ACE

Category: Environmental Policy

  • Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

    Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

    Introduction

    On June 1, 2021, the Biden administration announced suspensions on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) which covers 19.64 million acres of land and water in northeast Alaska. This decision counteracts the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, requiring the Department of the Interior to issue two leases for drilling in ANWR over 10 years. Environmental groups and indigenous rights activists opposed the 2017 decision stating that oil drilling will harm the Gwich’in people that depend on the land as well as the Porcupine Caribou herd that annually give birth there. The Gwich’in call the land Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit (The Sacred Place Where Life Begins). 

    These recent rollbacks concern the creation, history and legacy of public land use in the United States. The establishment of the ANWR and public lands across the United States arose from the conservation movement of the late nineteenth century featuring environmental leaders such as Gifford Pinchot, John Muir, and President Theodore Roosevelt. Understanding current dynamics in the ANWR and protected lands across America requires a historical investigation of the theories, visions, and oversights that prompted their creation. 

    Background

    In 1872, the United States government established the first national park, Yellowstone National Park, legitimizing the goals of the conservation movement, which aims to protect the land for recreation, tourism, and sustainable resource use. In the years that followed, the U.S. government created expanded areas allocated as “public lands”.

    Gifford Pinchot, a leader in the conservation movement and first Chief of the United States Forest Service under President Taft and President Theodore Roosevelt, introduced the notion of public lands as lands owned as a body politic. He believed in sustainable resource use in nature parks to ensure that future generations could benefit from the land. His aim was “the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.”

    President Theodore Roosevelt, a colleague and friend of Pinchot’s, ascribed to his views of sustainable use. In a speech titled “Conservation as a National Duty,” he said, “One distinguishing characteristic of really civilized men is foresight, we have to as a nation, exercise foresight for this nation in the future; and if we do not exercise that foresight, dark will be the future.” As a result, President Theodore Roosevelt founded the National Wildlife Refuge System in 1903 under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Wildlife Refuge System is “dedicated to conserving America’s rich fish and wildlife heritage.” In 1980, President Carter designated ANWR as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. 

    President Theodore Roosevelt also confided in John Muir, a staunch preservationist. He believed that nature should remain untouched. Unlike Pinchot and Roosevelt, Muir worked outside of the government as a writer and advocate for protected lands, eventually co-founding the Sierra Club which continues to fight for a healthy planet today. Muir saw God in the natural world, calling it “sacred and divine” and wanted “to remove it from the corrupting hands of human society.” Muir’s musings on nature and preservation have influenced many Americans. Together with Pinchot and Muir, these three environmental advocates established the dominant view on nature and public lands in America. At the same time, the push for creating protected federal lands displaced and excluded millions of Native Americans. 

    National Parks as A History of Colonialism

    William Cronon, whose writing is nearly ubiquitous in Environmental Studies, writes in “The Trouble with the Wilderness” that Muir’s vision of nature as Godly and pure effectively erases the history of indigenous tribes who worked and transformed the land long before the US began protecting it. These lands were far from untouched, and indigenous tribes were integral to the health of the land. Yet, from the mid-1800s to 1914, when Yosemite became a national park, there was a concerted effort across nature parks in America to expel thousands of indigenous people from their land, destroying their livelihoods and culture. Amid this context, President Theodore Roosevelt established the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

    The events in Yosemite National Park were hardly unique. In Alaska, the Gwich’in people have called their land home since time immemorial. Though not a specific date, they held that land long before the Russians, who in the eighteenth century colonized Alaska and called it their own. In 1867, the United States bought Alaska for 7.2 million dollars. For nearly a hundred years, Alaska existed as a US territory. 

    With colonization came violence and disease. In the mid-1800s, commercial whale hunters from New England emptied the Bering Strait and Beaufort Sea of bowhead whales, depleting the Indigenous people’s source of food. Then, the Alaskan gold rush brought people who contaminated and rerouted streams, making them unable to sustain the local salmon populations on which the Indigenous people depended. With more people came diseases that wiped out nearly two-thirds of Alaska’s Indigenous population. By the time Alaska became a state in 1959, Indigenous people were no longer the majority. 

    Beginning in the 1930s, many Indigenous children were sent to schools geared to assimilate them to American culture. School officials took their clothing, chopped the boys’ hair, and forbade their language. When these Indigenous children returned home, they did not know how to hunt, fish, gather, or speak their native language. 

    Alaska Natives and Oil Multinationals

    In 1968, oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay, just west of ANWR. It remains America’s largest oil field. This discovery brought relief to Alaska’s failing economy and brought the need for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. In order to begin building, the state of Alaska needed to know what land belonged to who. The problem was that there were little to no boundaries allocating land to indigenous populations.

    Under the pressure to move quickly, the Senate and the US House of Representatives agreed on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which President Richard Nixon signed in 1971. Indigenous tribes received 44 million acres of land, far less than many felt was deserved, and $963 million in settlement payouts for the lost land. At the time it was the largest native land settlement, but it was exploitative and mainly benefitted corporations in the area.

    The Act stipulated that the 44 million acres be allocated not to the tribes themselves, but to corporations of which tribe members became shareholders. Indigenous tribes with little business training and minimal English language skills had to find a way to successfully manage a company. 

    ANCSA stated that Alaska natives had to abide by federal and state regulations regarding hunting, fishing, and land use. This completely upended their way of life. Since the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska has relied on oil profits to pay for social programs, eliminate income and sales taxes, employ citizens, and fund the Alaska Permanent Fund that doles out annual payments to permanent citizens. 

  • Antiquities Act: History and Current Implications

    Antiquities Act: History and Current Implications

    The American Antiquities Act, passed in 1906, marks the country’s first legislative effort to protect cultural resources. In recent years, the act has received renewed attention due to the controversy surrounding Bears Ears National Monument. 

