Class 40: Conclusions

1. P. Brian Fisher CofC POLS 307 Fall 2010 Class 40: Conclusions

2. Trade-Offs • Def’n: losing or gaining one quality or aspect of something in return for gaining another quality or aspect. • In making decisions, giving up one aspect for another, or more commonly giving up a series of for another series • “perceived alternatives” (see model I) • Most decisions with environmental choices is largely a function of ‘trade-offs’ and compromises • What happens to environmental concerns in these trade-offs or compromises? • Series of trade-offs must be put in a historical frame/sequence; that is, how trade-offs have been made over time • These decisions are made in light of competing claims • Economic/financial (jobs, profit, etc) • Ecosystem (wild areas, endangered species, etc) • Human needs/concerns (health, well-being, security, exposure etc) • Aesthetics • Corporate self-interest • Politician self-interest • Local community interests

3. Evaluating Trade-Offs • Key Questions in evaluating Trade-offs: • How does the environment gain creditability/legitimacy in winning competing claims? • How are/were these competing claims incentivized? Understanding how people make decisions is critical to incentivizing them • Rationale? What reasoning was offered to justify claims? • Why did public accept the framing? What was particularly salient? • What role did/does “values” play in how competing claims decided? • How do we generate alternatives that work for the environment? Possible without compromising fundamental aspects of environmental protection? Does it require ‘changing the system’? Way we think? Way we act ? Make decisions?

4. General Conclusions • EP is not linear and the most “rational” solution is not always employed • Dominance of the “status quo” • Very difficult to subvert it—president, Congressional leaders, filibuster, etc. • E.g. natural resources on public land, esp mining and grazing—although forestry has indeed changed some • Status Quo CAN work in favor of protecting enviroment: e.gANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) • Where there is change, it is often INCREMENTAL • So, status quo strength means that: • institutionalize interests have significant advantage • Policies will lag behind scientific understanding of nature • Result: many Enviro policies from ‘70s continue to shape today’s decision-making (e.g. Endangered Species Act)

5. Ways of Changing Env Policy • Legislative Change • Administrative Change • Value Change

6. Legislative Change:3 elements to legis policy change • Building Coalitions—must build broad and diverse coalitions (often with varying values) • Protecting Dolphins (environmentalists with tuna canners to get “dolphin-safe” labels) • Hazardous Waste: Envirosworked with hazardous waste cleanup to prevent changes to Superfund law. 2. Leadership—well placed leadership can block or facilitate change • E.g. Clinton Admin’s backing of Everglades restoration 3. Compelling Definition of Problem: strategic problem framing is usually crucial to policy change (i.e. ‘causal stories’) • Framing science to demonstrate the risk of inaction • E.g Everglades, climate change, etc. • Although they do NOT provide an objective basis for policy-making, they do furnish elements of environmentalists'’ causal stories. • Stories succeed through public support, which is often linked with media coverage(e.g. Love Canal). • Need realistic “solution” to problem—not just enough to supply public “story”

7. Administrative Change • Courts: forum for intractable value conflicts • E.g. Everglades, New England Fisheries, Spotted Owl all created policy change from use of courts • Can have indirect & direct effects • Direct: narrow range of options and/or precluding SQ • Indirect: raises an issues visibility, facilitate intervention • Local and Ecosystem-Scale Collaboration: Collaborative Enviro problem solving  stakeholders create solutions through dynamic negotiation and consultation • Way of avoiding Courts through mediation, negotiated rule-making and consensus building • Can yield enviro positive outcomes that are more durable • But, compromise is not always optimal result, esp for the environment

8. Role of Values • Players in enviro policy contests are almost always divided over values • How those values translate into policy choices depend heavily on: • Problem definition/framing/causal stories • Science • Cost/benefit economics • Risk

9. Conclusions on American Environmentalism & Policy • Contradictory and with deep inconsistencies • Americans claim to value nature, yet most are unwilling to sacrifice or change their behavior toward this end • This results from an aversion for tradeoffs • This aversion allows opponents of environmental regulations to frame issues in ways that emphasize costs, excessive risk, inconvenience or other values—freedom, security, econ growth—to stymie Env protection • Cases suggest many obstacles (and intricate analysis), but also possibility for extraordinary results