development, 206, 208; history of,

371

372

In de x

202–203; Republican position, 204–207; Theodore Roosevelt, 202–204. See also National Park System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 23 National Priorities List (NPL), 114 National Quiet Skies Coalition, 219 National Research Council of the U.S. National Academies, 270 National Resource Inventory (NRI), 325 National Resources Defense Council, 151 National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), 335–336 Native Americans: environmental justice, 52; and water rights, 65, 68, 70; grazing, 108, hydroelectricity, 143, public lands, 286. See also Environmental justice Natural gas drilling, 237, 239, 241, 243 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 325 Nelson, Gaylord, 6, 174 Net metering, 290 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 33, 250 NexGen, 215, 219 Nixon, Richard M.: on air pollution, 148, 250–252; Antiquities Act, 204; climate change, 10; conservation, 337, 340, 346; drilling, 238, 241; Earth Day, 340; emissions trading, 33, 116; endangered species, 42, 44, 47; foreign oil, 238; hazardous waste, 116–117; logging, 160; national parks, 203–204, 206; noise control, 214; “Nixon Platform,” 251; Office of Energy Policy, 241; public lands, 194, 196–197; Trans-Alaska Pipeline, 24; transportation, 315; veto, 174; water, 66, 172, 174 Noise pollution, 212–223; Democrat position, 219–223; impact on humans, 212, 214–215, 217–218, 220–222; impact on wildlife, 216, 219; Republican position,

217–219; sources, 212, 214–216, 219, 220. See also Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Noise Control Act, 214–215 North American Wetlands Conservation Act, 323 Nuclear power, 141, 143; disposal, 227–229, 231; oil and gas, 241; air pollution, 254 Nuclear waste disposal, 227–234; Democrat position, 233–234; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 228; Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 228–229, 231, 233; Republican position, 231–233; sites, 229, 231, 234; types of, 228. See also Yucca Mountain Obama, Barack: on air pollution, 150, 254–255; Antiquities Act, 108, 196, 198, 207, 209; Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), 25–27; climate change, 9–10, 12–13, 16; drilling, 243–245; emissions, 31, 34–39; endangered species, 49; environmental justice, 54, 56; Executive Order 13547, 178; Executive Order 13676, 27; fuel and energy, 76–77, 79, 81; fracking, 127–128, 130; GMOs, 88, 94; grazing, 107–108; hazardous waste, 121; hydroelectric power, 135, 138, 141; logging, 163–165; mining, 185, 187; noise pollution, 219, 222–223; Omnibus Public Land Management Act, 163; ozone, 258, 261, 263; pesticides, 269–275, 283; public lands and national parks, 196–198, 201, 205, 207, 209; solar energy, 290–297; State of the Union, 142–144; sustainability, 306–307; transportation, 317–320; water, 62–64, 67, 69–70, 170, 175, 178; wetlands, 323–324, 328–330; wilderness conservation, 338–339, 341; wind energy, 348; Yucca, 230–234

I nd ex

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 149, 152, 215 Ocean Dumping Ban Act, 172, 174, 177 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 78 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): energy standards, 78; ozone depletion, 263; wetlands, 327 Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC), 214 Offshore drilling, 238–245; fracking, 126; noise and ocean noise, 222 Ogallala Aquifer, 64 O’Hare International Airport, 213, 215, 217–218, 220–221 O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC), 215–217, 220 Oil and natural gas drilling, 237–245; alternatives, 238, 240; Democrat position, 243–245; economic benefits and potential, 237–239, 242–243; oil independence, 237–239, 241, 243; price trends, 237, 240–242; Republican position, 241–243; wildlife disruption, 239. See also Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); Hydraulic fracturing Oil Pollution Act, 175 OMB. See Office of Management and Budget Orion North, 164. See also Logging on public lands Outdoor air pollution, 248–255; carbon dioxide, 248–250; 253–254; 263; common air pollutants, 249; Democrat position, 253–255; early concerns, 250–251; NESHAP, 250; Republican position, 251–253; Silent Spring (Rachel Carson), 249. See also Clean Air Act (CAA) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), 218–219, 222, 295 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: noise pollution, 218–219; oil and natural gas drilling, 239, 241, 244; solar energy, 295 Overgrazing, 100, 104