    Motivation for the Antiquities Act

    The Antiquities Act was motivated by a growing concern over the looting and destruction of archaeological sites in addition to an emerging national interest in Native American cultures. During the 19th century, news of the discovery of prehistoric ruins in western states led to the mass looting and destruction of these archeological sites as amateurs hoped to make a profit off of selling artifacts. By the 1880s, the American public became aware of and concerned over the ongoing vandalism of the country’s indigenous history. As no existing legislation existed to protect historical sites, these concerns led to the drafting and passing of the American Antiquities Act in 1906. 

    What is the Antiquities Act

    The purpose of the Antiquities Act is to provide the immediate protection of cultural resources. Since congressional actions generally require a slower process then executive actions, powers under the Antiquities Act are granted to the president. 

    The Antiquities Act consists of three relevant statutes: 

    1. It is illegal to destroy or remove any ruin, monument, or object of antiquity from public lands.  
    2. The president can create protected historical or scientific sites called national monuments. According to section two, a national monument can be declared on public lands containing “historic landmarks, historic or prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interests.” Surrounding land can be included in the national monument, as long as the parcels reserved are the “smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” When declaring a national monument, the president is allowed to restrict/prohibit any uses of the land that would harm the protected objects. 
    3. Permits are allowed to be granted for the examination and/or removal of ruins and objects from national monuments, as long as such actions are undertaken for the benefit of museums, science, or education. 

    Antiquities Act in Action

    Since its enactment in 1906, 17 presidents across multiple political parties have used the act to designate 158 national monuments, as well as to modify existing national monuments over 90 times. 

    The act’s vague nature has also left room for individual interpretations, and in practice, the act has become an important environmental conservation tool, as presidents have used the act to protect naturally occurring objects and large swaths of land. Such monument proclamations have resulted in controversies and litigation, but courts have largely supported this use of the Antiquities Act by upholding a very broad interpretation of the president’s powers under the act.

    For example, in 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt declared the Grand Canyon a national monument, which congress later transformed into a national park containing over 800,000 acres of protected land. A local mining company filed suit, claiming that canyons were not objects intended to be protected by the Antiquities Act. The courts rejected this argument, stating that the Grand Canyon was an object of “unusual scientific interest” and therefore fell under the Antiquities Act. Subsequent court cases have broadened the interpretation of the Antiquities Act to allow bodies of water, in addition to tracks of land, to be included in national monuments. 

    While the act has been broadly interpreted in the past, Congress has since amended the act to reduce the president’s powers, both in 1943 and throughout the 1970s. In 1943, President Roosevelt established the Jackson Hole National Monument despite vocal opposition from the state of Wyoming. Soon after, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the president from establishing further monuments in the state of Wyoming. In the 1970’s, President Carter established a many monuments in Alaska totaling 56 million acres. Opposition from many groups in the state led Congress to pass legislation prohibiting the president from reserving more than 5,000 acres of land in Alaska without the approval of both the House and the Senate. 

    As the three branches of government have interacted to modify and shape the meaning of the Antiquities Act, the applications and powers associated with it have changed as well. 

    The Current Issue: Bears Ears

    Recently, the Antiquities Act has received renewed attention over former President Trump’s controversial reduction of Bears Ears National Monument. President Trump’s proclamation stated that the protected objects were not in danger and that the lands reserved exceeded the smallest area possible, which would violate section two of the act. The plaintiffs of two court cases argue that the Antiquities Act does not allow presidents to reduce the size of existing monuments. While presidents have reduced monuments in the past, the claim has never before been brought to court, so it is unknown if the courts will uphold this action. Subsequent briefs will go into details on the specifics of Bears Ears National Monument and the current controversy. 

  • Understanding the Bears Ears National Monument Debate

    Understanding the Bears Ears National Monument Debate

    Background

    Located towards the southeastern corner of Utah sits a region of land commonly referred to as “Bears Ears.” Named after two distinct twin buttes (steep, isolated hills) resembling the small ears of a bear, this desert landscape and its resources have become the center of a hotly contested debate spanning the last three presidential administrations.

    Photo from the Bureau of Land Management

    Bears Ears is rich with ecological, cultural, and archaeological resources. A wide variety of wildlife species such as black bears, bald eagles, and tiger salamanders inhabit this desert ecosystem. Furthermore, an even larger number of plant species can be found in Bears Ears, including yucca trees, prickly pear cacti, primrose flowers, and more. Among the Bears Ears flora and fauna are a number of endangered species (e.g. the southwestern willow flycatcher), making Bears Ears a unique haven for plants and animals threatened with extinction.

    The significance of Bears Ears goes beyond its biodiversity, as over 30 Native Tribes and Pueblos hold deep spiritual and cultural connections to this land. Traces of indigenous settlements in Bears Ears have been dated to approximately 12,000 years B.C.E. Many indigenous individuals still visit Bears Ears to hunt, gather herbs, forage for food, and perform ceremonies, much like their ancestors. Additionally, the presence of sacred structures such as centuries-old graves, shrines, and more, allow Native groups to learn and connect with the history of their culture.

    With such a long history of indigenous settlements, Bears Ears unsurprisingly contains an abundance of archaeological resources. Some well-preserved artifacts and sites include cliffside houses, roads, wall carvings, kivas (structures used for political meetings and spiritual ceremonies), granaries, and more. Archaeologists have estimated that the region is home to over 100,000 sites, making Bears Ears one of the most significant locations for archaeology within the United States. 

