Sunday, February 14, 2010

Op-Ed: The environmental policy stances and changes on the Obama administration

Historically, there are several policy actors influencing environmental policy: the three branches of constitutional power (the executive, legislative, and judicial), the president, mass media, the citizens themselves, powerful interest groups as pressure groups, and the like. Of them, the roles of presidents in the United States regarding environmental policy have been significant since the 1960s (Vig, p. 75). Although each administration has a different policy stance on environmentalism, the priorities of environmental policy, setting a relationship between environmentalism and pro-developmentalism (such as encouraging economic development at the expense of environmentalism) and setting relationships between a hostile Congress and courts, public opinions, no administration can deny the importance of environmental values per se and move. The big difference among administrations regarding environmental policy depends on how seriously each president prioritizes it as one of the key policy instruments or strategies for realizing his governing philosophies. External (economic decline or terrorism) and internal (staffing and budgeting of agencies regarding environmental policy) factors also play a role in creating the environmental performance of each administration.

As several scholars mentioned (Vig, Ch. 4; Guber & Bosso, Ch. 3; Sussman, 2006), environmental policy and politics have strikingly shaped American politics. Several federal laws, increasing public spending regarding the environment, and regulations for controlling (air and water) pollution have been made since the 1970s (Vig, Ch. 4), from President Nixon’s establishment of the EPA, through the 1970 Clean Air Act and, 1972 Clean Water Acts, the 1973 Endangered Species Act, the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act, to the 1980 Superfund Act. Contemporary environmentalism has been defined as much as anything by the overarching ideological and partisan debate over the role of government (Guber & Bosso, p. 67) so each administration depended on rather different power solutions to realize their governing goals. As Vig (Ch. 4) mentioned, many presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, follow the “administrative presidency,” depending on the powers of his office rather than on cooperation with other parts of government. Any president has vast authority to influence policy, even written legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making, and administration fiat (Baker, 2010). Nixon and the elder Bush, considered as environmental presidents, were likely to opportunistically respond to public pressures while Reagan and the younger Bush oriented toward pro-developmentalism at the expense of pro-environmentalism. Carter and Clinton had positive environmental agendas but failed to achieve many of their primary goals (Vig, Ch. 4).

Compared with the former administrations, Mr. Obama’s stance on environmental policy showed stronger pro-environmentalism with different power relationships orienting towards constitutional and democratic governance with the emphasis on his powers as opinion leader and party and legislative leader (Vig, pp. 92-3). Most of the environmental policy stance in the Obama administration was started by the “departing Bush administration” (Rosenbaum, p. 166) and set new national standards for realizing pro-environmentalism at the local, state, federal, and international level. With strong public support in the first year, Mr. Obama re-invigorated the EPA for conducting “sound science” with “professionalism and scientific integrity” (Vig, p. 91). He also “denounced the Bush administration’s secrecy and constitutional abuse of power, and promised to restore a proper balance between the executive and other branches of government” (Vig, p. 92). The environment has been one of the first important policy issues in Obama’s budget proposal, so public spending on the environment has strikingly increased during his first term. Regarding international environmental cooperation, the Obama administration declared “support for new, tough national mercury emissions standards, aggressive federal action on climate change, and other policies rejected by the Bush administration” (Rosenbaum, p. 166).

The Obama administration’s efforts and policy stances toward pro-environmentalism can put him on the right track to becoming a more successful environmental president than his predecessors. He tries to open a policy window for transformation of existing policy discourse of environmentalism with the balance of powers (executive vs. other branches) as well as environmentalism and pro-developmentalism. He also tries to actively organize pro-environmental groups or a “sustainable green coalition” (Guber & Bosso, Ch. 3) as key policy actors influencing the policy-making process. His policy stance on environmentalism can create strong supports and trusts within the international community and therefore improve the image of the United States as an environment-friendly country.

However, Obama’s power relationships with a strong emphasis on balance between the executive and the other branches, including constitutional institutions as well as interest groups and citizens, might change with complicated political and economic contexts. The first year in his presidency, Obama showed a rather different power orientation compared with the existing presidents’ “administrative presidency” with the support of executive power. He attempted to create progress in the relationship with Capitol Hill, especially through discussion with Republican leaders regarding several policy issues, but a changing politico-economic environment, as in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts and the long-term continuation of economic decline since 2008, has made Mr. Obama change his power orientation from a constitutional and democratic presidency to an administrative presidency. Mr. Obama has decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused several social and environmental policy proposals and to enforce his administrative powers like the recess appointment of several nominations for environmental agencies in the face of partisan gridlock. As Baker (2010) mentioned in the New York Times, the White House might legitimately say that Mr. Obama’s policy stance through “increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency,” but his power change might cause him to lose popularity and drive him into a corner with the loss of his traditional supports, such as environmentalist groups or related citizens.



Reference (except Vig & Kraft’s book)

Baker, P. (2010, February, 13). Obama is making plans to use executive power for action on several fronts, The New York Times, A11.
Sussman, G. (2006). The environment as an important public policy issue, Quest, Fall, Vol.9, Issue.2, pp. 12-15.

No comments:

Post a Comment