PA 395 Day 1 Non-Profits and the Environment Gary Flomenhoft June 6, 2003

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-


“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


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


“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.


Scope: Conservation issues

Dominant Policy: Multiple use of resources

Participation: Sub-governments

Policy stage: Agenda setting


Dominant concern: Technology and development

Power Technique: Corporate pressure


“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


Scope: 2d generation issues

Dominant Policy: Pollution abatement

Participation: Pluralism

Policy stage: Policy formation


Dominant concern: Economics and politics

Power Technique: Middle-class politics


Shift toward direct action

Advocacy Coalitions

“postenvironmentalism”; ecological productions methods, industrial ecology


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

Theories of Environmental Change-Costain/Lester

1) Cyclical Policy cycle2) Policy Learning3) Zig-Zag: patronage/backlash


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


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.


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


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


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

PA 395 Day 1 Non-Profits and the Environment Gary Flomenhoft June 6, 2003

Documents

Transcript of PA 395 Day 1 Non-Profits and the Environment Gary Flomenhoft June 6, 2003