    Obama Administration: National Monument Designation

    In 2015, a group of Native tribes and pueblos submitted a proposal to President Barack Obama requesting that 1.9 million acres of the Bears Ears region be designated as a National Monument. This alliance is known as the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, a team composed of the Hopi, Navajo, Uintah & Ouray Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zuni Governments. The designation of an area as a National Monument provides it with special protections, such as banning oil drilling and mining, creating barriers for the development of new roads, and preventing land sales for commercial or private uses. Seeking to preserve many of the “prehistoric, historic, and scientific values” discussed in the coalition’s proposal, Obama wrote a proclamation declaring Bears Ears as a National Monument in 2016. This move was made using the Antiquities Act of 1906, a law which gives presidents the authority to establish national monuments at will. In total, the Bears Ears National Monument spanned over 1.35 million acres, making it one of the largest national monuments at the time.

    Obama’s designation of Bears Ears as a protected National Monument was widely celebrated by a variety of environmental organizations, archaeologists, paleontologists, and Native tribes. In contrast, many Republicans, business owners, and local ranchers disagreed with Obama’s designation of the Bears Ears National Monument.

    Trump Administration: Significant Downsizing of Monument

    Among the more notable Republicans opposed to the monument were John Curtis, Jason Chaffetz, and then-Utah governor Gary Herbert. After citing damaging economic implications of the monument such as forgone employment opportunities, developments within the region, and tax revenue, Herbert signed an official resolution requesting that President Donald Trump delist Bears Ears as a National Monument in February of 2017.

    By December 4, 2017, President Trump reduced the size of the Bears Ears National Monument by approximately 85%. This 1,150,860 acre reduction came after Trump claimed it was “unnecessary for the care and management of the objects to be protected within the monument.” The Trump Administration’s decision was met with harsh criticism and immediate backlash. According to law professors from four different universities, Trump did not have the authority to diminish the size of National Monuments. They argue that neither the Antiquities Act, nor the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, gives the President the power to revoke designations of National Monuments. The long and complicated history of the Antiquities Act has left substantial room for debate on whether or not Trump’s actions are legal. You can learn more about the Antiquities Act through this ACE brief (link Layla’s brief once uploaded). 

    In response to the size cuts of Bears Ears, two separate lawsuits were filed. One lawsuit, filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council on behalf of 10 other environmental organizations, argues that Trump’s actions were unlawful, as only Congress can alter national monuments. Another lawsuit opposing reductions of Bears Ears was filed by several Native American tribes, including the Hopi Tribe. They believe that Trump went against the Antiquities Act and violated a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government, as he supposedly infringed on Congress’s powers.

    Conversely, others argue that Trump was well within his powers to alter the monument. Because the Antiquities Act says nothing against shrinking monuments, and because seven Presidents have done so in the past, they believe there is no reason Trump cannot do the same. 

    Biden Administration: Efforts to Restore Lost Land

    Immediately after being sworn into office on January 20, 2021, current President Joe Biden signed an executive order seeking to restore National Monuments. In his executive order, he states that a formal review of the Bears Ears National Monument boundary will be conducted in order to determine whether any alterations are necessary. Following the completion of the review, the Secretary of the Interior will instruct him on how to proceed. With Deb Haaland as the first Native American Secretary of the Interior, many are hopeful that she will suggest an expansion of the monument size to some degree.

    Main Arguments For and Against Bears Ears

    As evidenced by the contents of this brief, discussions of why the Bears Ears region deserves to stand as a National Monument vary widely. To summarize, some of the main arguments supporting the designation of Bears Ears include:

    • Environmental Conservation: Designating Bears Ears as a National Monument would protect valuable, pristine habitats currently untouched by human development.
    • Aesthetic Beauty: The unique beauty of the Bears Ears region is a feature that many claim is worth protecting. 
    • Endangered Species Protection: The endangered species living within Bears Ears would likely see their habitats reduced without land protections, threatening the survival of the species. 
    • Sacred Land Protection: Bears Ears is a sacred land for many indigenous tribes, and federally protecting it would preserve areas that have held religious significance for thousands of years. Many native tribes have expressed strong support of the Bears Ears National monument, and because indigenous peoples are the original inhabitants of these lands, many argue that their needs and wants should be honored. 
    • Protection of Ancient Structures and Artifacts: Bears Ears hosts thousands of ancient indigenous structures and artifacts, and many claim that designating it as a National Monument would protect these historical features from activities such as looting, off-road riding, vandalism, and development. 
    • Paleontological Resources (Fossils): Bears Ears is rich with paleontological resources, containing fossils from hundreds of millions of years ago. The paleontological research potential of Bears Ears is notable, and providing Bears Ears with robust federal protections will ensure scientists can mindfully study its resources. 
    • Local Economy Boost: Many argue that National Monuments do not typically harm local economies, rather, they can provide economic boosts by growing adjacent businesses. 

    Some of the main arguments against protecting Bears Ears include:

    • Excessive Size: Many, including previous Utah governor Gary Herbert and President Trump, argue that the original Bears Ears Monument designated by President Obama was excessive and unnecessary. They believe a smaller monument is sufficient to adequately protect Bears Ears’ most important objects. 
    • Oil, Gas, and Coal Extraction: It is estimated that around 11 billion tons of coal, oil, gas, and other minerals lay within the Bears Ears region. Many believe opening up these lands for resource extraction is beneficial for the economy and will put people to work. 
    • Uranium Mining: Some argue that uranium reserves within the Bears Ears region should be extracted and added to the United States stockpile. Uranium is used to run nuclear power plants, and creation of mines could create jobs and aid the Utah economy.

