PA 395-Energy Policy Gary Flomenhoft GOVERNANCE. Environmental Movement 1960-1980 “Pluralism in Policy-Making” Bottom-up not top-down Deep seated changes.

PA 395-Energy PolicyGary Flomenhoft

GOVERNANCE

Environmental Movement 1960-1980

“Pluralism in Policy-Making”Bottom-up not top-downDeep seated changes in the use of natureBreadth of constituency

Methods: lobbying, litigation, media, electoral politics, civil disobedience

Issue networks, policy communities

Environmental laws

National Environmental laws

Global Environmental Efforts

Global Environmental Efforts

Speth’s 8-fold path

1) Stable or smaller world population

2) Free of mass poverty

3) Environmentally benign technologies

4) Environmentally honest prices

5) Sustainable consumption

6) Knowledge and Learning

7) Governance

8) Public attitudes and motivation

Governance issues Anatomy of Failure. Ch5

1970 Domestic Agenda

1980 Global Agenda

Understandable science

complex science

Highly visible impacts

remote or difficult to perceive

Current problem future problem

Us/here them/there

Acute chronic


DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL

Majority Rules 100% consensus

Shared political culture: parties, committees, staffs, public input

Diplomats

Shared national interest Diverse interests

Congress decides, end of story unless veto.

Treaties must be ratified by national govts

Vast staff and policy briefings

Shortage of staff, lack of expertise by negotiators

Open to the public Closed discussions


UNEP, ECOSOC comm on Sust. Dev, convention bodies are among the weakest

FTC, FDA regulatory agency with broad powers

FDA, FTC regulatory agencies with broad powers

Command and control

International treaties

consensus

Montreal protocol

Targets without ratification on 2/3 vote


Necessary conditions of governance

Peace and stability

Favorable economy, absence of crisis

Open democratic society, independant, effective media

High level and active NGOs

Presence of rule of law and culture of compliance wiht intl law

Human and institutional capacities in government to participate meaningfully


Political fault lines

Environment vs. Economy

North vs. South

United States vs. the World

2002-Rio Two in Jo-berg 25 right-wing think-tanks: “The least important global environmental issue is potential global warming, and we hope that your negotiators at Jo-Berg can keep it off the table and out of the spotlight.”




Conservation threatens:

Pro-market anti-government ideology

Major governmental response needed

Interference with the market

Rethinking utopian materialism pushing unlimited economic expansion

Denial: Lomborg, Simon, etc.

Origins of the environmental crisis?

Adam Smith

Rivalness and Excludability• Non-rival

– My use does not leave less for you to use

– Market sells for a price, discouraging use, but social cost of use = 0, therefore market should not supply

• Non-excludable– One person can’t keep another from

using the good– Consumer will not pay, market will

not supply

Must have a price to work in the free market!

Rival}

Non-rival}

Excludable Non-Excludable

Market Good: land, timber, fish once captured, farmed fish,

Potential market good(Tragedy of the “non-commons”)but inefficient: patented information,Pond

Pure Public Good:climate stability, ozone layer, clean air/water/land, Biodiversity, information, habitat, life support functions, etc.

Open Access Regime: (misnamed: Tragedy of the commons)Oceanic fisheries, timberetc. from unprotected forests, waste absorption capacity, roads (congestible)

“Maximization of Shareholder Value”

“Golden Rule of Publicly held companies:

Rational behavior:

Externalize costs

Influence politics to

Seek subsidies and favors

Marginal disutility

Cost of regulations-OMB report

Annual Cost: $37-43 billion

EPA conservative approach, Consistently overestimates costs, not considering least cost approach and technical innovation

Annual Benefits: $121-193

EPA consistently underestimates benefits

USING ACTUAL NOT THEORETICAL CASES BENEFITS OUTWEIGH COSTS 5:1

http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/ENRG-POL-PA395/readings/p03s01-uspo.html

Full World or Empty World?

Source:

Ecological Economics Principles & Applications,

Farley and Daly

ESA Listings and GDP

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1973 1980 1990 2001

$10

$9

$8

$7

$6

$5

$4

$3

R2 = 98.4

Source: The Wildlife Society Technical Review 2003-1.

Grow out of poverty?Poverty rate vs. GDP per Capita (1996$)

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

1959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

per capita GDP (1996$) poverty rate

Full World or Empty World?

film


Difference in conditions of governance for International agreements

CFCs CO2

Absolute proof No conclusive proof

Small % of DuPont's business Huge $ impact on every sector of economy

Only affected a few companies Effects thousands of companies

Relatively small-scale change Huge scale of change

Easy alternatives Difficult alternatives

NASA support=minimal political risk NASA support not good enough

Under Reagan 1987 Montreal Protocol and Bush 1990 Clean Air Act

Ideologies hardened

Level of Perceived Threat?

Scale of people affected is greater

Scale of issue is greater

Lack of incentives

Lack of enforcement power


Why has international legislation worked at all?

Government Leadership

NGO pressureInternational “bridging” institutions:

Environmental groups and civil societyMulti-natl corps.??International scienceUNMultilateral development banksOther multi-lateral institutions

Good Governance. Ch9

World Business Council for Sustainable Dev.

