Unit II Discussion - Environmental Legislation

10/27/2017

Belden, Roy S., Clean Air Act, American Bar Association: Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, 2001 (Pgs. 5-21)

Question 1 (Florida Environmental Justice): What is the value of programs, like the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, in addressing environmental and social issues? What is the connection between environmental degradation and social equality, explain using examples from the article, and an outside example.

Question 2 (Environmental Legislation): Russell Train, former administrator of the Environmentall Protection Agency (EPA) wrote in 1973 that, "the average is citizen... beginning to recognize that there were difficult choices to be made,that some cherished patterns of behavior may have to be modified."
- What does he mean by both statements? (difficult choices, and behavioral changes) Use examples from the article for each statement, and make a connection to present debates going on about the environment.

Honors Question (San Francisco Bay): Walk through the process the BCDC legislation went through in order to get passed. What were some of the particular challenges it faced at each step? In your opinion, and using examples from the article, is the process of forming new legislation too complicated or is it proper in order to determine appropriate input?

Florida Environmental Justice
File Size:	1576 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

San Francisco Bay
File Size:	1856 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Environmental Legislation
File Size:	595 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

121 Comments

slayer

10/4/2017 08:08:21 am

the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, addresses issues by getting the people point of view.

Karoline

10/4/2017 05:02:37 pm

Question 1:
The value of programs like LEAF is that they allow people living in poverty to have access to the health programs they need because of the problems caused by the environment. According to Roger Highfield, a Science Editor for The Telegraph, "The environmental damage caused by rich nations disproportionately impacts poor nations " (Highfield 1). Even though LEAF is a program that just impacts the United States, the concept is still the same: Rich people disproportionally pollute the environment that the poor have to live in. Taxes (that rich people pay more of) go to programs like LEAF, which help the poor. If there are more programs like LEAF, then the money from the rich will go to the poor to help improve their quality of life. This is very fair, because the rich are the ones causing the majority of the environmental damage (Highfield 1). " According to B. Suzi Ruhl, LEAF President and author of the legislation, "The recognition of environmental injustice must be translated into direct relief for the people suffering the injustice" (Ruhl 1). It is important to create more government programs to aid low-income families affected by the environmental damages created by the upper class.

Do you guys agree?

Karoline

10/4/2017 05:03:40 pm

Sorry I forgot to put my additional source in there. Here it is:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3322505/Environment-damage-of-rich-countries-on-poor.html

Mackenzee Holloway

10/6/2017 11:59:07 pm

yes i do agree with you, poorer countries shouldn't be the ones paying the price for richer countries choice to damage the environment. Unlike richer countries poorer countries can't pay the price for the mis use of the environment and get away with it and pretend nothing is happening by throwng more money at the cause instead to the solving the issue.

Chloe

10/10/2017 11:38:06 am

I agree because if the poorer countries have to pay more than the richer ones, the poorer countries are going to be corrupt and we will slowly lose countries

Amanda

10/26/2017 01:23:43 pm

The poorer countries should not have to pay more than the richer ones, however they should not be disregarded for the pollution they are creating as well. Each of us are responsible. Countries with more money should be taking the first step into becoming more eco-friendly while helping develop programs for countries with less resources.

Rylee

10/10/2017 10:48:41 pm

I agree because it's not fair if the poorer countries have to pay more then the other countries when it comes to damaging the environment, its easier for the bigger countries to just throw money at an issuer instead of solving the real problem

Lauryn

10/12/2017 07:15:57 pm

I agree to what Karoline is saying. If poorer countries pay more than the wealthier countries then that's unfair and it'll cause the poorer countries more damage and if they are a poor country that means most likely if they lose a lot of money they wont be able to pay that money off and it'll take many years for them to get back to where it was originally. Unlike the wealthier country's that could be paying just as much or even more and be fine and not be as damaged about it like the poorer countries.

Kristianna Muller

10/24/2017 11:26:31 am

I agree. A lot of the environmental damages are not caused by the low-income families, simply because they cannot afford a lot of things like cars that contribute to pollution. As a result, we can blame a lot of the pollution and environmental issues on the upper class, so they should be the ones to pay for their damages and bad effects caused by their actions. It is not fair to expect lower income people to pay for things they did not cause when sometimes they can barely get by.

Sierra McMains

10/24/2017 11:58:06 am

I agree with Karoline. I agree because if low income families were not provided with government programs then they would not be able to support themselves. The environmental damage is caused by things us as humans are doing on a daily basis. If the government is producing the problem by allowing pollution from factories, then they should support those that it harms.

Hanqviest

10/24/2017 12:14:19 pm

I do agree! I think it is fair for those suffering from environmental pollution to be taken care of by those who are causing the environmental pollution. If they didn't, there is nothing they can really do, and the lower income people might have to spend there scarce money for their health

Ally

10/25/2017 08:38:11 am

I agree that taxes should be based off income. People in a higher class should have to pay more taxes than people who make less money, but I do believe that lower income families harm the environment as well.

Tori

10/25/2017 09:05:34 am

All human life has a toll on the environment. Throughout history, more and more resources have been used, like trees and cotton. When oil was discovered, there was a rush and now we use it from day to day in almost everything we do. Statistics say the Earth only has 70 years of oil left at the rate we are using it. The effect we have is making Earth unhealthy potentially dangerous, in some places, to live and work.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/03/15/human-toll-of-pollution-who-estimates-12-6-million-die-from-unhealthy-environments-each-year/?utm_term=.bb94ee3895f4

How would you fix this problem? Is there even a way to fix it?

the other Pusch kid

11/27/2017 08:11:57 am

Ally I think that is a great thought, but you also half to think about how taxing the upper class less gives them more money to put into businesses and charities, which in turn helps our country to develop and grow as nation. which yes, is not a solution to the poor getting ever poorer. But, it does benefit a lot of people, and I also believe that where some lower income families don't harm the environment as much they still hurt it, so that part was pretty good

(("Notorious")) B.O.B

11/27/2017 09:12:21 am

Hot fix: distribute the wealth evenly and use alternative fuel sources, such as wind and solar energy. We have no need for oil considering we've already had the technology to switch to cleaner alternatives for *years*.

(("Notorious")) B.O.B

11/27/2017 09:17:01 am

(i should preface both comments by saying i'm replying to Tori, by the way)

Also human life only has a noticeable toll on the environment when humans, as a collective, decide to collect materials en masse. Any single person living their life does not create pollution to any extent noticeable on a regional scale, let alone global. Only as a collective movement do humans possess the ability to ravage forests, plains, and other environments for every resource possible - which, by the way, is necessary for old-school economic growth. When talking under the scope of poorer countries, it is best to keep this in mind, especially when understanding their intent to economically power themselves and, in some cases, just struggling to grab enough resources to survive in a world of highly competitive resource-grabbing. It is also important to note that most of them are trying to accomplish the same goal as first world countries: reach Post-Industrialization. Not to mention, the route taken for most "first world" countries was taking weaker countries resources by force to fuel the industrialization machine.

bla bla bla similar situation for poor people vs rich people in america bla bla bla

I'm running out of time to actually tie together my comment, but, what i'm trying to say is - PLEASE do not talk about human life having a toll on the environment when talking about poorer nations/people having an affect on the environment when you should be focusing on the actual big monsters who are the cause of this.