    Harmful Economic Outcomes: Governor Herbert argued that because National Monuments are federal land and not subject to property taxes, the Utah school systems will suffer as a result. Additionally, Herbert claims that the current economic deprivation experienced by Utah residents will not be improved from simply increased tourism

  • Introduction to Environmental Justice

    Introduction to Environmental Justice

    Introduction

    Environmental justice is concerned with the unequal distribution of environmental benefits and costs/damages amongst different social groups. “Environmental justice” typically refers to 1) the body of research aimed at identifying and understanding such inequalities, or 2) the social movement seeking to extend equal social participation in decision making processes to ensure all communities are able to have a say on activities that impact their environment. Environmental justice is an intersectional concept, combining notions of social justice with environmental advocacy, and holds that we are unable to care for the planet and combat climate change until we address the human lives that are put at risk from environmental degradation. 

    Environmental justice only became a mainstream movement in recent years. As a result, generations of impoverished individuals and/or people of color have faced disproportionately large ecological risks, often resulting in property loss, problematic health conditions, and/or death. In recent years, environmental justice has become increasingly relevant as climate change has exacerbated and created new environmental challenges which impact communities across the Country. By bringing these communities to the forefront of conversations about climate change and natural resource extraction and use, advocates hope to create a more inclusive and equitable environmental movement. Though the merits of environmental justice are refuted by some, who tend to dispute the existence of climate change or the ways in which communities of color are disproportionately impacted by policy failings, proponents highlight how discussing past and present instances of environmental injustices are critical in moving towards a more environmentally equitable future.

    Factors which led to the Environmental Justice Movement

    Issues of environmental injustice within the United States date back to some of the earliest appearances of European settlers. For example, European colonizers removed indigenous peoples from their land and forcibly relocated them onto unfamiliar, relatively unproductive territory. Settlers engaged in strategic buffalo killings, slaughtering them to near-extinction as a way to limit Native Americans’ food supplies, and European Americans consistently silenced indigenous peoples during attempts to speak out against their mistreatment and the mistreatment of the environment. Anti-indigenous sentiments held by the earliest European settlers still carry into the present day, as many Native Americans remain subjected to some of the worst environmental and health conditions in the nation. The 20th century in particular brought unique challenges for various vulnerable peoples. Urban planners placed the majority of waste incinerators in marginalized communities, leaving residents with harmful respiratory illnesses. Uranium mining companies created hundreds of mines on Navajo territory which greatly increased their lung cancer rates. Chemical plants were built in historically black and/or low-income neighborhoods, polluting their drinking water. 

    Though the environmental justice movement did not emerge as a coherent discourse until the 1980’s, these historical injustices fueled civil rights movements in the 1960’s which emphasised the continuing public health dangers faced by communities of color. In 1968, African Americans organized the Memphis Sanitation Strike to obtain better working conditions for Memphis garbage workers, largely considered one of the first attempts to advance issues of environmental justice within the US. This momentum carried through to 1982, when civil rights activists attempted to stop North Carolina from dumping 120 million pounds of PCB-contaminated soil (a persistent organic pollutant) into a county overwhelmingly occupied by African Americans. While the protest was ultimately unsuccessful, it led to several high profile prosecutions, and is seen to be the catalyst for the Environmental Justice Movement.

    Arguments For Environmental Justice

    Proponents of the Environmental Justice movement, specifically those directly impacted by environmental degradation and those who understand the urgency for climate action, seek societal and governmental change to rectify historical injustices and prevent the continued harming of marginalized communities. Government intervention is considered necessary because many of the problems occurring from injustices arise from federal and state policy failings or omissions. The growing threat of climate change is expected to disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities further. 

    • Inequalities in the ability to recover from wildfires worsened by global warming will leave many lower-income individuals homeless. 
    • The placement of low-income and minority housing in floodplains will cause them to experience higher death tolls under severe sea level rise. 
    • Disparities in emergency preparedness mean marginalized communities will face disproportionate risks as hurricanes become stronger and more frequent. 

    Overwhelming capitalist interests, systemic racism, class discrimination, and more, effectively devalue the worth of certain human lives over others and contribute to such environmental injustices.  

    Advocates argue that without adequate societal, cultural, and political changes, those bearing the brunt of the climate crisis will continue to be the country’s most vulnerable individuals.  Marginalized communities already face discrimination and exclusion in various forms, putting them at a severe social, cultural, economic, and political disadvantage. More specifically, because marginalized communities have less time, resources, and political power to resist unequal environmental conditions, improving public awareness and motivation to tackle environmental injustices is an important first step. Not only does the power to address environmental injustices lie with policymakers, wealthy company owners, government agencies, etc., it lies with informed and democratically-engaged citizens. Whether through participating in citizen groups and activist organizations, voting for certain political candidates, or reaching out to elected officials, everyday citizens can create tangible differences in their communities, their states, and beyond.

    Arguments Against Environmental Justice

    The Environmental Justice Movement faces criticisms from those who believe that increasing government intervention is unnecessary, and simply gives politicians more power to control and harm American citizens. They claim the stricter rules and regulations following environmental justice advancements would inadvertently prevent the creation of jobs and reduce economic output. One example cited by environmental justice critics is the EPA’s 1998 blockage of the construction of a new plastics factory in Convent, Louisiana. What may have brought economic prosperity and 2,000+ jobs to a poor, predominantly African American town was instead halted by supposedly unfounded cancer concerns. Additionally, while many Americans can agree that pollution is an issue, some critics believe that the effects of pollution on the health of marginalized communities are negligible, citing behaviors such as increased smoking rates and drug usage as reasons for reduced minority community health.

