THE END IS NEAR!!!

Not really...but this is concise and definitely worth a read.

The Grassroots: Public Policy Battleground

Last time I ranted on the need to view environmental policy in terms of a public policy. As I mentioned, public policy implies advancing societal welfare. The public policy paradigm for the environment removes policy decisions from the exclusive hands of politicians and scientists and recruits the efforts of any and all people who recognize that the Earth is our universal public welfare.

Now, this is certainly not a new concept. In fact, the majority of recent successes in environmental policy have come from decentralized sectors of the country. From individuals to municipalities, focused efforts around the nation are recognizing that public policy is formed by action. While Washington sits on its ass and debates, environmental progress is happening in the grassroots.

Daniel Farber, who has written extensively about environmental law and policy, calls this phenomenon a "republican moment." In his 1992 article "Politics and Procedure in Environmental Law," Farber discusses how particular environmental events can override concerns for self-interest, triggering large-scale public prioritization of social welfare. We just might be in a republican moment right now. Global Warming and related concerns for green energy are prompting nation-wide action to ensure a clean environment for present and future generations.

One inspiring trend has come from the universities. Across the nation, colleges have set lofty goals towards greening their campuses. In Northfield, Minnesota, Carleton and St. Olaf colleges have played upon their 125 year football rivalry to challenge each other in a sustainability contest. In 2004, Carleton built a 1.65 megawatt wind turbine which generates around 40% of the school's electicity. St. Olaf has employed more of a multi-faceted plan of energy-efficient lighting, cafeteria waste composting, and curriculum-based campus conservation efforts. Elsewhere, Ohio's Oberlin college has reduced electricity use in dorms by one-half and NYU has recently vowed to purchase the majority of its power from renewable sources [courtesy of Danaher, Biggs, and Mark's Building the Green Economy (2007)].

Individuals often impact public policy within the grassroots of environmental policy, and their stories give personal face to the issues. Winner of the 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize, Maria Gunnoe of Bob White, West Virginia has been entrenched in environmental warfare for years. Four years after a 2000 mountaintop removal mine began operating on the ridge above her home, Maria's property directly bordered two toxic ponds filled with mine waste. Recent flooding destroyed her home, in the process covering her yard in the toxic sludge. Because the poisoning occurred from flooding, the offending coal company was held unaccountable. In 2007, despite a recent ruling which repealed mountaintop removal valley fill permits, the Army Corps of Engineers granted permits for two new valley fills in Boone County where Gunnoe lived. During the Ohio Valley Environmental Council's challenge of the permits, Maria was the only resident willing to testify after coal workers had launched a heated intimidation campaign within the affected community. In October 2007, the court ruled in favor of Gunnoe and the OVEC. Maria Gunnoe's ability to stand up and to a coal company in coal country, W. VA and thwart their environmental misdeeds shows that individuals can and do have significant impacts on environmental policy.

Grassroots activism doesn't have to occur outside the traditional venues of government policy. By 2007, as Bush and cronies were adamantly denying all concerns over Global Warming, cities across the country were vowing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Over 60 million citizens and 400 mayors signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which comitted each municipality to reducinc their carbon emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012--the very standards outlined by the Kyoto Protocol, which Bush had profusely oppossed. Such success shows that federal dimwittedness can be combatted by concerted local coalition [Danaher, Biggs, and Mark's Building the Green Economy (2007)].

In the efforts to achieve a public policy for the environment, the grassroots has seen myriad successes. Its decentralized locatoin allows wide-scale public engagement and empowers the impacts of individuals.

Environment & Public Policy: Removing the Lab Coat

When I first dove into this thing called environmental policy, I did so with eyes closed and mind set. But of course, I thought, environmental policy is the hard-lined, clear-cut rules and regulations shaped by governments which either help or hurt the natural world. Continuing my descent, I've since squinted my eyes open a few times to witness the murky water through which I've been paddling.

Sure, you can put a crisp definition on it if you want. Brennan and Withgott take such liberty on p. 34 of their environmental science textbook, The Essential Environment (2009):

Policy consists of a formal set of general plans and principles intended to address problems and guide decision making in specific instances.

Already, equivocality rears its ugly head. "Formal set of general guidelines"? Guidelines written in stone to wish-washily dictate certain rules? Luckily, they continue...

Public policy is policy made by governments, including those at the local, state, federal, and international levels. Public policy consists of laws, regulations, orders, incentives, and practices intended to advance societal welfare. Environmental policy is policy that pertains to human interactions with the environment. It generally aims to regulate resource use or reduce pollution to promote human welfare and/or protect natural systems.