Ozone depletion, 258–265; damages, 259; Democrat position, 261–263; ozone debate, 259–261, 263–264; Republican position, 263–265; responses to, 258–259, 262–264; scientific research, 259, 265. See also Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Montreal Protocol Pacific Remote Islands, 175 Paris Agreement: climate change, 5, 10, 16–17; emissions trading, 34, 37; wind energy, 349 Perry, Rick, 124, 308 Pesticides, 267–277; benefits, 269–270; categories of, 268; Democrat position, 274–277; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 270–217; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 270–271, 275; Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 92, 270; harmful effects, 269; Monsanto, 267, 270; Republican position, 272–274. See also Genetically modified foods; Genetically modified organism Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, 23 Pinchot, Gifford, 10, 100, 156 Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), 52–53, 57 Port and Tanker Safety Act, 177 Preservationists, 203, 208 Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, 176 Prince William Sound, 174 Property rights, 12; arguments, 103, 207, 330; climate change, 12, 47, 49; conservation, 334; endangered species, 40, 43–49; grazing, 103; national parks, 207 Pruitt, Scott, 16, as attorney general of Oklahoma, 26; and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 273, 277; water, 67–68, 331 Public lands, 280–286; administration of, 283–284; Democrat position,

373

374

In de x

285–286; privatization and ownership, 280–281, 284, 286; Republican position, 285–285; uses of, 283 Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA), 105, 107 Quigley, Mike, 222–222; Rauner, Bruce, 218 RCRA. See Resource Conservation Recovery Act Reagan, Ronald: air pollution, 152, 251–252; climate change, 14; conservation, 337–338; drilling 241–244; economic interests, 251; emissions trading, 38; endangered species, 43, 45; energy efficiency, 77; environmental justice, 57; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 174; Executive Order 12291, 263; hazardous waste disposal, 114, 116–117, 119–120; logging, 160, 164; Montreal Protocol, 258, 261; national parks, 204–205, 209; noise pollution, 214; nuclear waste, 227, 229, 231; ozone layer and depletion, 258, 261–265; public lands, 101, 104, 303, 337–338; Superfund, 120; sustainability, 303; transportation, 316; water pollution, 69, 172, 174 Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, 176 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), 8–9, 33, 35, 38 Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, 330 Reid, Harry: and fracking, 129; and GMOs, 96; as majority leader, 163–164; as minority leader, 141; nuclear waste disposal and Yucca, 230–231, 233; Yellowstone Park Protection Act and motorized recreation, 197 Rendell, Ed, 124 Renewable energy, 8–9, 127; drilling, 238, 242; hydroelectric, 135–144; logging, 161, 164; mining, 182, 185; public lands, 285; solar energy, 289–298; wind energy, 350–351

Republican National Committee (RNC), 129, 272, 281 Resilient Federal Forests Act, 161, 165 Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), 113 Rio Earth Summit, 303 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule), 159, 160–161, 163, 164 Romney, Mitt, 9, 35–36, 66, 351 Roosevelt, Franklin D.: Antiquities Act, 196; conservation, 338; Jackson Hole, 196; national parks, 208; Taylor Grazing Act, 100, 106, 204 Roosevelt, Theodore, 10, 103–104, 156, 194, 202–204; Antiquities Act, 202, 208; conservation, 338; forests, 160, 337; national parks, 302, 337 Roosevelt Dam, 137 Rose Atoll, 175 Rubio, Marco, 233, 284–285, 352 Ryan, Paul, 185–186, 273 Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, 88–89, 93–94 Safe and Secure Drinking Water Act, 67 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 53, 62, 69, 70, 240, 243, 245 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), 317 Sagebrush Rebellion, 101, 205, 303, 335–336 Saltonstall, Leverett, 176 Salvage Logging Rider, 163 Sanders, Bernie, 93, 124, 129, 286, 307–308, 350 Santorum, Rick, 352 Schrader, Kurt, 165 Schumer, Charles, 124, 186 Schuster, Bud, 318 SDWA. See Safe Drinking Water Act Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act, 162 Sensible Environmental Protection Act, 176 Sequoia National Forest, 163, 202 Sick building syndrome, 150 Sierra Club, 8, 127, 128, 301, 340, 352 Silent Spring (Rachel Carson), 118–119, 249