    Overview of Environmental Justice Policies

    Since the 1980’s, local, state, and federally elected officials have attempted to address environmental injustices via legislation and policy changes. On the federal level, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to take environmental justice into consideration when engaging in governmental activities. State involvement in tackling environmental justice issues vary widely, with some states establishing strong environmental justice policies, and other states such as Oklahoma and Arkansas having none at all. Among some of the most important state regulations regarding environmental justice are the policies outlined in the Virginia Environmental Justice Act, the goals set forth by the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the protections codified by New Jersey’s 2020 Environmental Justice Legislation. Policies on environmental justice can also differ at the local level, with some cities such as San Francisco choosing to consider the environmental justice implications of land use development in contrast to other areas of California, or Atlanta’s focus on public health implications. 

    While such policies have had some successes, a number of policies have limited and reversed attempts to address EJ issues. For example, the Trump administration’s first proposed budget diminished the EPA, including funding cuts to environmental justice programs. Scott Pruitt, the EPA Administrator under President Trump, marked a significant change for the Agency because Pruitt was well known as an adversary of the EPA who, as Oklahoma Attorney General, repeatedly sued the EPA in opposition to environmental regulation and openly advanced the energy industry’s agenda. President Trump also issued an executive memorandum directing the Secretary of the Army to take all legal steps consistent to approve permits necessary to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline. At a global scale, the Trump Administration’s rejection of climate science and repudiation of the Paris Agreement represents a conscious refusal to take steps to prevent and protect against climate change impacts.

    With a new presidential administration, many policy changes are already being discussed regarding environmental justice. The Biden administration is expected to implement environmental justice across all federal agencies, especially the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The new EPA Administrator, Michael Regan, seems inclined to incorporate environmental justice as well. He created an Environmental Justice and Equity Board during his time as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), which made beneficial changes including a community mapping system used to inform agency decisions by considering demographic and health information—and which could serve as a model for EPA decision-making. Additionally, the Biden administration is expected to withdraw the Department of Justice’s current prohibition on Supplemental Environmental Projects (“SEPs”). These are voluntary projects with environmental or public health benefits which were previously used as a component of enforcement settlement actions. Although they were considered to be a valuable tool in the Obama-led Department of Justice, they were nixed by the Trump administration due to administrative cost concerns. To proponents, not only are these a valuable compliance tool, they frequently contain a public accountability component which makes them even more effective and responsive to community needs. SEPs are expected to return as a component of EPA settlements in 2021. 

    In spite of widespread EJ implications from the Trump Administration’s heavy environmental protection and public health setbacks, state and local movements towards a more equitable future are gaining traction. While the federal response to addressing issues of environmental justice is historically poor, local communities have still had numerous successes. San Diego County’s overwhelming approval of an Environmental and Climate Justice Office, Michigan’s creation of the Office of the Environmental Justice Public Advocate, and the 2021 Massachusetts climate law prioritizing environmental justice are only a few recent examples of strong local efforts to ensure the health and safety of vulnerable residents. Such achievements are a testament to the changing attitudes and growing support towards environmental justice issues. 

    International Impacts

    There is much work to be done before all communities experience equal distributions of environmental benefits and costs, especially on a global level. For example, the continued extraction and use of fossil fuels has astronomical impacts on the natural environment, as oil sand drilling, fracking, arctic drilling, and deep water petroleum sources contaminate fresh water, devastate marine systems, cause seismic activity, and exacerbate global warming. Another example is the implications that arise from fisheries around the world. Because of these fisheries, fish stock is decreasing causing concern of overuse and fish shortages. Small-scale fishing communities are reclaiming their rights for access to and control over aquatic commons. Some examples are the ones by intensive fish farms in Turkey or in Chile, big port projects in India and polluting industries in Ecuador. Climate change is a global problem which requires collaboration with other countries to find effective solutions. 

    Conclusion

    For those interested in becoming involved in environmental justice, educating yourself and others is arguably the most important step, so sharing this page and additional ACE resources with those in your community can contribute towards a more environmentally equitable future. For more information on Environmental Justice issues check out the EPA website, or to find out more about how advocacy groups are getting involved, check out the Environmental Justice Foundation or We Act.

  • Environmental Regulation and Housing Affordability

    Environmental Regulation and Housing Affordability

    Environmental regulations are laws, imposed by the federal or local government, to mediate between natural systems and human systems, often with the intent to improve and preserve ecosystems and safeguard human health. Environmental regulations influence the supply and control the uses of developable land by restricting land use, regulating sources of pollution, and setting aside land for the protection of vulnerable ecosystems and species. Environmental laws also provide pathways for citizens to participate in decisions that affect their community through public comments, public hearings, and citizen lawsuits. Regulatory processes and requirements imposed by environmental laws can increase the cost of building and reduce the supply of available housing, thus increasing housing prices. 

    Housing Affordability

    Environmental laws that impact housing supply and affordability include:

    Environmental regulations pose challenges to tackling housing affordability and insecurity issues. Housing affordability is determined in part by the cost of housing, which incorporates building costs, financing costs, operating costs, and supply of housing. Environmental regulations largely impact the building, operating, and supply components. Building costs vary with the availability of land and the ease of development. Laws such as wetlands regulations can limit the land available for development. Furthermore, construction creates pollutants that must be mitigated, creating additional building costs. Environmental regulations often impose restrictions on water usage, waste management, and energy use, increasing utilities fees and operation costs. Low-income housing is disproportionately affected because homes tend to be older and less efficient, and there is little money to spend on repairing or replacing inefficient systems. Additionally, environmental laws allow citizens to sue government agencies if they believe a law has not been adequately enforced, but the threat of these lawsuits can discourage developers from proposing new projects. If lawsuits do occur, they can delay construction, create additional costs, and sometimes stop projects altogether. Finally, environmental regulations more frequently apply to federal agencies than private organizations or companies. While most public housing projects are subject to environmental regulations, private projects that do not involve federal funding, work, or permits are usually unaffected. Thus, environmental regulations might create an additional challenge for public housing projects.