Upon first reading I felt I'd hit an iceberg in my academic departure. The very title atop this page, after all, is "Environment & Public Policy." And here was the definition of public policy as laws, rules, and practices to "advance societal welfare." Environmental policy, as Brennan and Withgott distinguish, was my intention. Not this societal welfare crap.

Then I read it again. Something was amiss. Environmental policy "pertains to human interactions with the environment." Fair enough. "It generally aims..." Hold up.

There's nothing "general" about environmental politics. That, I have learned. Speaking as a card carrying tree-hugger, my politics are impassioned and focused towards defense of the natural world. Even the other side, as our study of environmental negotiation [pt.1, pt.2] taught us; the energy executive, the corporate lawyer, the right-wing politican. We're all hungry for our environmental policies. This is a bloodsport, baby.

You may write this off as hyperbole, and that's fine. But I'm dead serious. If environmental policy is set of "general" pursuits to "regulate resource use" or "reduce pollution," then I'm out. Furthermore, while markedly less offensive, "to promote human welfare and/or protect natural systems" still doesn't at all grasp the fervor behind my passion for mountain overlooks, the deep sense of place I've established with my local neighborhood park, the overwhelming suffocation I feel when I've been indoors for too damn long.

Brennan and Withgott, I'll admit that I did enjoy your thorough account of Global Warming in chapter 14, but this is one topic where you can toss aside the objective, lab coat zombie mantra. Show a little passion! These are the choices we make; as individuals and as societies, as mothers and fathers, and future mothers and future fathers. From anyone mildly intrigued by An Inconvenient Truth to the battle-scarred, barefoot monkey-wrencher. This is our past, present, future Mother Earth. The only thing at all that can make us look around and think, "Hey, we really are all in this together."

What kills me is they were so close. It's already half-way together right there one line up. This isn't environmental policy. It's public policy.

Whereas I set-out perhaps by sheer luck with the phrase carelessly thrown into my blogspot URL, the distinction is important. Public policy, as Brennan and Gottwith say, intends "to advance societal welfare." And that is the very point. Our future is our public welfare. Our universal public good. Yeah, I'm talking short-term, rocking in your chair, cane waving, talking about the day you went to Yosemite and hiked up Half Dome. But more importantly, long-term. Our existence can't merely be confined to the 80 some years we happen to trot around here. Rather, we're part of a long lineage of Homo sapiens with one common habitat. And we might as well make it our public policy.

Environmental Negotiation pt. 2: Tactics

Last time we covered the basics on environmental negotiation according to experienced negotiator Dale Gorczynski. Now we'll take a at specific tactics for success.

1. The Blacksmith Approach (pp. 177-180). Gorczynski claims that environmental negotiation often isn't much about subtle adjustments to policy as it is about pounding away at the opposition like a blacksmith pounding iron. As mentioned earlier, environmental negotiations are informal in that each side is often unwilling to negotiate at all with the other. Each stubborn party must therefore rely on the media, launching large-scale public relations campaigns to wear down and "soften" the opposition. The goal here is to outlast your opponent. Beat on them day-after-day until they are forced to negotiate.

Last week I introduced the example of an activist campaign against a proposed coal fire power plant. Under the blacksmith approach, the environmentalists could pound against city council members sympathetic to the plant. Call on individuals who have experienced the impacts of coal pollution first hand, and bringing them to council meetings. Bring an army of concerned mothers and call the policymaker out by name as being directly responsible for the impending public health risks. The battered opposition will eventually have no choice but to slacken their position, by either backing down completely or at least negotiating a compromise.

2. The Surgical Strike (pp. 181-183). The opposite of the blacksmith approach, the surgical strike employs subtlety and timing. It is the most effective negotiating strategy at getting just what you want, yet only works when your research indicates that the opposition is in fact prone to acquiesce. The strike is launched on a specific target which might be secretly sympathetic to your position.

For example, a policymaker likely to vote against your position simply because of party affiliations, might actually be an undercover environmentalist, or particularly against public controversies. Target this fact by approaching this specific member in private, indicating that you highly appreciate their sympathetic opinion and don't wish to launch a negative public assault which could be damaging to their character. Such a calculated approach is likely to result in much if not all of your demands being met.

