PA 395 Day 1 Non-Profits and the Environment Gary Flomenhoft June 6, 2003

1. PA 395 Day 1 Non-Profits and the Environment Gary Flomenhoft June 6, 2003 Gijs Thieme drives his Zephyr raft under the dumping platform of the Rijnborg just as two barrels of nuclear waste are dropped. (From The Greenpeace Story, Brown and May, 1989)

2. My background Co-Founder and Vice-President, Institute for Geonomics (Geonomy Society: 501c3), Policy and Media Coordinator, Mindy Lorenz Congressional Campaign, Santa Barbara, CA, 1990 and 1992 Outreach Director, Southern CA, Green Party Organizing Committee, 1985-89. Founding member of CA and US Green party. Director, Tuna-Dolphin Campaign, Earth Island Institute, Santa Barbara, CA, 1990 Solar Consultant, Designer, and Installer: Eco-Home Project, Los Angeles, CA, 1984-89 Systems Engineer: Ecological Life Systems Institute, San Diego, CA, 1984-89 Director: Steamboat Renewable Energy Center, Steamboat Springs, CO, 1981 Volunteer, Roaring Fork Energy Center: Aspen, Colorado, 1980 Volunteer, Windstar Foundation, Snowmass Colorado, 1980 Volunteer, SANE/FREEZE Nuclear Weapons Committee, 1983-1987. Test site actions Volunteer, Clamshell Alliance, New Hampshire, 1977. Seabrook Actions Member, Cousteau Society, Sierra Club, etc. Politics: Geo-libertarian, decentralism, direct democracy

3. Course Goals Historical: Record Historical themes and trends What worked, what didn’t work? Shadowing/Internship Day What worked, What didn’t work? Compile into reference book.

4. Questions Why is the ship dumping nuclear waste in the ocean? Why is that guy doing this? How did that guy get out there? Was he ok? Where did Greenpeace get the inflatable? Did it make a difference? Why do we need environmental NGOs? Why doesn’t the government protect the public?

5. “There is nothing more difficult to carry out, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For those who would institute change have enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and they have only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order.” Nicolo Machiavelli, 1490

6. Historical trends First Wave: conservation of natural resources Land resources, protection of specific sites, preservation of wildlife species Sierra Club, Natl. Audubon, Natl. Parks and Consevation Assoc., Izaak Walton League, Natl. Wildlife Federation Second Wave: Scientific Environmentalism (Carson, Commoner, Ehrlich) EDF, NRDC, Greenpeace, FOE, Env Action, EPI, Third Wave: Grassroots Groups CCHW, Sea Shepherd, Earth First, Environmental Justice, Environmental Equity

7. Evolution of Environmentalism, Costain, Lester Conservation-Efficiency 1890-1920 Conservation-Preservation 1920-1960 Environmental Movement 1960-1980 Participatory Environmentalism 1980-

8. Conservation-Efficiency 1890-1920 “Elitism in Policy Making”: Corporations, national and state agencies Rational planning by government to promote efficient development and use of all natural resources Gospel of Efficiency: Rational and scientific method of making basic technological decisions through a single, central authority Conservation is not the locking up of resources-development and wise use Greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time Federal public lands belong to all the people Comprehensive, multiple-purpose river basin planning and development should be utilitzed with respect to nation’s water resources

9. Conservation-Efficiency 1890-1920 Scope: Preservation Dominant Policy: Efficient use of Resources Participation: Elite-dominated Policy stage: Pre-problem stage Level of action: National government Dominant concern: Environmental science Power Technique: Technical negotiation

10. Conservation-Preservation 1920-1960 “Growth of sub-governments”. Local and national voluntary orgs, Sierra Club, natl Wildlife Fed., Wilderness Society. Habitat more than sustenance. Increased leisure and affluence, and growth of outdoor recreation. upper middle class, hunters, fishers. pure preservation vs Multiple-use Issues: Water power, coal, flood control, wildlife Conservation methods: technical negotiation, corporate sponsors, small pressure groups.