    Arguments for Strict Environmental Regulations

    Individuals who advocate for strict environmental regulations argue that strong environmental regulations protect people, especially low-income communities and people of color, from environmental burdens caused by development projects. Environmental regulations ensure that developers’ and businesses’ actions are environmentally and socially conscious since the most cost-effective and convenient actions often involve environmental externalities. Additionally, locally unwanted land uses such as landfills, oil wells, and manufacturing facilities are disproportionately sited in low-income communities of color. Environmental laws require agencies to invite public comments on environmental impact statements, giving communities input into the location of these projects. They also allow citizens to file lawsuits against an agency if they fail to uphold the law, providing the public with an important legal tool to combat pollution and environmental burdens in their neighborhoods. 

    Some researchers and studies indicate the impact of environmental regulation as a barrier to development is overstated. Compared to the number of projects subject to environmental regulations, relatively few are litigated. In some cases, environmental assessments can save money by discouraging impractical projects or revealing environmental issues that can be solved before construction begins. Strict regulations also encourage companies to develop and improve sustainable technologies, making those technologies more accessible and less expensive.

    Arguments for Streamlined Environmental Regulations

    Others argue that environmental regulations should be streamlined to reduce the cost and timeline of development projects. Environmental impact reports, which are often required by environmental regulations, increase the time, cost, and uncertainty of getting a construction project approved. Additionally, land-use restrictions, pollution screening and mitigation, and utility fees imposed by environmental laws increase the building and carrying costs of housing. The threat of litigation over environmental concerns can deter developers from starting housing projects, and if a developer is sued they will likely face extensive project delays, expensive litigation costs, and environmental review fees. Since any member of the public can file a citizen suit to enforce environmental laws, locals have abused this tool to prevent unpopular development projects, including affordable housing, from being built in their communities. Environmental regulations do not often consider socioeconomic inequality, and this can disproportionately affect housing affordability for low-income communities. Regulations and environmental policies encourage developers or landlords to upgrade energy systems, install new windows, or update appliances to be more energy efficient. However, this increases home values and puts those units out of reach of low-income tenants.

    Questions to Consider:

    Many factors contribute to this debate, including the need for healthy communities, environmental justice, affordable housing, a greater supply of housing, and protections for ecosystems and species. 

    • Should exceptions to environmental regulations be made to increase the viability of affordable housing projects? 
    • Can environmental laws be simplified to reduce housing insecurity and improve the quality of life for low-income individuals without jeopardizing the health of disadvantaged communities? 
    • Finally, should we sacrifice environmental protections to streamline development, or can other measures be equally, or more effective in improving the housing crisis?
  • Intro to Carbon Taxes and Credits: Part 2

    Intro to Carbon Taxes and Credits: Part 2

    Carbon Fee & Dividend

    This brief is the second in a 4-part series on carbon tax and credit policy in the United States: carbon tax, carbon fee & dividend, cap & trade, and discussion.

    A fee and dividend system (FDS) incorporates a traditional carbon tax, a “fee”, and a “dividend”, which is a check that is equally distributed to qualified citizens without any spending stipulations. A carbon tax is a fee on emissions that aims to reflect the additional costs created by fossil fuels while also providing a financial incentive to switch to more renewable sources of energy.

    How it Works

    An FDS would tax firms producing fossil fuel emissions which are harmful to the environment, but instead of the tax revenue going to the federal government (a traditional carbon tax) it would be distributed to citizens periodically. Essentially, citizens become shareholders for the environment, and when the environment is impacted through fossil fuel emissions, citizens are compensated. The amount of compensation is dependent on the level of carbon taxation (current proposals range from taxing carbon at $20-150/metric ton).

    Currently, the US runs a dividend program through the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) which returns surplus revenue from state-owned oil and gas reserves to eligible Alaskans. The Alaska Fund does not tax carbon and does not provide a strong incentive to reduce emissions, but is a working example of distributing equal lump-sum payments to citizens. 

    Carbon Fee & Dividend Legislation

    FDS legislative bills have since been introduced in the 116th Congress, such as the Climate Action Rebate Act (introduced by Sen. Coons and Sen. Feinstein). This bill calls for an initial fee of $15/metric ton and would increase by $15 annually. The revenue would be partially distributed in taxable carbon dividends, partially put towards research and development, and partially invested in transitional assistance. A similar bill is the America’s Clean Future Fund Act (introduced by Sen. Durbin) which includes a similar carbon pricing system, but 75% of the tax revenue is returned as a dividend while the rest is invested in clean energy and transition efforts. More recent fee and dividend developments include The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (introduced by Rep. Deutch in the 117th Congress). While many examples of such bills exist, each maintains differences in their implementation or distribution. See this carbon pricing bill tracker for more information.

    Benefits and Downsides

    An FDS can reduce harmful emissions and stimulate the economy by incentivising companies to reduce carbon outputs while sparking innovation and competition in the private sector. A recent study found that an FDS could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 52% below 1990 levels after 20 years. The same study also found that recycling the revenue back into the economy through dividends could create nearly 2.8 million jobs. Additionally, one of the main drawbacks of a carbon tax is that it can disproportionately impact low-income households who spend a large share of their income on emission intensive products. A Fee and Dividend System has the potential to make a regressive carbon tax progressive by rewarding poorer households, who typically have smaller carbon footprints, with higher payouts than their larger, wealthier counterparts. For this benefit to stand, progressive dividends would need to be written into the FDS legislation.

    One key benefit of the carbon tax is the opportunity to raise funds to invest in green technology. If the revenue from the carbon tax is instead distributed to citizens, it will have less impact in stimulating a green economy and providing aid to areas suffering from the impacts of climate change.