3. The "Know-It-All" Approach (pp. 185-187). The know-it-all approach enlists the support of a highly qualified expert, such as a distinguished engineer or scientist to testify on behalf of your position. Beginning by elaborating on their credentials, know-it-all experts must establish themselves as the most knowledgeable person at the negotiation. They bolster your position and refute all dissent with detailed research and expert relevant experience.

This is another tactic used often in environmental negotiation, yet its success hinges completely on your opposition's lack of its own know-it-all expert. The hypothesis-based nature of research science is that theory can always combat theory, from any and all sides. For example, the scientific community has long since held a 95% consensus that global warming is a legitimate, human-created problem. Conservatives have, however, been able to employ numerous scientific sources of equally credible peer reviewed literature that claims just the opposite. Take for example the Cato Institute's recent propaganda Ad that I happened to catch in the May 4th issue of the National Review:

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.^1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.³ The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.⁴ Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.

================================================================

The Ad ends with list of nearly 100 scientists committed to denying the hype of Global Warming. Clearly the know-it-all approach can be easily employed by both parties within environmental negotiation.

4.The Warm, Friendly Approach (pp. 189-192). As Dale Gorczynski claims, "The warm, friendly approach could be an act of friendship or it could be an act of seduction" (p. 190). Most often it is the tactic of lobbyists as they try to butter-up the opposition, highlighting similarities and downplaying differences between the aims of both sides. If each party has essentially the same goals, then there's not much harm in adopting the other's position.

If we take a look at Congressional climate legislation, we have already highlighted times when this tactic has been employed by both sides. Democrats concerned with the ecological crisis of Global Warming have framed their proposals in terms of their potential for economic stimulus--the longstanding conservative argument against environmental protection. Republicans, however, have in several cases flipped the dialogue back on Democrats most obvious in their successful amending of Obama's budget to ensure climate legislation doesn't raise energy prises. As you may recall, the relevant Republican amendments passed with overwhelming bipartisan support [89-8 & 90-0]. It seems likely that within our current federal environmental policy negotiations, the warm-and-friendly approach will continue to play a dominant role.

5. The Arrogant, Obnoxious, S.O.B. Approach (pp. 193-196). The S.O.B. approach is the opposite of the warm-and-friendly. Goals of this approach are to attack your opponents ego and self-esteem, thus destroying their will to persist with their position. Most often, this is the tactic of those opposing positive environmental policy, the bad-guys. By attacking the credentials of scientific experts or portraying environmental activists as dirty, tree-hugging hippies, the opposition can make positive policy look like the foolish pursuit of unqualified professionals and a small group of crazed individuals.

One way for us good guys to utilize this approach is to enlist our own S.O.B.s. If we continuously roll over or take personal offense in the face of the S.O.B. approach, then we are doomed to intimidated failure. The problem is conservatives are experts at this approach. A perfect example of the efficacy of the S.O.B. approach came during the 2000 presidential election debates where George W. Bush was able to combat Al Gore's researched economic figures with mean, one-line zinger--a moment which many analysts feel may have solidified Bush's eventual victory:

AL GORE: I agree that the surplus is the American people's money, it's your money. That's why I don't think we should give nearly half of it to the wealthiest 1 percent, because the other 99 percent have had an awful lot to do with building the surplus in our prosperity.

JIM LEHRER: Governor one minute.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Man's practicing fuzzy math again.

...

GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. I can't let the man continue with fuzzy math.

Therefore, despite the tendency to avoid the S.O.B. approach altogether, its effectiveness at silencing rational, substantiated positions might make it necessary to use, at least sparingly.

6. The "Come Let Us Reason Together" Preacher (pp. 197-201). This tactic employs an overall moral basis behind negotiating. This tactic is the work of a figurehead with the substantial public support and influence. It is this individual's duty to establish his stance as impartial, only desiring what is best for everyone. From an impartial, moral pedestal this figurehead can mediate environmental negotiations by facilitating face-to-face negotiations between parties.

Right away I see this tactic as President Obama's role in current negotiations. He is brilliant at downplaying staunchly partisan positions as petty and counterproductive to the overall good of the country. Particularly, he has attempted to mediate environmental negotiations by portraying policy as multi-faceted measures towards achieving national, economic, and environmental security. Hopefully he will have success at portraying himself as our unbiased, morally sound leader in order to mediate the contentious debate about overarching federal environmental policy, such as current climate legislation.