Riley

11/15/2017 07:02:25 pm

I do agree how poorer countries shouldn't be responsible for the actions against the environment caused by larger countries. It's their fault so i feel like they should take responsibility and do something about it.

Anna

12/21/2017 04:22:54 am

I agree with what you are saying. The rich should be paying to help improve environmental damage. They have the luxury to ignore it so it doesn't affect them like it affects lower income families. They can't always afford cars and things like that that create a lot of the pollution. What they may be creating might be the cheapest option and there is no way for them to avoid it. People who have enough money to make a change should, and if the government can help lower class families in any way, they should as well.

Kristianna

10/4/2017 05:29:06 pm

Question 1: Programs like LEAF give a voice and opportunities to low income or less able people. LEAF gives these people health care opportunities for issues caused by the degradation of the environment. They also makes standards so these issues hopefully won't happen in the first place. According to one article, marginalized people are impacted significantly more by climate change than people who have access to easy food and clean water. They do not have to means to fight back against negative side effects from climate change, like the spread of diseases, droughts, and food shortages. "A U.N. report on climate change stated that it is the poor who will suffer the most as the effects of climate change continue" (Hansel 1). The environment is causing these already bad off people to be even worse off, because they cannot get access to needed help. Programs like LEAF help them do that.

https://www.pachamama.org/blog/how-social-justice-and-environmental-justice-are-intrinsically-interconnected

dalen

10/5/2017 12:21:12 pm

The value of LEAF is like a double bladed sword. LEAF addresses unhealthy environmental contamination in Florida communities, and then provides cheap health care for the people in the community near the contaminated area. The connection between social equality and environmental protecting is found in the consequences of environmental pollution. For example a community that has been contaminated by petroleum in their water is a victim of environmental pollution. If that family is not wealthy enough to have proper health care, there is not much they can do. So LEAF is there to BOTH clean up that contaminated area, and to also provide healthcare for that person. In 1997 LEAF prepared legislation that prepared a Florida Birth Defects Registration within the department of Health

http://www.mrtredinnick.com/uploads/7/2/1/5/7215292/florida.pdf

Karoline

10/24/2017 12:07:18 pm

I'm confused about your metaphor of LEAF being a double-edged sword. That metaphor usually has a negative connotation. Are you saying that LEAF is bad? If you are saying LEAF is good, you may want to say that LEAF kills two birds with one stone as far as helping the environment and providing healthcare instead.

Regan

10/5/2017 12:23:26 pm

Question 1:
Programs like LEAF are used to help less fortunate people. It is used to use more of the tax money to go to helping poor people in the society. I think is is a useful program because it helps poor people which is definitely needed in the society. It helps to provide health care and better living conditions for them as well. The article explains how they created an act which will help with the health standards of less privileged people saying " The act establishes a Community Environmental Health Program within the Florida Department of Health to ensure that public health services are available to low-income community residents whose health may be harmed by contaminated sites located in or near the community" This is very useful to people who are not able to afford health care or other related services. I think LEAF is a good program and there should be more programs similar to it. Another advantage to LEAF is that as a program they continue to try new ways to stop pollution to better the environment, which will help the overall heath of people and not just the underclass citizens.
https://www.mott.org/grants/legal-environmental-assistance-foundation-alabama-rivers-ecosystem-project-199900236-02/

Teagan

10/5/2017 12:56:03 pm

Question 1:
In addressing environmental and social issues, programs like LEAF value letting people have a voice and helping others that are less fortunate. It gives cheaper health care and helps the people in communities that have been damaged by environmental problems have better living conditions. Environmental degradation is the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of wildlife. Connecting to social equality is showed as this article states, "People pollute, and too many people living in an area can degrade that area irrevocably. Immigration at high levels exacerbates our resource and environmental problems. It will leave a poorer, more crowded, more divided country for our children "(Lamm and Imhoff, 1985). The richer people buy and use a lot of things that will pollute the air that the poorer people also have to live in, and it will keep getting worse if we don't try to stop polluting our air and water. Programs like LEAF are trying to stop the pollution and help the environment and everyone living in it, not only the rich, but also the poor.

Teagan

10/5/2017 12:57:18 pm

My other article relating to the question answered above. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ACF1493.pdf

Lauryn

10/5/2017 08:54:47 pm

The importance and value of programs like LEAF is that it ensured public health care for low income community service for those who may have health issues from contaminated located in or near the city. “The recognization of environmental justice must be translated into direct belief for the people suffering the injustice” LEAF is focused on giving justice to those who are suffering from the environment and aren’t able to do anything. If they help the environment then they can help the community. “Due to lack of sufficient resources and improper knowledge poverty stricken people tend to overuse every resource available to them when their survival is at stake.” If you help the community as well before helping the environment you’ll also see a huge change. It’s not just the environment hurting the community it can be the people as well. If you are low I’m poverty and using everything you can that means they’ll be using natural resources to help make ends which leads to many people stop caring for nature and taking care of it and seeing it just as something to help them survive.

http://www.voicesofyouth.org/en/posts/the-relationship-between-poverty-and-the-environment

gundy link

10/25/2017 09:35:15 pm

I agree with Lauryn when she says “if you help the community as well before helping the environment you’ll also see a huge change”. I think that if you want to see action you need to take action. I also like when she says that it’s not just the environment hurting the community, but also humans. I think that humans like to blame other things rather then themselves. If we could take the blame I feel that we could make a big change.