    Since the core of a fee and dividend is a carbon tax, there are similar drawbacks to this policy. Without certain mechanisms or safeguards in place, like border carbon adjustments, there is a high risk of outsourcing.

  • Intro to Carbon Taxes and Credits: Part 1

    Intro to Carbon Taxes and Credits: Part 1

    This brief is the first in a 4-part series on carbon tax and credit policy in the United States: carbon tax, carbon fee & dividend, cap & trade, and discussion.

    A carbon tax is a fee on emissions that aims to reflect the additional costs created by fossil fuels while also providing a financial incentive to switch to more renewable sources of energy. There are several aspects of a carbon tax to consider: 

    1. The scope: which types of greenhouse gases and industries are subjected to the tax 
    2. the point of taxation: the part of the supply chain being directly taxed 
    3. Border carbon adjustments: a tool to maintain global competition by taxing imports and compensating exports that are coming from and going to countries without a similar carbon tax 
    4. Regulatory pauses: a pause on overlapping EPA emissions regulations
    5. Distribution options: how the tax revenue is distributed

    Currently, no carbon taxes have been implemented in the United States at a federal or state level, but multiple bills have been recently introduced in Congress.


    Figure 1: Highlights the tax rates under the many carbon tax proposals introduced in Congress, which range from taxing carbon at $20/metric ton to $150/metric ton.


    Figure 2: Highlights specified allocation strategies under the many carbon tax proposals introduced in Congress, including tax cuts, national deficit reduction, subsidies to renewable energy, and lump-sum dividend payments.

    Benefits of Carbon Taxes

    First, carbon taxes have the potential to raise a large amount of revenue, which can be used to reduce other taxes, subsidize green energy, or pay costs related to pollution, such as oil spills and contaminated air. A 2017 study by the U.S. Department of Treasury estimated that a $49/metric ton tax on carbon dioxide (that steadily increases to $70/metric ton after 10 years) could raise nearly $2.2 trillion in net revenue from 2019 to 2028. 

    Second, carbon taxes have the potential to reduce emissions quickly; however, this depends on the tax rate and how much the tax increases over time. One example of these drastic emission reductions was highlighted in a joint paper from the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The estimate found that an initial $20/metric ton tax that grows 5% faster than inflation per year could reduce emissions by over 20% after 15 years and over 30% after 35 years. Sweden implemented a carbon tax in 1991 and has seen a 25% reduction in emissions since 1995, while their economy expanded 75%. Today, Sweden taxes carbon at USD $127/metric ton.

    Downsides of Carbon Taxes

    First, without implementing certain allocation strategies, a carbon tax can be regressive. Firms which produce carbon-intensive goods (like energy companies) will be forced to raise their prices if they are unable to sufficiently reduce emissions. Lower-income households spend a larger proportion of their income on carbon-intensive goods, such as gasoline and electricity, so a tax on carbon would burden those individuals more than high-income households by making the goods they purchase more expensive.

    A carbon tax may increase the risk of potential outsourcing. Companies may relocate their manufacturing processes to countries with fewer restrictions on emissions, making the U.S. less competitive in the global market. In theory, border carbon adjustments attempt to reduce this outsourcing risk through taxing imports based on their carbon footprint, levelling the playing field for domestic industries by raising the price of goods produced in countries without a carbon tax. However, there are still numerous complications in determining the taxes and rebates to be implemented. 

    Carbon taxes have historically been politically unpopular in the United States. Many consumers are adverse to new taxes, especially if they believe the tax is not “revenue neutral,” meaning that overall tax revenue to the government does not change. However, recent polling by the Yale Program on Climate Communications found that 67% of registered voters supported a tax that forced fossil fuel companies to pay for their emissions as long as that revenue was used to reduce other taxes to remain revenue neutral. More recently, a 2020 Pew Research Center poll found, for the first time ever, more than 50% of Americans reported that protecting the environment and combating climate change should be a top priority for the President and Congress.

  • Intro to the Green New Deal

    Intro to the Green New Deal

    Introduction

    There is a growing movement in the US and around the world arguing for the need to combat the growing threat of climate change. The United States has been the largest outputter of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) cumulatively, and has the most powerful economy globally with a track record of technological and scientific innovation. Because of these two factors, many see the US as an essential leader in the global transition to net-zero GHG emissions. The Green New Deal (GND) has been proposed as a progressive framework to drive this transition while also addressing other systemic injustices such as economic, regional, racial, and environmental inequality. 

    Although the concept of a Green New Deal has existed since the early 2000s, the movement gained momentum in 2019 when a resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to address climate change and related issues. This policy brief uses H.R. 332, the proposal reintroduced in 2021, as the basis for discussing the Green New Deal. It is a non-binding proposal, meaning that it will not result in legislation if passed, but instead outlines goals and ideas which would be put into effect in ensuing bills. The concept of a “New Deal” comes from the economic and social reforms passed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt responding to the Great Depression in the 1930s. 

    Ultimately, the resolution is likely to meet strong opposition in Congress from Republicans as well as some establishment Democrats, since it calls for an expansive, government-led initiative to address a wide range of environmental and social issues. However, its themes of economic and environmental justice are echoed in recently introduced policies from Democrats, including the Americans Jobs Plan. 

    Policies in GND

    H.R. 332 comes from the perspective that the US needs to take urgent action on climate change, and that this presents an opportunity to address related environmental and social crises. It builds off previous energy investments under the Obama administration.

    The resolution sets the goal of supplying 100% of US power needs through renewable energy sources through a ten year national mobilization plan. Additionally, it states that the world needs to reduce GHG emissions by 40-60%  (of 2010 levels) by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050, though it does not provide goals for the US individually. H.R. 332 outlines several policies which would directly address climate change, including building infrastructure to mitigate the effects of climate change, improving the efficiency of US buildings, and making the public transportation system cleaner and more accessible. It also plans to increase clean manufacturing within the US and work with the agricultural sector to decrease pollution and emissions. 

