US & The Environment: Bush era v. Obama era
April 29, 2009
Economic activities will invariably affect the environment; Will the balance, that law can help achieve between the protection of the environment and the promotion of a vibrant economy, be stricken in a different place by the new administration of Obama that was under the previous administration of Bush. Will any new law intended to protect the environment also promote the aim of economic growth?
With the increase in greenhouse gasses, global warming and other environmental concerns, the environment and new environmental laws have become an increasingly hot topic in current affairs, in order to try an preserve the environment for future generations. The US, as the leading world economy, arguably should take the responsibility by promoting efforts to protect the environment.
George Bush’s Administration promoted economic growth but failed to address environmental concerns. Barack Obama’s Administration appears to have put emphasis on the environment as one of the pressing issues on his agenda. Is it possible to address these needs successfully without slowing down economic growth, but to keep the pace, promoting both at the same time? Will the proposed acts and those already passed, be able to promote this balance? Keeping in mind the current worldwide economic crises it is understandable that there is a concern to pass new legislation to stimulate the economy, however these pressing needs seems to be in conflict.
“Unless we change our direction, we are likely to end up where we were headed”[1].
On the campaign trail, President Barack Obama set his administration a tough environmental agenda[1]. His environmental commitments – which range from renewable to hybrid cars and curbs in oil imports – need a skilled, experienced team. To achieve these ambitious targets, the 44th President of the United States has enlisted th scientists, best politicians and advisers.
Barack Obama’s choice of the new green team, seems to show a new pro-active approach to environmental issues, in fact the people he appointed to advise him and instruct him on environmental issues are experts on the matter, mainly scientists, physics, and engineers. The announcement of Steve Chu, Nobel prize-winning physicist being elected as energy secretary was a widely welcomed surprise choice. On the other hand, Bush’s green team was composed mainly by white men with either a legal or political background that seemed to have failed in addressing environmental needs. An example is the ex head of the EPA, Stephen L. Johnson, who was forced to resign from his position because of allegations of false statements to Congress, and also accused of ignoring EPA’s official Principles of Scientific Integrity in advancing Bush Administration positions on water fluoridation, pesticide regulation, mercury emissions, and greenhouse gas control. Barack Obama’s new team is showing a strong willingness of finding the right balance between the protection of the environment and the promotion of a vibrant economy, in order to reach sustainable development.
Within his first 50 days in office, Obama either reversed or ordered a review of many of the Bush administration’s environmental policies, all while working to spark action on energy projects and research. For example, the Bush administration’s offshore drilling plans are being re-evaluated, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has already cancelled plans to drill on public lands in both Utah and Wyoming.
Despite his ambitious goals, however, critics doubt that Obama will be able to achieve all of his environmental initiatives. Although having a Democratic majority in Congress could certainly help, other national issues — including the economic crisis — may impede progress[1].
This illustrates a division that is almost never illuminated by the major media—the division between “reactionary environmentalists” and “progressive environmentalists.” By and large, the former see free markets, private property, and economic prosperity as engines of environmental degradation; the latter see those factors as promoters of environmental improvement.
Through technological progress and the resultant rise in factor productivity the ‘limits to growth’ can be pushed back. It would be possible to have a higher standard of living – including a clean environment – for everyone, while at the same time consuming less resources and respecting the well-being of future generations. This is definitely an enormous challenge that can only be met on a longer-term horizon and with international cooperation. But it can be mastered if the rich industrial countries are prepared to share some of the wealth they have achieved with the developing countries and emerging markets.
It is an acknowledged fact that in the past economical progress came to the detriment of the environment. Nowadays the circumstances may have changed in that although being economical growth of primary importance its effects on the environment are considered. This concept is clearly expressed by different academics in statements like:
“… The state cannot ensure environmental health and safety at the cost of economic destabilization, so is it prevented from pursuing unfettered economic growth at the expense of environmental destabilization[2]. “
“.. the question of whether humankind has made a Faustian bargain with technology remains unanswered[3].”
Even if Obama wanted to concentrate just on economic growth he could not do so, in fact as the research shows, sustainable development is as much about economic development as about environmental protection, the two aspects have to be integrated in order to achieve it. Throughout the research, it seems clear that Obama is trying to lift the country out of the current recession which has hit the US more than any other country. The Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 is one of the president attempt to tackle the economical crisis, nonetheless he seems willing not to neglect the environmental urgency for appropriate legislation, an example is the out coming international mercury treaty, project he embraced already in Nairobi this year, he is also bringing legal actions for companies that violated the Clean Air Act propositions, and giving the EPA more power and autonomy to act for the protection of the environment.
“Today, the world’s environment ministers, armed with the full facts and full choices, decided the time for talking was over — the time for action on this pollution is now” Achim Steiner[4] said. After years of chafing under political appointees who viewed stricter environmental regulation with skepticism, long-serving federal officials are seeing work that had been gathering dust for years translate quickly into action. Whether that is a good thing depends on one’s point of view. EPA watchers predicted the agency would have seen its power increase under the Obama administration, but in order to push through environmental reforms, the changes will need to be pegged to economic stimulus. Obama is acting quickly to reverse many of President George W. Bush’s environmental policies, but with financial hard-times descending, doing so without paying too heavy a cost – economically or politically – will be his biggest challenge.
Environmentalists criticized Bush for pushing policy before science on climate change issues, and relaxing hard-won environmental regulations. Despite the scepticism about Obama’s ability to accomplish all of his environmental goals the shift in policies and the decision to prosecute violations on the Clean Air Act send a clear message of awareness of the environmental issue and represent a positive step towards its resolution, however without compromising the economic growth of the US.
We cannot but hope for the best.
EF
[1] Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer
[2] Peter Cleary Yeager , “The limits of law: The public regulation of Private Pollution”
[3] Gary c. Bryner, “Blue Skies – Green Politics The Clean Air Act of 1990 and Its Implementation”.
[4] United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP ’s Executive Director
[1] (i) ensuring that 10% of US electricity supply comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025, (ii) introducing a cap-and-trade programme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, (iii) the creation of 5m new jobs by investing $150bn in green technology companies over the next 10 years, (iv) target to save more oil than US imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years, (v) have 1m plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015.
Hello world!
December 8, 2007
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