7. The "Bore Them to Death" Approach (pp. 203-205). The bore-them approach might be another tactic with some potential weight in Congressional environmental negotiation. Those using this tactic speak at great length and with intricate detail about policy proposals with the ultimate goal of eliminating opposition by boring them to death. Repeated expert testimony which stresses technical science that your average Congressman doesn't fully grasp, can cause opposition to raise their white flags before enduring any further boredom.

This is where the EPA might step in. A previous post highlighted the ability of the new administration's EPA to enact some positive policy in the wake of eight years of politicized do-nothingness. With 17,000 people employed across the nation, including experts in engineering, research science, and policy analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency is fully equipped with the nerds to bore those who would oppose positive environmental policy.

8. The Kamikaze Pilot (pp. 207-209). As the name implies, the kamikaze tactic is a last ditch effort. If the negotiation process reveals your position to be a lost cause, the only action left is to inflict maximum PR damage on your opponent. It is an amplified blacksmith approach. Forget all subtleties or attempts to appeal to the opposition. Blast away at their stance with any available media outlet possible. You may crash your own plane, but you leave the opposition's successful proposal weakened in public eyes, opening the door for future reversals. This tactic is, however, somewhat depressing and let's hope we don't need to use it just yet...

9. The "Not Negotiating at All" Style (pp. 211-213). This tactic is perhaps the most infuriating approach in the eyes of the opposition. If your party refuses to negotiate, you are in essence redefining the process as not even a negotiation at all. It refuses to dignify an opposing position as worthwhile for debate. One must, however, be quite aware the opposing platform, often even implementing aspects of their position into your own stance. The result might be a compromised outcome, but you come out looking better than the desperate opposition, who was undignified from equal contribution to the debate.

Environmental Negotiation pt. 1: The Basics

In the quest for positive environmental policy, it's always helpful seek council from some success stories. Dale Gorczynski provides such tales of triumph in his 1991 book Insider's Guide to Environmental Negotiation. Working on Houston City Council for over eleven years, Gorczynski has spearheaded negotiations that removed raw sewage from Lake Houston (the city's major drinking water source), developed a less intensive water consumption policy for Houston, and a wide range of other environmental issues ranging from the disposal of toxic wastes to the protection of park lands.

He begins by assuring readers that environmental negotiation is a "game" (p. 4). All too often [and I'm definitely guilty of this] negotiations over environmental policy can become heated as the issues at stake appear drastically different to each side. Environmental activists easily become enraged just by the sheer existence of a new coal plant proposal, while the industrialist simply sees it as means towards making a living. Gorczynski calls environmental negiation a game in part to eliminate this contention. If you view the opposite side as an opposing team in a game, then you can prepare defensive strategies based upon their strengths, rather than reverting to anger and unflinching statements of opinion.

Gorczynski's second bit of wisdom is that environmental negotiation favors the generalist and interdisciplinarian. Environmental activists often don't know enough about politics and focus purely on ecology and public health, ignoring the economic or political elements of a proposal "You must be willing to go outside of your discipline; there is no way around it," he states (p. 9).

Environmental negotiations are further complicated in that they are unlike traditional negotiation, such as sitting down with your boss to negotiate a salary rase. Rather, they are informal negotiations. Some parties can't negotiate [trees, watercourses, animal species] and some parties refuse to negotiate at all [community next to a proposed sewage treatment plant]. Oftentimes there is complete lack of mutual respect between parties, each feeling they have the moral obligation to do whatever they want [e.g. our environmentalist v. coal plant industrialist] (p. 12).

The game of environmental negotiation is therefore quite difficult to play. Yet Gorczynski offers a five-step path, which he claims are the "heart and soul of successful environmental negotiating strategy" (p. 100).:

Step 1: Do research. This is when the need for level-headedness comes largely into play. Most environmental debate arises because one party feels greatly threatened by the behavior of another. In our example of the proposed coal plant, the activists case must be bolstered by adequate research. One must learn everything possible about the company in question, particularly their history of coal plant building [proposed size, standards for emissions, environmental problems associated with past plants, etc] (p. 105). [This, of course, is useful advice for both sides of the debate, but I haven't kept my personal bias a secret thus far, so why start now?]

This may seem like obvious advice, but according to Gorczynski, one common mistake made in the "do research" step is researching the individual environmental perpetrators themselves. What specific members of the company are supporting the coal plant? What is the extent of their influence [both internatl and external to the company]? This information becomes priceless in the negotiation process, as certain individuals follow patterns of behavior depending on their values (p. 108).