Eliza

10/5/2017 09:44:45 pm

Question #1
The values of programs like LEAF is that they want to make it possible for everyone to have affordable health care. The reason that LEAF hoped to do is because of contamination in the environment around those people. Everything seems to relate back to the people, if the environment is healthy so are the people living there and sometimes vice versa. to B. Suzi Ruhl said that "The recognition of environmental injustice must be translated into direct relief for the people suffering the injustice. As the state grapples with economic issues associated with contamination, it must also respond to human health needs" This quote explains that an environment can not be destroyed and people still expect to have social equality. There must be strength in both sides because they both rely on each other. An outside example is global warming. People want a healthy environment but are very unwilling to change how they are living to help slow global warming themselves.

http://www.rff.org/research/publications/inequality-and-environmental-policy

Sierra McMains

10/5/2017 10:14:45 pm

The importance of programs like LEAF is that it ensures aid to low income people who are suffering from environmental problems that they cannot control. They help regulate environmental situations so that the health problems will not arise. Social equality and environmental issues are connected through many ways. One website said, "the affluent can more easily harm the poor in cases where great economic inequalities prevail." Which means it is easier for the poor to be harmed by environmental problems because the rich can get out of them. Overall, environmental issues play a role in the differences between the two classes, rich and poor.
My additional source was: https://www.populationmatters.org/documents/inequality_and_environmental_sustainability.pdf

Ally

10/6/2017 07:21:36 pm

LEAF is a program that allows poor people living in poverty to have access to health care at little to no cost. "Each and every country of the world is looking forward to eradicate poverty so that even the poor and vulnerable people also enjoy equal rights to economic resources, healthy living conditions as well as access to basic infrastructure and technology" (http://www.voicesofyouth.org/en/posts/the-relationship-between-poverty-and-the-environment) LEAF not only focuses on environmental issues, but also focuses on social equality. People living in poverty do not have the same opportunities that wealthier people have and LEAF is trying to change that. People living in poverty do not have the proper way to dispose of their waste, which is harmful to the environment. With the help of LEAF this can be solved.

Hannah

10/22/2017 11:37:59 pm

I completely agree with you when you suggest that LEAF not only focuses on environmental issues, but social equality too and that people living in poverty do not have the same opportunities that wealthier people have. I agree because people who are wealthier have more access to what they can do with their waste, whereas people in poverty don't. However, wealthy people can also harm the environment when they get careless about their waste and decide to not worry where it goes just as long as they get rid of it. This then leaves poor people with their leftovers and the amount of waste continues to build up. With this being said, I think people tend to forget how much they affect our atmosphere, which is why groups like LEAF are developed, so that they can bring awareness to everybody.

Hanqviest

10/24/2017 12:17:00 pm

To add-on to this, the lower income then have to spend their money (which they don't have a lot of) on their health and just trying to stay clean from the upper class, who without LEAF, would be doing nothing to help the less fortunate

Isabel

10/6/2017 09:44:50 pm

Question 1: The value of having LEAF is to provide a community environmental health program. This helps with environmental and social issues because, it helps by watching over the environment and provides legal to support for courts to protect the environment. The connection between social degradation and social equality is finding the balance between destroying the natural resources and using what we need to use to live. For example is says in the article “The recognition of environmental injustice must be translated into direct relief for the people suffering the injustice”. (Florida Adopts1 ). This is means is referring to the fact that their needs to be a balance between the environment and social injustice. Another example is from the source Science direct “ Societies are now beginning to have serious discussions about sustainable development.”(Environmental management 1). Here they are talking about how to also find the balance between what to do about preserving our environment and what to do socially.

Seth

10/25/2017 08:45:14 am

I agree with you when you said that their needs to be a balance between social injustice and the environment because you could create a lot of jobs by hurting the environment but you would help poorer people by giving them those jobs or you could help the environment but then by not giving those jobs away you would be hurting the poorer people by not giving those jobs to them.

Hannah

10/6/2017 10:34:04 pm

Question 1: The value of programs like LEAF is to ensure that public health care is accessible to people with low-incomes whose health may be affected by contamination. "Environmental degradation is everyone's problem, but it's especially a problem for the poor, and for obvious reasons. Their position is more precarious, so when things go wrong, whether it's pollution in a neighborhood or rising sea levels swallowing a country, they are less able to respond effectively. In this sense, inequality ought to be fundamental consideration when fashioning environmental policies." This quote is explaining that the poor are always going to have a larger struggle with environmental degradation than the rich. The rich people purchase and use items that cause pollution, which leaves the poor having to deal with these consequences. LEAF is program that is trying to prevent pollution to improve the environment and health of the people.
http://www.rff.org/research/publications/inequality-and-environmental-policy

aleyse evers

10/15/2017 10:06:58 pm

I like how you brought up the point that the poor have less of an opportunity to change the situation they are faced with when comparing the impacts of how pollution affects people in a low-income neighborhood to people in a high- income neighborhood. I completely agree because people will always sway in favor in which the money falls. For example if the idea of a large factory that causes much pollution to the environment is being proposed and gets the support of the rich folk then the lower-income families most likely won't get a say in deciding whether or not that factory will be built in their their neighborhood.

Teagan

10/17/2017 10:30:54 pm

I agree, i also like your statements about how the lower income families and the poor. I think that many people that have higher incomes and are rich do not think about how their actions and products they use are effecting the environment. I don't think that they are aware that they are polluting the environment with the majority of things they buy and others suffer from this, and have to live in it also. I think we need to spread awareness to the rich and higher income families about how they effect the atmosphere that everyone else is also living in.

holly

10/10/2017 08:06:51 pm

LEAF is to provide a community environmental health program and to allow public health. it is affordable and is accessible to everyday people. even thought LEAF is a organization that helps poor people get health it is also hurting the environment. rich people are the ones that pollute the most because they have more things. so the poor people shouldn't have to suffer because the rich people don't know how to recycle.

Gracia

10/25/2017 08:52:16 am

I like how you said "rich people don't know how to recycle" because that has a significant meaning. People in the higher class do influence the economy, and society itself. What they do reflects a lot on under class people. Because they have lots of money, or more nicer things, doesn't mean they can't take the time to get a reusable water bottle, etc. Because especially celebrities can be role models to a lot of younger generations, so if they start trends then soon it will trickle down to younger generations. I believe that higher class people do have a big impact on the economy and their actions influences many others.

Amanda

10/26/2017 01:16:44 pm

It should not be an issue between rich vs poor when it comes to recycling. Each and every one of us is responsible for the waste we create just by going about our daily lives. If lower income families are supplied the necessary means to recycle and are giving an incentive to do so (like money), more low-income families would participate in recycling.

Seth

10/11/2017 10:46:08 pm

Leaf is important because it helps family's that don't have as much income get affordable health Care one of the main reasons is that people with lower incomes can't afford to live in a place that can clean up and move the pollution elsewhere so their forced to live in it degrading their health which is what leaf intends to help fix their health and how to keep their health up and not just go back down into the same problem. Also leaf is trying to help fix the economic opportunity difference between the poor and the rich.

Gracia Rojas

10/23/2017 08:48:57 pm

I agree with Seth about how LEAF is fixing the economic opportunity, without it then it wouldn't be fair to the low-income families. This connects to the definition of Social Equality, where everyone in the low-income society has equal status.

