PA 395 Day 1
Non-Profits and the EnvironmentGary FlomenhoftJune 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)
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
My background
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.
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?
“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
Historical trends
First Wave: conservation of natural resources
Land resources, protection of specific sites, preservation of wildlife speciesSierra 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 GroupsCCHW, Sea Shepherd, Earth First, Environmental Justice, Environmental Equity
Evolution of Environmentalism, Costain, Lester
Conservation-Efficiency 1890-1920
Conservation-Preservation 1920-1960
Environmental Movement 1960-1980
Participatory Environmentalism 1980-
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
1) Conservation is not the locking up of resources-development and wise use
2) Greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time
3) Federal public lands belong to all the people
4) Comprehensive, multiple-purpose river basin planning and development should be utilitzed with respect to nation’s water resources
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
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.
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
Environmental Movement 1960-1980
“Pluralism in Policy-Making”Bottom-up not top-downDeep seated changes in the use of natureBreadth of constituency
Methods: lobbying, litigation, media, electroal politics, civil disobedience
Issue networks, policy communities
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
Participatory Environmentalism 1980-
Shift toward direct action
Advocacy Coalitions
“postenvironmentalism”; ecological productions methods, industrial ecology
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
Environmental laws
Environmental laws
Theories of Environmental Change-Costain/Lester
1) Cyclical Policy cycle2) Policy Learning3) Zig-Zag: patronage/backlash
Theories of Environmental Change-Costain/Lester
1) Cyclical Policy Cycle-Schleshinger30 year Public/Private cycle, Liberal/conservativeGenerational
1901 T. Roosevelt-Progressive Era1930 F. Roosevelt-New Deal1960 JFK-New Frontier
1920 Harding-Coolidge1950 Eisenhower, McCarthy Era1980 Reagan “Revolution”
“Creedal passion”-gap between ideal and real
Theories of Environmental Change-Costain/Lester
2) Policy Learning-SabatierCompeting 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.
Theories of Environmental Change-Costain/Lester
3) Zig-Zag: patronage/backlash, stimulus/response, Amenta, Skocpal
Class struggle/ competing coalitionsPolicies of one era provide the stimulus for a reaction
in the next era.
Theories of Environmental Change-Flo
Punctuated Equilibrium
Free-Speech
Origins of the environmental crisis?
Adam Smith
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!
Rival}
Non-rival}
Excludable Non-Excludable
Market Good: land, timber, fish once captured, farmed fish, waste absorption capacity?
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.
Open Access Regime:Oceanic fisheries, timberetc. from unprotected forests, waste absorption capacity, roads(congestible)
“Maximization of Shareholder Value”
“Golden Rule of public companies:
Full World or Empty World?
Source:
Ecological Economics Principles & Applications,
Farley and Daly
Fossil Fuel Age
0
25
50
75
100
1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000
Figure 2Figure 2The Composition of U.S. Energy UseThe Composition of U.S. Energy Use
Source: (Hall et al., 1986)Source: (Hall et al., 1986)
wood
animal feed
coal
oil
gas
electricity
Per
cen
t o
f to
tal
ener
gy
use
ESA Listings and GDP
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1973 1980 1990 2001
$10
$9
$8
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
R2 = 98.4
Source: The Wildlife Society Technical Review 2003-1.
Grow out of poverty?Poverty rate vs. GDP per Capita (1996$)
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
1959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
per capita GDP (1996$) poverty rate
Full World or Empty World?
Development of Science
Merchant: Descartes, Newton
Mechanistic vs. Organic worldview
“Great Transformation: Subsistence/feudal to industrial/market
EB White-Judeo-Christian ethic
George Catlin-Natl Park Idea
Henry David Thoreau
Frederick Law Olmstead
George Perkins Marsh
John Muir
Alexis De Tocqueville
Essays on Civil and Political associations
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
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
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.
1) 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.
2) Holistic: Paehlke, Gottlieb, Fitzsimmons. Transformation of fragmented narrow, particularlistic lobbies into a broad-scale social movement that would change the nature of American politics.
3) 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.
Theories of Interest Groups: Ingram, Colnic, Mann
Group of Ten
Organization Year Founder
Sierra Club 1892 MuirAudubon 1905 GrinnellNatl Parks and Conservation 1919 Mather/Yard
Izaak Walton League 1922 DilgNatl Wildlife Federation (AWI) 1935 DarlingWilderness Society 1935 MarshallEDF 1967 Yannacone/Wurster
EPI
FOE 1969 BrowerNatural Resources Defense Council
1970
Top Related