Step 2: Take Stock. Take account of those who support your cause and all accompanying allies. Not only should our environmentalist take into account the abilities of all vocal opponents to the coal plant, such as non-profit organizations or concerned citizens, but also potential allies who might not know about the proposition. For example, experts in public health, Congressmen from the districts in question, local councilmen, can offer resources and influence the outcome (p. 112). Furthermore, combining steps 1 and 2 enables one to imagine likely scenarios for victory. For example, if the coal companyt has funded extensive scientific research, support from public officials might be more helpful than environmental consultants (p. 120).

Step 3: Organize. Educate your team and the public, actively and continuously engage new allies for your cause. Delegate duties towards appropriate strengths to maximize efficiency (p. 124).

Step 4: Act. Clearly action is key towards victory. However, it is crucial that action be calculated and strategic. Our activist coalition mustn't get trapped in an endless internal debate, but must act once steps 1-3 are adequately achieved. Engaging the coal company too soon or too late could be detrimental (p. 143).

Step 5: React. Dale Gorczynski claims that the reaction step is most crucial in environmental negotiation. Particularly, it's essential to react appropriately to the oppositions reactions. For example, highlighting the bad behavior of an overtly hostile reaction from the coal company could fuel your team in resolve and possibly enlist support from previously neutral groups (p. 159).

Philosophical Considerations: Paradigms, Permanence, & Policy

Inspired by my talk with Dr. Bannon [see post from last Monday] and admittedly the product of a weariness from immersion in the semantics of divisive political discourse, the following takes a look at several philosophical considerations behind environmental policy.

Known by many as the father of environmental policy studies, Dr. Lynton Caldwell in his book Environment as a Focus for Public Policy articulates one underlying problem that arises from meshing defense of the earth with public policy. Caldwell begins with the claim that we each attribute certain significance to our surroundings based on our specialized training or other experiences:

You see a picture of a traffic jam on a Los Angeles Freeway. This may be all that some see. Others, depending on the specialized character of their interest and perception, may see problems of transportation, public health, or engineering; or perhaps, problems of urban design, metropolitan government, or public finance (p. 28).

And this is the ordinary individual’s encounter. However an alternate, less prevalent social viewpoint, “sees the congested freeway as an aspect of human environment, all of these things and many others come into focus simultaneously, forming a profile of one aspect of our society” (p. 28). The problems we usually run into with environmental policy, according to Caldwell, stem from deviation from this encompassing consideration. The world around us is our environment, our shared habitat full of vast complexity both inherently and subjectively to each person’s field of vision. Narrowly focused approaches towards “correct” visions of the environment, therefore, raise blinders to all other social data-points. This disservices not only the deafened voices but also the object of the analysis itself. Alienation yields contention and often dissent.

So then what does this mean for environmental policy? According to Caldwell, the grand unifying conceptual potential of the environment is often lost in political discourse as it becomes merely a “general object of public policy” (p. 30). Caldwell not only demands a paradigm shift towards a unifying vision the environment but even suggests that charging administrations as sole executors of environmental policy is a fundamentally flawed practice. The solution towards achieving positive environmental progress (under a comprehensive scope) requires redefinition of “social responsibility” and “public authority” (p. 98). No longer can we rely simply on unilateral policy legislation within Congress or EPA regulation. Rather, reform must take place via multi-faceted public engagement:

A mutually reinforcing relationship among major social institutions is needed. Schools, laws, and the administrative agencies of government are especially critical, but certain sectors of the professions and the business community must also be brought into a concerted effort toward environmental protection and improvement (p. 102).

Caldwell’s cooperative, grand vision sounds great. It only takes a quick glance at current environmental policy efforts to reveal the vast potential for policy-makers to muck things up [see various postings below]. However, how do we get there from here? Current widespread concern for specific crises, such as global warming, has seen a public uprising similar to the “mutually reinforcing relationship” within sectors of society of which Caldwell speaks. I can’t go a day without seeing a television commercial warning of impending climate change and touting the benefits of “going-green” in one’s own life.GE’s Ads Even these days are exclusively about clean energy.

But I’m not sure this global warming trend is the solution to Caldwell’s critique of our flawed, narrow view of the environment. Given Caldwell’s premise, global warming concerns seem to certainly unite us, even extending beyond the domestic scope of his argument. [It is, afterall, a global problem]. However, what happens when this craze is over. Assuming we’re not all floating in inner tubes within fifty years, it would seem that once at least mitigating global warming to acceptable levels, the problematic paradigm would persist. Caldwell was not talking about a hip, singular ecological crisis to permanently change our cultural views. He was talking about an expansive recognition of our deep personal relations with the environment.