Lauryn

10/12/2017 10:02:13 pm

Russell said, "the average is citizen... beginning to recognize that there were difficult choices to be made,that some cherished patterns of behavior may have to be modified." Russell means when he says that quote is, when it comes to a big situation that affects you or people you love then it changes your personality a little and your actions on things you do to make it go away and have the majority of the people satisfied with what you do. How big problems effect the way people and their decisions change happen all the time. "...regions with common air-pollution problems. How-ever, problems in state implementation of the standards, plus other difficulties, resulted in the enactment of more comprehensive legislation, the Clean Air Act Amendments. This provides stronger federal involvement on the limit of things. It is also a more strict law on what you can and can't do and has higher standers as well as more requirements. Because of people complaining and wanting better air-quality the legislative branch stepped in a made a new law for those complaining about even if others don't agree with the law. An example of that happening today is gay marriage law. I found a website that I will link below but it gives me the percentages of people for and against gay marriage. 62% support same-sex marriage, while 32% oppose it. The government still passed the same marriage act even though they knew others didn't like it but that is because the majority wanted it passed. They had a big situation to handle and they made the decision on to pass the law.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Aleyse Evers

10/15/2017 09:53:12 pm

The value in programs such as LEAF is that overall they address anything and everything that would ultimately hurt the environment or affect peoples health in a negative manner. Specifically LEAF is doing many things to protect the peoples’ health who live in areas of high pollution. They prepared a bill entitled “Environmental Equity and Justice Act” that the Florida legislature eventually adopted. This act establishes that “a Community Environmental Health Program within the Florida Department of Health to ensure that public health services are available to low-income community residents whose health may be harmed by contaminates sites located in or near the community (Florida Adopts Environmental Justice).” Furthermore, not only do they provide health services to low-income families in areas of heavy pollution but they also provide the clean up of these areas too. As this article (How poverty lead to environmental degradation) explains “Poverty and Environmental degradation are inter-link to an extent that they enforce each other.” In many ways social equality such as poverty in the U.S. affects how the environment is treated and used and vice versa. People who are in a low-income family are affected by environmental degradation because the cost of living in a clean pollution free town is much higher than living in a polluted town.

https://visionaryfoundation.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/how-poverty-lead-to-environmental-degradation-common-rural-and-urban-environmental-problems/

Gracia Roajs

10/24/2017 09:23:24 pm

I like how you said "In many ways social equality such as poverty in the U.S. affects how the environment is treated and used and vice versa." This shows that we impact our environment directly and the well-being of a society is base on how healthy that environment is. This is a really good example of social equality connecting with the well- being of an environment. It increases awareness of pollution.

Chloe link

10/15/2017 11:18:04 pm

Programs like LEAF are important because they keep people updated on important issues in the US that impact them based off of their decisions. Environmental degradation is a result of social equality.

Dunavan

10/23/2017 05:43:06 pm

What all programs fall into this catagories? Can they reach people of the lower income areas.

Hanqviest

10/24/2017 12:19:30 pm

It could also be that social equality is a result of environmental degradation. As in, the upper classes having to pay for their messes creates social equality between the poor and wealthy, and also takes care of our environment.

Rylee

10/26/2017 07:40:20 pm

What if the upper classes refuse to pay for their messes? Is it fair to force the poor to pay for the environmental issues?

Chloe

10/15/2017 11:36:50 pm

'The average citizen',is saying that the big decisions that people make on a daily basis don't only effect them but also effect everyone around them and then once those decisions are made people have to adjust to those decisions and change their lifestyle.

Dunavan

10/23/2017 05:39:07 pm

Chloe is right in her statement. Even if to you it seems like such a small thought like Alddias wants you to put in a quter to use their carts its something large to someone else who has not been there or dose not understand why they have this safety proction to keep their carts at their stores.

hol

10/17/2017 02:15:07 pm

(difficult choices, and behavioral changes)
difficult choices that are choices that can be mad or good that you are torn between. its usually between family and friends or ones self and a other person. difficult choices are when one has to many choices and one choice will benefit you and the other will benefit other people. one will need to choose weather the choice is worth hurting someone or building someone up. examples from the article are Russell said, "the average is citizen... beginning to recognize that there were difficult choices. this means that everyone has difficult choices. every decision will always effect something around it or even across the world.

Riley A

10/18/2017 09:12:58 am

Question 1: The value of having programs like this is as stated an education purpose for students and basically anyone who wants to learn. Non-profit services are always a help to the community and environment in this case. Social equality is key to the environment, like as of now we are having problems in a sort of way and known that we can all work together and learn about the environment and that'll propel us to help our world around us in many ways and all the ways we can do.

holly

10/18/2017 09:15:51 am

i agree with Lauryn because i too believe that the value of programs like LEAF is that it ensured public health care for low income community service for those who may have health issues from contaminated located in or near the city.

Riley A

10/18/2017 09:19:42 am

To me he means that everyone has an impact on the environment whether it be big or small. He states that we all are beginning to recognize difficult choices at hand and we may have to modify them. I feel that he was talking about how decisions we make today about our environment and the choices we make that sort of hurt the environment, makes it seem like we need to improve our choices on how we impact the environment around us as shown with the water resources in an article on CA.gov.

Mr. Tredinnick

10/18/2017 09:46:34 am

Question 2 (Environmental Legislation): Russell Train, former administrator of the Environmentall Protection Agency (EPA) wrote in 1973 that, "the average is citizen... beginning to recognize that there were difficult choices to be made,that some cherished patterns of behavior may have to be modified."
- What does he mean by both statements? (difficult choices, and behavioral changes) Use examples from the article for each statement, and make a connection to present debates going on about the environment.

Teagan V

10/22/2017 09:45:37 pm

When Russell Train states this, he is saying that the citizens were seeing that they have to make some decisions, and in doing that, they are going have to change the things that they regularly do. When he talks about making serious choices, he is referring to most choices focused on the environmental impact of the production, transportation, and utilization of energy. (Beard 230). Their routines that they need to change is not polluting the air and water and working on their land-use management. (Beard 230). This relates to debates about pollution that are going on today. Recently, "Simon Fraser University health sciences professor Bruce Lanphear is a Commissioner and author of The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health that has released a report detailing the adverse effects of pollution on global health" (Simon Fraser University).

aleyse evers

10/25/2017 01:27:09 pm

I agree with you Teagan. I like how you said, "they are going to have to change the things that they regularly do." I think that is one of the things that makes the decision to change so difficult. Citizens fall into this routine of bad choices that they "regularly" do so yes change is difficult but like Train said these behaviors have to be modified.

Rylee

10/23/2017 12:58:45 pm

When Russell Train states this he is saying that the citizens need to make decisions that can change what they daily but that they need to sometimes make serious choices about your environment like how pollution impacts us or how we use to much energy.

Regan

10/25/2017 02:31:52 pm

I see where you are coming from and I think you make a valid point! However, I also think that he is saying in order to make those choices it is up to the society to change our behaviors to follow through on those choices.

Riley

11/15/2017 07:04:27 pm

i agree, some choices people can have big impacts on the environment such as the importance of recycling and using less energy can also have impacts on the environment that we can take part of.

Dunavan

10/23/2017 05:29:10 pm

Russell was trying to state how society is as a whole. The difficult choices is telling the human group to stop something or say that we put money or energy into this instead of this. Behavioral changes are hard because you have to make a concis effort to change how you are responding to these areas. An human behavior that falls into this is rembering to take your cloth bag instead of using the plastic ones provided.