11. Conservation-Preservation 1920-1960 Scope: Conservation issues Dominant Policy: Multiple use of resources Participation: Sub-governments Policy stage: Agenda setting Level of action: National government Dominant concern: Technology and development Power Technique: Corporate pressure

12. Environmental Movement 1960-1980 “Pluralism in Policy-Making” Bottom-up not top-down Deep seated changes in the use of nature Breadth of constituency Methods: lobbying, litigation, media, electroal politics, civil disobedience Issue networks, policy communities

13. Environmental Movement 1960-1980 Scope: 2d generation issues Dominant Policy: Pollution abatement Participation: Pluralism Policy stage: Policy formation Level of action: National government Dominant concern: Economics and politics Power Technique: Middle-class politics

14. Participatory Environmentalism 1980- Shift toward direct action Advocacy Coalitions “postenvironmentalism”; ecological productions methods, industrial ecology

15. Participatory Environmentalism 1980- Scope: 3d generation issues Dominant Policy: Pollution prevention Participation: Advocacy coalitions Policy stage: Policy implementation Level of action: State and Local govt. Dominant concern: Philosophy and environmental ethics Power Technique: Participatory democracy

16. Environmental laws

17. Environmental laws

20. Theories of Environmental Change-Costain/Lester Cyclical Policy cycle Policy Learning Zig-Zag: patronage/backlash

21. Theories of Environmental Change-Costain/Lester Cyclical Policy Cycle-Schleshinger 30 year Public/Private cycle, Liberal/conservative Generational 1901 T. Roosevelt-Progressive Era 1930 F. Roosevelt-New Deal 1960 JFK-New Frontier 1920 Harding-Coolidge 1950 Eisenhower, McCarthy Era 1980 Reagan “Revolution” “Creedal passion”-gap between ideal and real

22. Theories of Environmental Change-Costain/Lester 2) Policy Learning-Sabatier Competing Coalitions. Triggered by external events A) Intermediate level of informed conflict between two interest groups Primary aspects of one group vs. core aspects of another or Secondary aspects of both B) Forum is prestigious enough to force professionals from different coalitions and dominated by professional norms.

23. Theories of Environmental Change-Costain/Lester 3) Zig-Zag: patronage/backlash, stimulus/response, Amenta, Skocpal Class struggle/ competing coalitions Policies of one era provide the stimulus for a reaction in the next era.

24. Theories of Environmental Change-Flo Punctuated Equilibrium Free-Speech

25. Origins of the environmental crisis? Adam Smith

26. 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!

27. Excludable Non-Excludable Open Access Regime: Oceanic fisheries, timberetc. from unprotected forests, waste absorption capacity, roads(congestible) Market Good: land, timber, fish once captured, farmed fish, waste absorption capacity? Rival} Potential market goodbut inefficient: patented information, pond Pure Public Good:climate stability, ozone layer, clean air/water/land, Biodiversity, information, habitat, life support functions, etc. Non-rival}

29. “Golden Rule of public companies: “Maximization of Shareholder Value”

30. Full World or Empty World? Source: Ecological Economics Principles & Applications, Farley and Daly

31. Fossil Fuel Age Figure 2 The Composition of U.S. Energy Use Source: (Hall et al., 1986) 100 75 coal wood Percent of total energy use oil 50 gas 25 animal feed electricity 0 1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

32. ESA Listings and GDP $10 $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 R2 = 98.4 1973 1980 1990 2001 Source: The Wildlife Society Technical Review 2003-1.

33. Grow out of poverty?

34. Full World or Empty World?

35. Development of Science Merchant: Descartes, Newton Mechanistic vs. Organic worldview “Great Transformation: Subsistence/feudal to industrial/market EB White-Judeo-Christian ethic

36. George Catlin-Natl Park Idea

37. Henry David Thoreau

38. Frederick Law Olmstead

39. George Perkins Marsh

40. John Muir

41. Alexis De Tocqueville Essays on Civil and Political associations

42. 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

43. Interest Groups and Social Movements 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

44. Interest Groups and Social Movements 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.

45. Theories of Interest Groups: Ingram, Colnic, Mann 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 imp[acting policy outcomes. Holistic: Paehlke, Gottlieb, Fitzsimmons. Transformation of fragmented narrow, particularlistic lobbies into a broad-scale social movement that would change the nature of American politics. 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.

46. Group of Ten