I nd ex

Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, 135, 141, 143 Smog, 183, 249, 253–254, 347 Snowe, Olympia, 151 Soil contamination, 183 Solar energy, 289–298; benefits, 289, 290, 294; costs, 290–292; 294–297; Democrat position, 292–295; government subsidies, 297–298; loans, 291, 296–297; Republican position, 295–298; solar panels, 55, 185, 242, 290, 293–294 Solid waste management, 65, 68, 116 Solyndra, 291, 296–297 State National Forest Management Act, 162 State of the Union: Carter, Jimmy, 119; Nixon, Richard, 251; Obama, Barack 142, 144; Roosevelt, Theodore, 104 Stewart, Chris, 162, 330 Stratosphere, 259 Stream Protection Rule, 67, 185, 187 Sulfur dioxide, 7, 33, 36, 80, 183, 249–250, 253, 255, 347 SunShot Initiative, 291 Superfund, 23, 25–26, 55, 58, 112–121. See also Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Superfund Common Sense Act, 25 Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), 316 Sustainability, 300–308; conservation, 300–302; 207, 304–305; Democrat position, 306–308; ecological, 164, 300; international agreements, 2; Leopold, Aldo, 300–303, 308; 336; modern movement, 301; preservation, 300–301, 306–307; Republican position, 305–306; transportation, 314 Swift Rail Development Act, 318 Taiwan, 48 Taylor Grazing Act, 100, 104, 106 Tea Party, 11, 15, 31, 35–36 Tester, Jon, 96, 195, 276

Thermal energy, 290 Thomas, Craig, 195 Timber industry, 62, 159, 161, 163–164, 306 Timber Innovation Act, 164 Tipton, Scott, 136, 141 Tongass National Forest, 159–161, 164 Total material requirement (TMR), 302 Toxic. See Hazardous Waste Disposal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 53, 93, 119, 149 Trans-Alaska Pipeline, 241–244 Transcontinental railroad, 335 Transportation, 310–320; Democrat position, 318–320; expansion, 310, 314; greener alternatives, 313; greenhouse emissions, 311–312, 319; industries, 311; reliance, 217, 311, 317; Republican position, 315–318; Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), 317; Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), 318. See also Department of Transportation (DOT); Infrastructure Transportation Empowerment Act, 317 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), 317–318 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), 318–319 Treasury Department, 296 Tribal Sovereignty, 286 Trudeau, Justin, 219 Truman, Harry S., 100 Trump, Donald J.: Buy American, 186; on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), 25–26; clean energy, 307; climate change, 16–17; Dakota Access Pipeline, 70; drilling, 219, 243; endangered species, 47, 49; EPA, 58, 67, 272–273, 277; federalism, 285; fossil fuels, 298; fracking, 129–131; fuel and energy efficiency, 77, 79–80; global warming, 37, 39; GMOs, 95; infrastructure, 142, 317–318;

375

376

In de x

mining, 185; off-road vehicles, 196; public lands, 105, 108, 339; solar energy, 296; Stream Protection Rule, 67–68, 187; Superfund, 118; wind energy, 348 Tsongas, Niki, 165 Ultraviolent (UV) radiation, 259 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 22–23, 75–76, 91–92, 270 United Nations, 37, 171, 301, 303; Environment Programme (UNEP), 3, 261; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 5, 7, 9, 34 Urban Mass Transportation Act, 318 Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), 318 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 137–138, 173, 183, 323 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 8, 130, 330 U.S. Coast Guard, 172 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 104, 156, 191; environmental justice, 54; labeling, 88, 94; national forests, 160, 163; pesticides, 270; wetlands, 325 U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, 179 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 41–43, 283, 325–326, 329, 337 U.S. Supreme Court, 41, 89, 161, 250 Vienna Conference, 260 Vilsack, Tom, 164 Vitter, David, 330 Warren, Elizabeth, 222 Water pollution: and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), 23, 26; conservation, 336; environmental justice, 52; fracking, 127; freshwater, 61–63, 65–66, 68–70; hazardous waste, 116, 121; indoor air pollution, 152; mining, 185; noise pollution, 213; oceans, 172; outdoor air pollution, 252, 254–255; ozone, 264; public