Tori

10/23/2017 08:26:03 pm

Question 2:
"The average is citizen... beginning to recognize that there were difficult choices to be made, that some cherished patterns of behavior may have to be modified."
Train wrote and basically told the public there's a problem and the public had the means to fix it. Yes, he was mostly referencing the impact people have on nature but he also talked about transportation and the production and utilization of energy. Routines were ruining air qualities and the people could do something about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/feb/01/funding-problems-hit-plan-clean-rios-polluted-waterways-olympics
How does this relate to what we've been studying in Government?

aleyse evers

10/24/2017 12:20:26 pm

Russel Train means basically that citizens of the United States are beginning to see what horrible damage they have caused the environment due to their actions. So as Train states they must begin to make difficult choices in how they are going to change their lifestyle in order to better the conditions and the environment that they live in. The key part of what Train is trying to say is that people were just beginning to recognize the damage. One major example that displays exactly what Train says in his quote is how, "problems in state implementation of the standards, plus other difficulties resulted in the enactment of more comprehensive legislation, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (Beard 231). The Clean Air Act caused citizens to recognize the poor air quality and how their actions (along with big businesses) affected the air quality. This Act caused citizens of the United States to make tough choices in how they were going to adapt to this Bill.

Karoline

10/26/2017 08:22:52 am

I agree with you. I think that the second part of the quote, "that some cherished patterns of behavior may have to be modified", means that things like driving cars needs to be modified. Even though cars provide a lot of joy and make life easier, their emissions cause a lot of damage to the environment. This is what needs modification: The way cars use fuel. If we can figure out a renewable, environmentally friendly way of running cars, a lot of environmental issues can be improved upon.

Regan

10/25/2017 02:09:28 pm

Train means in the statement that citizens themselves have to make difficult decisions about the environment, and some things that are typical patterns in behavior may have to be changed in order to do these things. For example on thing in the article said is that "Under the act, the states will develop comprehensive plans to which future development of the coastal zone must conform." (Beard). Making difficult choices and behavioral changes go hand-in-hand because in order to make those choices, you also must accept the fact that changes will need to be made in a persons behavior to follow through on those choices, especially when it comes to the environment. If people decide they want to end the pollution in the environment, as a whole, society will have to change their behaviors to make it happen.

Hannah

10/25/2017 09:46:33 pm

When Russel Train states this quote, he is saying that citizens have the right to input their opinions in environmental decision making. However, they are realizing that with those decisions, comes changes to their daily lives. The citizens need to make difficult choices that will alter their lifestyles in order to keep the environment healthy and in good condition because it is the environment that they live in. The choices Mr. Train is referring to focus on many of the environmental impacts including: "production, transportation, and utilization of energy" (Beard, 230). Routines were ultimately destroying the air quality, but the power was placed in the citizens' hands to have the ability to change that. When changes are made to the environment, citizens have to expect that changes are going to be made to their lives as well. So it is up to them to choose wisely, so that themselves and the environment can benefit.

Mak' the golfer

10/26/2017 08:18:58 pm

Russell Train when referring to cherished patterns of behavior may have to be modified, he meant that sometimes the government has to make hard decisions concerning the protection of the environment, and the effect of that hard decision could possibly force people to change or modify their everyday behavior. An example of this would be the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1970 that set an Emission standard in order to reduce the surfer dioxide in the air. At the time this was a hard decision because it meant switching to the more expensive low sulfur oil and no longer use the high sulfur oil which was readily available. Later on newer emission standards forced the electric utilities to switch to natural gas, which turns out to be the cleanest of all the fossil fuels. Natural Gas turned out to be a massive success to the point where commercial and residential use rose, and now the demand for natural gas is pressuring the price in an upward direction. To conclude the “modified behavior” that Russell talks about is seen in the demand for natural gas now, instead of low sulfur oil. Today people are paying the extra for natural gas. People are seeing that paying more for natural gas is better then paying less for a fuel that hurts the environment. People seem to like breathing clean air...weird

Anna

12/21/2017 04:40:41 am

Russell Train meant that people are beginning to realize that some of the things they do negatively affect the environment. They are recognizing the damage that has been done and will continue to affect the environment. The difficult choices people will have to make may include things like walking instead of driving. Choices that will help the environment that may not be as convenient as what people would normally do. Changes in types of fuel used and amount of fuel used would really affect the environment if changed in the right way.

Mr. Tredinnick

10/18/2017 09:47:23 am

Honors Question (San Francisco Bay): Walk through the process the BCDC legislation went through in order to get passed. What were some of the particular challenges it faced at each step? In your opinion, and using examples from the article, is the process of forming new legislation too complicated or is it proper in order to determine appropriate input?

aleyse evers

10/24/2017 12:59:11 pm

The BDCD was established as a permanent agency in 1969 when the Governor of California signed the bill. The purpose of the BDCD is to monitor and control the development of the San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. The campaign which eventually lead to the establishment of the BCDC began with three women who formed the "Save San Francisco Bay Association (Warren/Dolezel 350)." From there the association began to inform the public about the dangers that come with bay-filling. They gained more support and eventually got Nicholas Petris, state Assemblyman from the Berkeley area, to introduce bills in the California Assembly calling for prohibition on bay-filling. A challenge that was faced was that both bills introduced died in committee. The association continued to push and they have a major role in producing a study of the bay. This study basically concluded that a halt in bay-filling was the best option. Armed with this factual information and evidence to support their claim the association had their first success in the legislature. A bill was sponsored by Senator J Eugene McAteer that created a commission to study the problems of the Bay. From there it seemed to be smooth sailing as more senators began to sponsor bills establishing the Bay Conservation Development Commission as a temporary agency in 1965 and eventually a permanent agency in 1969.

The process of forming new legislation is proper in order to determine appropriate input and especially to make sure all things are considered before a new legislation is made permanent. In the BCDC because of the process they were forced to write The Future of San Francisco Bay study (Warren/ Dolezel 351) This was instrumental to eventually passing the new legislation. After all, things things like the BCDC legislation aren't passed everyday so we should make sure if we do it is for the right reasons and make sure every possible outcome is considered.

Hannah

10/24/2017 09:49:18 pm

I agree with you because I think the process of forming new legislation is proper and should stay the same because it is a way for the government to show the citizens that they want them to be satisfied. It also shows that they don't want just any bills being passed because our country would be a mess if that were the case. And like you said, "things like the BCDC legislation aren't passed everyday," suggests that every bill introduced isn't necessarily going to help us, so the government takes their time when deciding whether or not it should have the potential of being passed.