To this assertion I would like to enter the work of philosopher Edward Casey. Casey’s Getting Back into Place (1993) is a metaphysical examination of the “place” concept, which provides some insight to Caldwell’s introduction. To Casey, the concept of “place” is primary to human existence; it is what Caldwell might term environment. Humanity is emplaced in that we each have bodies which occupy a place [“space” and “time” are irrelevant to Casey, as they represent mere attempts to order “our embodied emplacement” (p. 15)]. Casey discusses that our embodiment enables us to interact with places and foster significant relationships with certain landscapes (p. 16). This process is known as “cultivation” and represents our acquisition of familiarity with places as we both construct them with our own values and derive reciprocal significance from the places themselves (p. 173). The most obvious example is one’s home, the epitome of cultivating a familiar place. However, we also cultivate relationships with natural locations—outdoor sporting complexes, local nature preserves, National Parks.

What all this means is that our relationship with the environment [Casey’s “place”], is the essential unifying element of human existence. Furthermore, our significant interactions with [for our purposes] natural landscapes, cultivate relations of familiarity and help us derive value from the place. Herein lies a link to Caldwell’s proposed paradigm shift. Indeed if we learn to cultivate personal relations with certain landscapes, then familiarity will breed caring. In fact, this task could be performed on a regional, or even individual basis, as each member of society would only need to connect with their particular place [see Dr. Bannon’s mention of bioregionalism in our prior interview]. This could be achieved by reexamining our natural place construction with a critical eye, so as to imply human-nature mutual interactions, not simply preserved pristine nature. Perhaps by cultivating significant familiarity with our natural landscapes we can obtain the paradigm shift necessary to instill a more permanent eco-caring within society—not simply a hysteria-induced, transient trend, such that I feel global warming represents.

EPA: Enviro-policy Policemen

Thus far my focus has been primarily on policymakers. But what about the policy enforcers? The strictest climate legislation possible would be worthless in the hands of a do-nothing EPA. Time to take a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's role in all of this policy talk.

Over the past eight years it's been easy to forget the EPA's roles outside its presidential bedfellow services. Under Bush the agency determined to work for "a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people" became nothing more than a front for conservative disavowals of global warming or any ecological urgency really. Recently, a landmark EPA finding indicates things might be looking up for the tarnished agency. On April 17, 2009 after a two year review, the Environmental Protection Agency declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, "endanger public health and welfare." While the announcement seems to merely confirm the obvious, its significance for environmental policy is substantial. Firstly, the finding formally classifies greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants. This change enables the EPA, whose regulatory hands had previously been tied over GHGs, to enforce emissions standards on the substances. Secondly, the declaration marks a victory in fighting global warming. Not only can we finally see some hard regulation of GHG-emitters as the polluters they are, but the finding directly recognizes human-caused climate change.

"In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsibile for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act," reads one section of the EPA document. The finding recognizes long-term reasons to combat climate change, such as increased drought, heavier flooding, more frequent wildfires, and sea level rise. The announcement even suggests security issues tied to global warming, such as increased violence in destabilized regions caused by scarcity of resources such as water.

The Obama EPA is therefore off to a great start and seems poised to tackle our environmental concerns with newly equipped muscles. If our precious climate bill ever sees the light of day and becomes a law the EPA will be charged with enforcing the legislation. Most importantly, the agency will develop specific regulatory standards for carbon emissions, the issue at the forefront of environmental policy these days.

This recent decision has caused a bit of a stir within Congress. Energy bill coauthor Henry Waxman has been using the EPA as a threat to elicit GOP support in passing regulatory specifics. Breakthrough Institute's Tyler Burton calls Waxman's tactic "the 'EPA will regulate unless you act' bluff," as it urges GOPs to compromise on climate legislation before the EPA unilaterally passes stricter standards. However, Burton points out that Republicans may call this bluff. Extensive EPA regulation eliminates bipartisan debate, therefore opening the door for GOP criticisms of any negative aspects of regulatory policies. This may hold true, as EPA administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee this past Wednesday that federal limits on GHGs would lead to "modest" increases in electricity. As Burton claims, this might lead to a "protracted 'you go first' stalemate between EPA and Congress as no one will want to be responsible for increasing the costs of energy." Once again an apparent victory reveals its drawbacks. Hopefully, the EPA will step up and take responsibility. Higher costing energy is a necessary first step toward a clean energy economy.