lands, 283; solar energy, 293; transportation, 310, 312 Water Power Program, 138 Water Quality Act, 53, 176 Water Resources Development Act, 185, 327 Water Resources Reform and Development Act, 62 Waterkeeper Alliance and Environmental Working Group (EWG), 26 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, 323–324, 328–331; and Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, 329 Waxman, Henry, 7, 39, 143, 292 Waxman-Markey Bill, 7–9, 39 Welfare’s Bureau of Solid Waste Management, 116 Westerman, Bruce, 161, 165; and Ouachita National Forest, 161 Western Energy Alliance, 130 Wetlands, 323–331; annual loss of, 325; biological supermarkets, benefits of, 324; Democrat position, 327–329; ecosystem, 324, 329; Everglades, 327–328; federal responsibility, 325; no net loss, 323, 325; National Wetland Coalition Assessment (NWCA), 326; Republican position, 329–331; types of wetlands, 325. See also Clean Water Act (CWA); State efforts; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule Whitman, Christine Todd, 277 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 336 Wilderness Act, 162, 335–336, 338, 340–341 Wilderness protection, 196, 334, 336–337, 340 Wildlife conservation, 334–342; Democrat position, 340–342; designations, 334, 337, 339; habitat destruction, 336; Muir, John, 336; National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), 335–336; preservation, 336; recreational purposes, 334, 336–337, 340–341; Republican position, 337. See also Sagebrush Rebellion; Wilderness Act

I nd ex

Wind energy, 344–352; advantages, 346; Democrat position, 349–350; disadvantages, 347–348; growth of, 346; incentives, 349–350; mechanics of, 345–346; Republican position, 351–352. See also Renewable energy Winger, Christine, 218, 220–221, Wise Use, 46–47, 304, 336, World Health Organization (WHO), 92 World Meteorological Society (WMO), 3 World Wildlife Foundation (WWF), 302

WOTUS rule. See Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule Yellowstone National Park, 10, 202; national parks, 201–203; public lands and conservation, 341; snowmobiles, 190–195, 197 Yosemite, 10, 202, 203 Young, Don, 162, 339 Yucca Mountain, and nuclear waste, 227–234 Zinke, Ryan, 105, 196, 243

377

About the Contributors

Leah J. Boisclair graduated from University of Rhode Island and is pursuing her JD from Roger Williams University School of Law. Jennifer R. Wozniak Boyle is associate dean for Academic Affairs at Arrupe College of Loyola University Chicago. Dr. Boyle earned a PhD in political science from Loyola University Chicago in 2002. Dr. Boyle’s teaching and research interests include comparative political economy, international institutions, and public policy—in particular, the politics of the European Union. Graham Bullock is an associate professor of political science and environmental studies at Davidson College, where he teaches courses in American politics, business and politics, environmental social sciences, environmental politics, and the politics of information. His research centers on business, government, and civil society responses to environmental challenges, with a focus on the emergence of information-based environmental governance strategies (which is the subject of his 2017 book Green Grades: Can Information Save the Earth?). Dr. Bullock earned his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, his MA in public policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and his BA from Princeton University. Lindsey Cormack is an assistant professor of political science and director of the Diplomacy Lab at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey. She earned her PhD in 2014 from New York University, specializing in the U.S. Congress and political communication. Her research on congressional communications has been published in Legislative Studies Quarterly and Gender Studies as well as in popular outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Hill. She maintains the only digital database of all official Congress-to-constituent e-newsletters, at www.dcinbox.com and https://dcinbox.herokuapp.co. David M. Dolence is an associate professor of political science at Dominican University in River Forest, Illinois. He was the 2009 recipient of the Mother Evelyn Murphy Excellence in Teaching Award for his classroom teaching. His research agenda focuses on early American democracy and Alexis de Tocqueville and on political parties, including third parties. Jennifer Kelkres Emery earned her PhD from SUNY Binghamton. She has taught courses in American politics and research. Her research is published in Journal