Lauryn

10/25/2017 11:36:23 pm

I agree with what aleyse is saying. The legislature is proper when they make sure that they do it for the right reasons and consider every outcome they can get. If they do all of that then I believe that it’ll have a good output on things.

the other Pusch kid

11/27/2017 08:53:08 am

ja das ist gut

Hannah

10/24/2017 09:39:15 pm

The BCDC was established when thee women formed the Save San Fransisco Bay Association with the goal of preventing the city of Berkley from pursuing fill projects in the Bay. The Association then began a campaign that would inform the public about the possible dangers that would occur if the bay-filling continued. The three ladies then enlisted help from Nicholas Petris, the Assemblyman, who introduced bills in the California Assembly calling for a halt on the bay-filling. A challenge that was faced was that both the 1961 and 1962 bills died in committee. However, the Association didn't stop pushing for the bills, which ended up making them have a huge role in the Bay Study. The study eventually made the final decision that putting a stop to the bay-filling was the best choice and with that, the Association had achieved their first success in legislature.
In my opinion, the process of forming new legislation is proper in order to determine appropriate input for several reasons. First, if a new bill was introduced and there were problems with it, then we wouldn't want that bill being passed. But if the current process wasn't so thorough, then we could end up getting stuck with a bill that causes a great deal of conflict because it was't checked well enough. The legislature wants to make sure the citizens are going to be affected by the bill positively, which is why they consider all possible results.

the other Pusch kid

11/27/2017 08:25:32 am

this is just random post to say I've made 5 posts

Teagan

10/25/2017 01:46:52 pm

Three women began an association that began a membership drive and started a campaign to inform the public about the dangers of projects in the Bay. They began introducing bills in the California Assembly calling for a moratorium on bay fill, none of which passed. This was a challenging part of the process, the girls could have easily just given up. The report concluded by recommending a regional "bay conservation and development commission" to regulate fill in the Bay and to coordinate shoreline development according to a master plan. It also called for a moratorium on bay-filling while the plan was in preparation. A successful bill was sponsored that created a commission to study the problems of the bay. The Assembly successfully sponsored a bill establishing the Bay Conservation and Development Commission as a temporary agency. Over the course of the next three years, the temporary Commission prepared 23 reports on various aspects of the bay. 10 bills were introduced, but only 4 received real consideration. Many other bills were introduced. Each bill was flawed and had weaknesses. SOBAC was a campaign that provided public support. I think that the process of forming new legislation is proper in order to determine appropriate input. I believe this because if it was easy, many people would try to change things and it wouldn't be beneficial to everyone. Many things would be changed without the credentials they need if it wasn't as specific and complicated it is now.

Regan

10/25/2017 02:29:55 pm

I agree with what you say when you talk about how if the steps that are taken now were not taken, then things would most likely need to be changed in the future. Without all the regulations, things would not be done as smoothly.

Regan

10/25/2017 02:28:12 pm

Some of the Challenges BCDC went through:
Anyone who wanted to "place fill, to extract materials, or to make any substantial change in use of any water, land, or structure" had to get a permit from the commission first. A bill was formed that would have established an entirely new agency to redo the work of the BCDC by preparing a new master plan over a five-year period. When the bills were pending in legislature, they were stuck in the committee for several weeks (graveyard) which many of the past conservationists proposals stayed. Many strong private interest opposition was being organized to combat proposed BCDC controls on development

My Opinion:
I think that the process of forming new legislation is not too complicated because with all of the steps you have to go through, it makes it very efficient on passing appropriate bills and things. If it were not this complicated to pass things then there would be a lot of changes that would need to be changed in the future.

Karoline

10/26/2017 08:24:40 am

I agree with your opinion. I think the complexity of the legislative system is necessary in order to ensure that all legislation passed is well thought-out and serves the purpose intended.

Lauryn

10/26/2017 12:02:18 am

The BCDC legislation started off with three women who wanted to end and inform the public about bayfilling and it’s danger to the environment. The got help from a man call Nicholas Petris, state assemblyman from the Berkeley area. They then started to make bills against bay filling but they died out in committee. Which was a challenge to them because what they worked hard for and spoke out against got shut down. But the association didn’t give up and they ended up being an instrumental in the production of a major study of the Bay. The study studied ownership of the bay and it’s pollution, tide lines, encroachments, and economical and recreation values of the bay. With all this information they concluded and recommending a bay conservation and development commission to regulate the bay. Since they had so much information on the topic they finally won in the legislature. They passed a bill created a commission to study the problems of the bay. After that they were able to successfully establish the Bay Conservation Development Commission temporarily but then eventually it ended up being permanent in 1969.

I put my opinion on whether or not I thought the new legislation is too complicated or if it was proper down below under Aleyse’s comment.

holly

10/26/2017 12:49:34 pm

The BDCD was established as a permanent agency in 1969 when the Governor of California signed the bill. The purpose of the BDCD was to manage the development of san Francisco bay. one of the resons they made the BDCD was to inform the public about the possible dangers that would occur if the bay-filling continued. three ladies then enlisted to help from Nicholas Petris, who introduced bills in the California Assembly calling for the bay-filling but he soon agreed with the BDCDs ways. one of there problems was that bills that were introduced died in committee to becoming a law. The BDCD really wanted to make the bay more healthy. I agree with the BDCD for tying to recover the bay and tying to inform people on how they can help.

Mak The Golfer

10/26/2017 09:59:04 pm

1965 the BCDC started out as a temporary agency instated by California State Senators McAteer and Petris. The next 3 years the BCDC perpared 23 environmental documents which laid the foundation for the San Francisco Bay Plan, which was then presented the governor on January 1969. Ten Bills that continued the BCDC were submitted and only 4 were considered by the State Legislature. The Knox bill or what was closest to the Knox Bill ended up passing, but not without serious opposition. It took Conservationist and a noble cause to make sure that the bill that passed was one that had the power it needed to succeed and not a watered down version. Janet Adams and Clare Dedrick were two women that formed the “Save Our Bay Action Committee” (SOBAC). SOBAC did found raisers and ended up compiling a massive mailing list which it used to raise over 20 thousand dollars to found its activities. SOBAC supported the Knox bill every step of the way and ended up and using that same mailing list to pressure senators to join their cause. The Knox bill that passed ended up having a few exemptions, but did retain its needed power to protect the Bay Area. Some of the challenges they faced were the attempts to add amendments that were meant to take away its power so that the Companies(Leslie Salt Company) could do whatever they wanted. Thanks to the pressure from SOBAC Senators stayed true to the original Knox bill. In my opinion it is necessary to have this complicated process in order to insure that the right things get passed, because if they are important enough they will find their way though with the support of the people. Even though it is a tiring process the BCDC was able to pull though in the end because enough people wanted it and in the end this is a democracy so what the people want is what the people get.

