Our Kraft & Furlong chapter for this week (chapter 5) takes an in-depth look at problem analysis, and suggests. The authors suggest that definitions and measures, a good understanding of the politics behind the problem definition, and good use of forecasts or projections that help us anticipate the future are all critical elements of problem definition.
Using "The New Environmentalism" chapter in Issues for Debate, see if you can discuss these components with regard to one of the environmental challenges (of your choosing) discussed in this chapter. What are relevant definitions and measures, can you articulate the politics behind problem definition? Are there credible ways to project future impacts?
4 comments:
Right now the policy definition on environmental issues is concerned with global climate change. It is the need to stop global warming and all of its side effects. The spotlight is being put on reducing the use of fossil fuels to do this and various measures are being suggested to help. These include biofuels, cleaner cars, alternative sources of energy (such as hydropower, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, etc.), standards, and regulations. While there is no quick fix and most environmentalists feel that every measure needs to be taken before any change will occur on the scale it needs to occur the problem is administrating these measures. Currently, no one or very few doubt that climate change is a real issue, but to get at the problem definition we have now many obstacles had to be over come. First off, portions of the government were not convinced that there was a problem and tried to prove that they were right in that assumption. It is only now that research and documentation has been done by scientist and interest groups that climate change is no longer considered a myth. Now, that we have over come that hurdle the next is actually doing something about it.
Currently, the government is taking baby steps toward a solution. Interest groups are pushing for more change along with some states that wish to have stronger restrictions and standards for such things as emissions. Then you have some automakers and corporations who are dead set against change, while there are other producers who are for change to be able to market their product as green and make more money. Unfortunately, if this slow move to change continues we will pass many points of change that may be irreversible. We must recognize that greenhouse gases stay in our atmosphere long after they are released. So while we may be changing our ways the atmosphere will still be suffering from the past. The only option is to reduce the impact now so it won’t be felt as badly in the future or the alternative to keep contributing to the problem and the future will be horribly affected by the amount of gas accumulation no matter what their current lifestyle is.
In the New Environmentalism movement, an increasing number of people (including non-traditional actors) are joining together to protect the environment from perceived threats. The widespread support of environmentalism has been “spurred mainly by concerns that global warming poses a real and potentially catastrophic threat to life on Earth.” The increasing amount of fossil fuel emissions is viewed as a contributor to global warming. The obvious goal of environmentalists is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel emissions to reduce environmental damage. It is difficult to limit emissions because it is in the financial interests of large corporations to pollute rather than prevent pollution. In many cases, factories are willing to pay fines for excessive emissions rather than follow restrictions. As you can imagine, politics plays an important role in environmental policy. Because the federal bureaucracy is centralized, it is difficult to monitor the emissions of every company. Without decentralization, it is difficult to enforce federal environmental policy. Also, It isn’t a secret that these large corporations have direct access to legislators in the form of campaign contributions and lobbyists.
The federal government must realize that direct action is needed to protect future generations from disaster. There are various policy alternatives available that could lower the amount of fossil fuel emissions in the United States. Citizens and interests groups alike have demanded environmental reform. It is now up to legislators to place environmental policy at the top of their agenda.
Our current environmental issues have long been disregarded by many Americans. One of the most recent proponents of raising awareness about our climate change has come from former Vice-President Al Gore. With his recent movie (an inconvenient truth) education and awareness have grown at a rate unlike ever before. Governments use subsidiaries in a variety of ways, like subsidies for farming. Some simple say the government should spend more money to raise awareness regarding global warming and the effects. I would simply suggest they study the problem and reaction of individuals to their awareness. By giving subsidies to only those companies who participate in being more “green” we can start enforcing regulations and raising standards without any sort of law having to go into effect. Secondly, almost every American drives on a daily basis and by raising emission standards. Also, if the government mandated all new vehicles be hybrids, we could reduce our dependency on other nations for fossil fuels, while decreasing our emissions. By raising awareness, it would be better to start in the school system. By teaching children about the effects of pollution and overuse of our resources we can start looking forward to a future with better uses of our resources.
The problem can be defined in a variety ways, because of the competing interests. The problem is we are overusing our natural resources and depleting the environment. As we do this, we have an ongoing struggle between environmentalist and corporations. Global warming awareness is being raised, but many are unsure if it is being done quickly enough. The problem not only affects the U.S. and other countries now, but it has also been a problem of the past and present. Until an agreement can be met and changes be made, gridlock will continue and our future will be endangered.
One of the challenges of the New Environmentalism is the question of federal action involvement to encourage energy efficiency. Measures and definitions of this action can be funding efforts to develop new technologies that burn coal more efficiently and with fewer emissions, imposing tougher restrictions on the use of fossil fuels or restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. Some politicians are thinking about a raise of taxes on fossil fuels, which would lead to reducing the consumption, but on the other hand there is fear of an economy depression. Environmental organizations advocate government mandates and businesses prefer incentives of voluntary action. The politics behind the problem and its definition have different sides. On the one hand it is difficult to find appropriate measures because the problem is linked to the economy and because it has a great impact on the population. Furthermore it is a very broad topic and therefore it is harder to find a clear definition. In my opinion the government is aware of the problem, and businesses and environmental organizations as well. As of right now, there is still not enough action taken and only more research in the developments of the environment can project future impacts.
Post a Comment