    The GND also frames heavy investment in energy infrastructure as an opportunity to create a progressive policy which addresses systemic injustices while providing aid to frontline and vulnerable communities. This includes creating more affordable healthcare, higher education, and low-income housing for all people within the United States.

    Supporters

    The GND is strongly supported by progressive Democrats because it addresses climate change and many other progressive issues in a single cohesive package. Figures such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren call for the fastest transition to renewable energy possible and greater economic equality nationwide. The GND embodies many progressive goals by calling for radical changes to the current US economy through a transformation of the energy sector and expansion of social services. 

    Supporters argue the long-term effects of climate change pose a threat to the American economy, and the costs will be greater than the investments called for in the GND. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees a transition to renewable energy is needed to keep the effects of climate change within relatively safe boundaries. Supporters of the GND believe that government mobilization is the most efficient way to reduce emissions and keep global temperatures from rising beyond 1.5 °C of pre-industrial levels. They also argue that the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic makes implementation of the GND even more crucial as the GND could help the economy bounce back through the creation of new jobs. 

    Moderate Democrats typically support many of the GND’s goals without calling for major economic and social changes. President Biden, for example, expressed support for the “framework” of the GND during his presidential campaign. This middle stance, which affirms the importance of environmental action without calling for social changes—like universal healthcare—is common among establishment Democrats. They also see the GND as energizing a class of younger, more progressive voters who are key for electoral victory. 

    Opponents

    Libertarians and Republicans tend to oppose the H.R. 332 because it calls for extensive government oversight to drive the transition to renewable energy. These groups generally prefer market-based solutions to climate change, focusing on technological innovation and nuclear energy instead of federal mobilization. Senator John Barrasso, Representative from Wyoming, expressed this idea by writing that “innovation, not new taxes or punishing global agreements, is the ultimate solution.” Supporters of the GND argue that market-based approaches will not reduce emissions fast enough, and relying on technology such as carbon capture is dangerous and unrealistic. 

    Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) also criticized the Green New Deal as a “job-killing proposal” that will make American energy more expensive. In April 2021, House Republicans unveiled their climate plan which calls for tax breaks to help encourage the development of carbon capture technology but does not cut the use of fossil fuels. This emphasizes the common belief among Republican politicians that climate change is a less urgent issue than many Democrats believe. 

    Some further argue that climate change can be dealt with in the future at a lower cost, and that slower changes are enough to manage the issue. The GND has developed a reputation as radically progressive, and the social goals outlined alongside climate-related ones also decrease support among some Republican voters. 

    Cost 

    It is difficult to quantify the costs of a Green New Deal, as estimates vary widely and depend on whether they include costs for social and institutional changes, such as universal healthcare and food security, which substantially increase its immediate cost. A recent analysis by Wood Mackenzie, an energy research and consultancy firm, estimates that converting the entire US power grid to 100 percent renewable energy in the next decade would cost $4.5 trillion. The American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute, estimates the cost for a low-carbon electricity grid and net-zero emissions transportation system to be between $6.7 and $8.1 trillion. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez stated in June 2019 that the GND would cost at least $10 trillion. She acknowledged that this is a high price, but believes the cost of the GND should be compared to the cost of climate change itself, which the National Resources Defense Council (NDRC) estimated to exceed $800 billion annually within the US alone. 

    H.R. 332 does not discuss the source of funding for the projects it outlines, and opponents worry about higher taxes and US debt. Supporters of the GND believe the pandemic and subsequent recession make the GND even more urgent and the bill would eventually pay for itself by creating new jobs and minimizing climate change related costs. Opponents argue that after spending trillions on pandemic stimulus bills, the US should focus on economic growth and recovery rather than going further into debt with new and expensive projects. They point out that the debt-GDP ratio has reached roughly 130%, relative to a decade ago when the ratio was roughly 80% after the end of the recession. 

    Other Bills

    Congress has not yet voted on the H.R. 332, though some members have introduced bills that encompass similar themes. President Biden proposed the American Jobs Plan as an infrastructure package that would invest $2.3 trillion into modernizing and repairing US infrastructure, which would be the first step in investing in energy infrastructure needed to get the US to net-zero emissions. In late April 2021, Biden announced a new target for the US to reduce emissions by 50-52% from 2005 levels by 2030. This is a more ambitious goal than the Obama administration’s reduction target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. In April 2021, Senate Republicans unveiled a $568 billion infrastructure framework to serve as an alternative. Democrats are currently negotiating with Republicans, with the hopes of obtaining bipartisan support for the American Jobs Plan. They primarily disagree on the definition of infrastructure and how the bill would be paid for. 

    Other proposed bills include the Build Green Act (H.R. 2038), intended to jumpstart the transition to electric transportation and modernize infrastructure, and the Federal Jobs Guarantee Resolution (H.R. 145) which guarantees a job that provides good wages, strong benefits, union protections, and safe working conditions to every American who is willing and able. Additionally, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. 2307) has been proposed as a market-based approach to reach net-zero emissions. 

    Conclusion

    Although these policies are unlikely to be implemented in their entirety, the GND describes one vision for the future of the US and a path to overcome the worse effects of climate change. There are many unanswered questions, and positions on the bill are likely to differ depending on whether one believes government-led projects are the most practical and efficient way for the US to address climate change, the extent to which the GND should attempt to address issues beyond the immediate impacts of climate change, and whether these goals make the GND a more complete vision for a prosperous and stable future, or alternatively, whether they slow down climate legislation and decrease the ability to generate bipartisan support for countering climate change.