Rylee

10/23/2017 12:45:16 pm

(Honors Question)
The BCDC legislation went through, three women's main goal was to prevent the city of Berkeley from pursuing fill projects in the Bay. They began informing the public about the dangers of filling the bay. They then began introducing bills in the California Assembly calling for a moratorium on bay fill. Both bills died in committee. In 1963 a study examined ownership of the Bay, economic and recreational values of the Bay, pollution of the Bay, and past and pro posed encroachments by fill and diking of the waters and tidelands of the Bay. J Eugene McAteer sponsored a bill creating a commission to study the problems of the bay. Then in 1965, McAteer in the Senate and Petris in the Assembly successfully sponsored a bill establishing the Bay Conservation and Development Com mission as a temporary agency. The administration bill left out the BCDC termination provision, bill said nothing about official adoption of the bay plan nor its expansion of jurisdiction saltponds and managed wetlands. Mateo County,'8 introduced a bill that would have established an entirely new agency to redo the work of the BCDC by preparing a new master plan over a five-year period, by scrapping the years of work that had gone into preparing the BCDC's Bay Plan, but also by stalling effort to implement a permanent, enforceable plan for the development and conservation of the Bay. In my opinion I think the process for forming a new legislation is good the way it is because if its easy to from one then a lot of people would try to get bills passed weather those bills actually benefited anyone , but because we make it hard then people who actually wanted to make a change and make our society a better place can then be heard instead of people who are just doing it for there own gain.

Rylee

10/23/2017 12:50:17 pm

Sorry, What o you think?^

Mackenzee

10/26/2017 11:03:06 pm

yes i agree with you. I think that because it is so complicated it is a good way to weed out the unnecessary bills and keep the ones that matter the most. This process also insures us that the bills that have gotten though have been proven worthy of being set in place.

Kristianna Muller

10/24/2017 12:29:53 pm

I agree with you. It should not be that easy for bills to get passed because then there would be a very large amount of laws that don't make any sense or have no ability to be enforced. Also, if there are a lot of challenges faced, it usually just makes the bill better for us. There are things they can't think of when writing laws, so the challenges bring the issues to the attention of the writers of the laws.

the other Pusch kid

11/27/2017 08:38:01 am

I agree the process for making a bill shouldn't be easy,

Gracia Rojas

10/23/2017 05:16:21 pm

Question #1:
The value of non-profit organizations like LEAF are very impactful because programs like this act as a "watch dog" and gives legal support for court actions to protect the environment. We need programs like this to make sure any environment isn't being degraded, or Environmental Degradation is avoided. Social equality is the state of affairs which all people within a specific society have same status, and certain respects. An example of Environmental Degradation and Social equality is in the Florida Environmental Justice article. In this article LEAF has adopted a "Environmental Equity and Justice Act" which focused on the Community's health of Florida in the Florida Health Department to ensure public health services are available to the low- income community class. This is an example of how social equality can be seen, with the care of low-income residents. And connecting with environmental degradation, natural disasters can cause large numbers of injured people and a devastated state. So the act connects these two terms by balancing each other out, the well-being of the people v.s. natural causes and disasters. An example outside from this would be a non-profit organization very much like this named HEAR. (Health and Environment Assistance Resources database) which is a program of Boston University students and others that increase and diversify the legal, scientific, medical, and technical expertise available to the community groups. They focus on Environmental and Public concerns. For example, there latest projects were cleaning up lead contamination in Williston, Vermont.
http://www.hear-db.org/

Tori

10/23/2017 07:58:58 pm

For San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission was a group started for the benefit of the bay, including marine mammals and plants. It was created for the sole purpose of protecting what was there for the future generations. One obstacle in the way of the commission were the choosing of people to get the commission approved didn't really rise to the responsibility. Another obstacle was the selling of land that really wasn't for sale. The amount of people who lived and bought houses on the bay was overly high. With this many people, the amount of pollution went up but there was no where to put it all. Then add in the building of the Golden Gate which there were people up and down into the water and supplies dropped. This directly affected the wildlife and marine life.I believe that this legislation was worth the wait. It helped the state reclaim lands once bought and gave it back to the wild and the bay itself.

Sierra McMains

10/24/2017 12:04:58 pm

I disagree with the statement, "the legislation was worth the wait." I think this because the legislation should have came earlier to avoid the whole production of the mess. If the legislation would have been passed sooner then we would have been able to prevent the affect on wild and marine life.

Tori

10/25/2017 08:57:33 am

There will always be problems that need immediate attention but in this instance, it was better late then never. But we now have the Marine Mammal Protection Act incase this were to ever happen again. How would the legislator passed sooner with the way the government works? Everything takes time to vote on or veto then rewrite. What do you propose should happen?

seth

10/23/2017 08:05:23 pm

when he says that there were difficult choices to be made he is saying that they were going to have to change what some businesses and people were doing for a long time being the behavioral changes he was talking about and they had to decide what they would allow the people to do and what they were going to make them stop doing. in the article it said "every source of pollution must obtain a permit that specifies the limitation to be
achieved and the measures needed to demonstrate that it is being achieved" this is an example of the behavioral changes. an example of a difficult choice is "Several provisions of the act will directly affect the development of energy
resource" a current topic is deforestation because the demand for food, clothing, and housing is growing but the forests are shrinking so we would have to decide which is more important the need for housing and shelter or the forests

seth

10/23/2017 08:42:37 pm

the San Francisco bay conservation and development commission were created to help clean the bay and to prevent any more pollution into the bay. some challenges they faced were that they were trying to set up restrictions on land that wasn't really theirs but were instead bought by homeowners which also was part of the problem because the more people that lived by the bay the more pollution is going to end up in it. i think that in order to put a bill into action or pass it it should have to go through a lot of revisions and a large complicated process because if it was really easy then bills that weren't ready might be put into place with out proper consideration.

Riley

10/23/2017 08:53:00 pm

I feel that things like the San Francisco Bay conservation and development commission can not only help California but set an example for all states. Sure you got the ones on the coast but states with lakes and rivers can also take part in this helping clean lakes and rivers for more natural and better and environment.

Chloe

10/24/2017 12:22:15 pm

If the San Francisco Bay conversation worked out well and other states see this, they will be more encouraged to do the same and clean the water in the united states

Sierra McMains

10/24/2017 12:24:32 pm

I agree, the BCDC sets a great example for other states, and I think that the ideas of the BCDC could benefit any water or land habitat in the U.S. I think we should take the ideas into consideration when trying to limit pollution in our major rivers to help keep a clean and healthy environment in every state in the U.S.

Gundy link

10/23/2017 09:19:48 pm

When Beard is talking about the difficult choices and behavioral changes, I think he is talking about how as citizens we know notice that changes need to be made to our life but we don’t know if we want to give up the stuff that goes with it. For example, we can recognize that there is a problem with using too much plastic in the United States. One thing we could do to help is use a refillable water bottle instead of grabbing a plastic disposable one. It is hard for us as citizens to get rid of the luxuries that we have, even though it will help save our environment. An example of difficult choices in the article is when Beard states that some congressional leaders have made changes that benefit our energy supplies, without keeping in mind our environment. An example of behavioral changes is when he says that some people, have urged the restraint and caution in amending environmental legislation. This is them changing their behaviors because, they fear unwarranted over reaction to immediate problems. This relates to current debates because, modern landfills are well-engineered that are designed to help with environment. But there are still problems with the old landfills that have hazards wastes and aren’t designed for a specific kind of wastes. It is hard for society to choose between spending money on fixing our landfills and helping the environment, or leaving it how it is.