380

A bout th e Co nt r ibu t ors

of Policy History, Journal of Political Science Education, and PS: Political Science and Politics, and in the book Poli Sci Fi: An Introduction to Political Science through Science Fiction. Joe Gaziano is professor emeritus of political science at Lewis University, where he taught undergraduate classes in American government since 1969. Currently, he teaches online courses at Lewis as an adjunct professor. His articles have appeared in Public Administration Review, Journal of Associated Colleges of the Chicago Area, and Illinois Political Science Review. Bridget Hall is an honors student in political science and history at the University of Rhode Island. Phillip Hardy is an associate professor of political science at Benedictine University. He teaches a variety of courses in American government and also teaches research methods. His research agenda includes media framing, campaign communications, and communication strategies in local politics. He has been published in Illinois Political Science Review and Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy, and he is currently developing a book about polarization in local government. Brenda M. Kauffman earned her PhD in political science from Auburn University. She is an associate professor of political science at Flagler College and the coordinator for the political science and international studies programs. Her areas of specific interest include environmental politics, international organizations, and international political economy. Megan M. Kelly is a lecturer in environmental science at Arrupe College of Loyola University Chicago. She holds a PhD and a MS in water resources science from the University of Minnesota and a BS in environmental chemistry from Arizona State University. She has taught courses ranging from introductory chemistry to foundations of university success to environmental law, and she currently teaches a twosemester general education sequence on environmental science. Aaron J. Ley is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island. His research has been published in the journals Environmental Politics, Society & Natural Resources; Review of Policy Research; and Law & Society Review. Jerald C. Mast is an associate professor of political science at Carthage College, where he teaches environmental politics, public policy, and American government. He has published works on international environmental politics with Sage Publications, on biodiversity conservation management in the Grand Canyon with Nova Science Publishers, and on environmental security in the National Strategy Forum Review.

A b o ut th e C o ntr i b uto r s

Kelly McHugh is an assistant professor of political science at Florida Southern College. Her research has been published in Political Science Quarterly, Journal of Learning Communities Research & Practice, and Democracy & Security. Tiffany Messer graduated from the University of West Florida with a BA in international relations. She has worked for Booz Allen Hamilton and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board as a data quality expert. Steven P. Nawara is an assistant professor of political science at Lewis University in Romeoville, Illinois. He earned his PhD from The Ohio State University in 2011. His research focuses on public opinion, political behavior, and elections. Nawara’s articles have been published in Political Behavior; Presidential Studies Quarterly; and Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties. Sara J. Reed teaches public policy and public administration courses at Lewis University in Romeoville, Illinois. Her research interests include the areas of environment and human health, health disparities, biopolitics, and the impact of personnel procedures on government employee diversity. Andrew Riffle earned his BA in international studies at the University of West Florida, and he is a member of the Political Science Honor Society, Pi Sigma Alpha. He currently works as a data analyst at CBRE in Washington, DC. His areas of interest include statistical modeling of voter behavior through surveys and exit polls, and analyzing the policies and effectiveness of our nation’s leaders. James Simeone teaches courses in theory, law, and American political development for the Department of Political Science at Illinois Wesleyan University (IWU). He serves as the faculty advisor for the IWU Peace Garden, which produces a sustainability education program for Glenn School elementary students and winter greens for the Western Avenue Community Center. Professor Simeone incorporates the Peace Garden in his university courses on environmental ethics and sustainable agriculture. Amy Stringer received her PhD in political science from the University of Florida with a focus on American government and public policy. Her research interests include Latino politics, education policy, immigration policy, women and government, Congress, environmental policy, and the bureaucracy. She currently works as a research analyst for a nonprofit. Christopher M. Travis PhD is a professor of Spanish and Latin American culture at Elmhurst College and is the author of the book Resisting Alienation: The Literary Work of Enrique Lihn. He has also published and presented numerous studies on environmental criticism and Latin American literature.

381

382

A bout th e Co nt r ibu t ors

Nicholas Trevino is a political science graduate of Davidson College. In his writing, he takes a human rights approach on environmental politics, journalism, and international politics. As an energy policy research assistant in Dr. Graham Bullock’s Sustainability Information Lab, Trevino conducted an extensive literature review on fuel economy and energy-efficiency standards for the associated chapter in this volume. Teri J. Walker is an associate professor of political science at Elmhurst College. She teaches courses in American government, environmental politics and policy, and public law. Her research focuses on environmental policy, judicial politics, and pedagogy, specifically including the use of simulations in the classroom. Her research has been published in Journal of Women, Politics & Policy; Justice Policy Journal; Journal of Political Science Education; and Politics and Policy. Mary Barbara Walsh is an associate professor of political science at Elmhurst College. She teaches courses in political philosophy and American politics. Her research focuses on liberal and feminist political philosophy, and her writing has been published in numerous journals, including Hypatia; The Review of Politics; Polity; and Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. Elizabeth Wheat is an assistant professor in public and environmental affairs (Political Science) at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. Her research focuses on environmental law, water policy, trafficking of endangered species, and the use of simulations in the classroom.