FROG-first raise our growth

GEOpolity-intl env law

JAZZ-unscripted, volulntary initiatives, decentralized andd improvisational

Good conduct enforced by public opinion and consumer decisions.

Business sees advantage in doing right thing


GEOpolity-intl env law-External

Transition to capable, accountable, and democratic governments

Development in poorer regions

Compacts between North and South


GEOpolity-intl env law-InternalInternational principles (Rio Principles)Fundamental human rightsCommon concernCommon but differentiated responsibilitiesDuty not to cause environmental harmIntegrationPolluter paysPrecautionary principlePublic participationRight to development


GEOpolity-intl env law-InternalDecision-making process improvements:1) Binding regulatory power2) Compel action through intl court3) WEO

1) International body for environmental ministers2) Promote Intl Law3) Watchdog, ombudsman, catalyst4) Global monitoring5) Develop consensus on goals, mobilize finanacing,

and launch campaigns6) Assess and report on natl& intl progress7) Coordinate& sponsor science


GEOpolity-intl env law-InternalNorms for globalizationPublic access


GEOpolity-intl env law-InternalMontreal protocol won because (Grundmann):

Defined the problem on their own termsEnforced the preautionary principleFocussing eventBetter network and hustle than oppositionNRDC expoited Hodel’s comment about “more

hats”Policy advisors from: NRDC, WRI, EPA, UNEP


GEOpolity-intl env law-InternalSusskind:Formal recognition of NGOsAmnesty Intl for global environment


JAZZ-

Environmental groups

Consumer Groups

NGOs

Business

State & local Govt.

Foundations

Religious groups

investors


JAZZ-State & local level

Smart growth

Sustainable cities

Greenplans

State climate protection initiatives

State regulatory approaches (Renewable portfolio standards)

State green purchasing

Environmental building codes


JAZZ-

Product certification

US toxics release invenory

“Right to know”

Third-party auditing

Market creation

Boycotts/buycotts

internet


JAZZ-

WWF= $340 million

NC and CI protection


JAZZ-

NGOs:30,000 international

World Social Forum


JAZZ-Business and investors

Business GHG initiatives

Green power marketing group

Lumber stores selling FSA certified wood

Unilever-fish certification

Social investment

Sustainability Reports

Business strategic planning

Ecolabeling


JAZZ-How to encourage:

Information-internet access & connectivity

Govt disclosures

Improve Ecolabeling-life cycle product biographies

Corporate compliance with global reporting initiative


JAZZ-How to encourage:

Governments:

Change tax laws to encourage citizen activity in Jazz

Public-private partnerships

Green Purchasing

Media recognition

Foundations link isolated actors


JAZZ-How to encourage

Personal:

Drive hybrid vehicles

Eat certified seafood

Become active in env. Cons. Causes

LCV voting guide

Escape enthrallment of utopian materialism

Consumer demand for green products


Fusion of JAZZ an GEOpolity

Global issue networks

Voluntary partnerships:

Public-private and other partnerships for sustainable development

Example: HOT SPOTS-CIThink BIG even if you are small:The world might respond!

But piecemeal approach won’t work-need to address the global issues

Interest Groups and Social Movements

Interest Group: “Organized body of individuals who share some goals and who try to influence public policy.” -Berry

“Any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of other forms of behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes.”-Truman

“Advance the the common interests of groups of individuals.”-Olson

Organizations which seek incremental changes in laws, regulations, or judicial decision through institutional means. McAdam


Social Movement: tactics, non-incremental

“A process in which people seek a better world by means of collective action which, with the proper mix of circumstances, can challenge the existing social order.”-Boggs

an attempt to change existing relations of authority between groups of people, or to change the fundamental values on which the social system is based.- Rochon

Those organized efforts, on the part of excluded groups, to promote or resist changes in the structure of society that involve recourse to non-institutionalized forms of political participation (c.d. and direct action).”-McAdam


Choice of means:

Assess the Structural arrangements of the Political system to determine likelihood of access and policy success.

Structural arrangements of political process may determine choice of means.

1) Rational Actor Thesis: Mancur Olsen. Groups are most likely to form and to maintain themselves in direct proportion to their ability to offer selective benefits to their members. Salisbury: Entrepeneurs concerned with ensuring group maintenance (and their own employment through staff position) rather than impacting policy outcomes.

2) Holistic: Paehlke, Gottlieb, Fitzsimmons. Transformation of fragmented narrow, particularlistic lobbies into a broad-scale social movement that would change the nature of American politics.

3) Pluralist: Fragmented, piecemeal. Group membership motivated by idealogical appeals, concerns over public policy, and successful mobilization. Influencing policy dependent upon effective leadership, the emplyment of appropriate strategies, and forging of coalitions to alter the distribution of power within the political system.

Theories of Interest Groups: Ingram, Colnic, Mann

Theories of Environmental Change-Flo

Eco-illogical cycle

PA 395-Energy Policy Gary Flomenhoft GOVERNANCE. Environmental Movement 1960-1980 “Pluralism in Policy-Making” Bottom-up not top-down Deep seated changes.

Documents

environmental crisis

free market

potential market goodtragedy

use of naturebreadth

potential global warming

excludabilitynonrivalmy

social cost of use

pondpure public good