Gracia

10/25/2017 08:44:21 am

This is interesting to think about, that people don't want to give up luxuries for a cleaner and safer environment. It is even made easier to live a more environmental safe life as well. For example, there is more recycling bins, more influencing factors to save more energy, etc. Even when its now available in some of the most basic ways, it isn't a main focus to keep the environment clean in society.

Kristianna Muller

10/23/2017 10:14:45 pm

2) He basically means that citizens ourselves can have a significant impact on the environment. One example in the article is that we have the choice of what car to buy. The size of the car effects how much pollution it gives off, and because we choose what car we buy, we choose how we are affecting the environment in that way. We may have to make the difficult decision of choosing not to buy the fanciest or prettiest car, but instead choosing the fuel-efficient one that gives off less pollution. We also can't go about doing things like they were before we realized how bad it was for the environment. Even if it makes us uncomfortable, we have to change our behaviors. For example, we have had to change the type of fuel we use. Even though it is a little more costly and is a factor in fuel shortages, it has significantly decreased the amount of pollution we put out. This behavior change may have been difficult, but we still had to do it for the good of the planet. Debates today are about very similar issues. For example, people don't want to change the straws or eating utensils they use simply because it is more inconvenient for them. This is a difficult behavior that has to be changed because we are aware of the issues plastics are causing. Some people don't think that what one single person does matters, which is the cause of the debate. Although the change may be difficult, it still needs to be done for the good of the environment.

Sierra McMains

10/24/2017 12:27:34 pm

I think that Kristianna is correct. Most people do believe that one person doesn't make a difference, but if everyone believes this then we won't ever get anywhere. I think we should take what he is saying into consideration when deciding whether or not to take a plastic or paper bag next time we are at the store. It may not seem like a big deal but it will make an impact.

Chloe

10/24/2017 12:18:56 pm

Honors Question:
The wanted to stop Berkeley from finishing projects in the bay so they began to protest and inform people about what was really happening in the bay. A new legislation was the only way to determine that the projects in the bay would not take place.

Sierra McMains

10/24/2017 12:20:43 pm

The San Francisco Bay and Development Commission was started to help and protect the marine life off of the coast. The group regulates human contact with the Bay, for example if some one was wanting to extract minerals from the Bay, they would need a permit from the BCDC. The main obstacles in the way of passing the new legislation was that land was being sold to people, that was not really up for sale. It took a long time to get all of the land back properly. The building of the Golden Gate Bridge also affected the passing of the legislation, however it gave a reason for the act. People dropped many things over the bridge into the water, causing pollution into the marine life's home. Overall I feed that the legislation should have been passed sooner, but was very beneficial to restoring the marine and wild life habitat.

Sierra McMains

10/24/2017 12:21:33 pm

my additional source was: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/

Kristianna Muller

10/24/2017 12:24:08 pm

One of the challenges they faced was public outlash. Rich, private landowners had the money and capabilities to prevent the law from being passed, so they had to convince those people to support the law instead of oppose it. In my opinion, the challenges faced are usually necessary. If there is a major challenge faced, it is most likely for a good reason, and as a result probably needs to be addressed. For example, local governments opposed the shoreline jurisdiction because it would take away some of their power. This is one thing that needed to be addressed, so it was a good challenge. Usually, the challenges aren't ridiculous or very minor things, so they end up being a good thing.

Ally

10/25/2017 09:11:28 am

I agree with that challenges are part of getting a bill passed. I think that if the problem is big enough the bill will get passed in time. After all, work is always better after it has been revised a few times, which the women were forced to do.

Hanqviest

10/24/2017 12:29:44 pm

Some problems that the bill faced were simply failures in congress. For example, Mrs. Clark Kerr, Mrs. Donald McLaughlin, and Mrs. Charles Gulick with the help of Nicholas Petris failed the first time to get some bills approved in the state congress. I think the governing system is fair though becasue in I964 the A first success in the legislature. The late Senator J Eugene McAteer, reportedly at the urging of Mrs. Kerr, sponsored a succes a commission to study the problems in the bay. This shows after revision and decisions being made to make the bill bode well a second time in congress, it can be done.

Karoline

10/24/2017 12:39:42 pm

Question #3:
The BCDC began with three women who formed the San Francisco Bay Association. Their goal was to stop bay-filling, or putting "earth or any other substance or material, including pilings or structures placed on pilings, and structures floating at some or all times and moored for extended periods" (Dolezel and Warren 350). The group submitted two bills to stop bay-filling, but both died in committee. The group finally had a successful piece of legislature that was there for "creating a commission to study the problems of the bay" (Dolezel and Warren 351). Then this commission made 23 reports about the bay, which created the basis for the San Francisco Bay Plan. Then when the commission was about to expire, one senator created a bill to remove the expiration date. However, it faced opposition in this step because another senator created a bill to replace the commission entirely, which would be a major setback for conservationists. There were two more bills that were nearly identical that "envisioned the BCDC operating as part of a regional government vested with responsibility for several area-wide problems" (Dolezel and Warren 353). Ultimately, prospects were grim for all four bills. Two women created SOBAC (Save Our Bay Action Committee) to help get the public involved in passing through the legislation. Because the law was eventually passed, it "illustrates that the legislative process can be made to work for conservation goals" (Dolezel and Warren 366). I think that the process of creating legislation is not too complicated and it works well as far as helping make sure that we have decent legislation that passes through.

Mackenzee Holloway

10/24/2017 08:20:13 pm

1) The value in programs such as LEAF is thearedically it helps the less fortunate though protecting the environment by decreasing the contamination in the environment they live in. Environment degradation and social equality are linked together because more often then not we find the less fortunate in the more environmentally challenged areas because they aren't able to pay for good accommodations. Agencies such as LEAF insures social equality by providing the top care for the environment in all areas, poor and rich. For example LEAF protected the health of low- income people in Florida who were threatened by the contamination of the petroleum under-ground storage units and forced the companies to fix it and then proceeded to create a birth defect registry within the Department of Health to insure that the citizens who were effected by it and were unable to get help, would receive the help they needed (i found this in the article). An example of why agencies such as LEAF are so important regarding environmental degradation and social equality would be the Flint Michigan Crisis. They had gotten new pipe lines to save money but the pipes were leaching lead into the water supply and contaminating their drinking water. They decided to do this to save money however it back fired on them because naturally humans and lead together are no Bueno, es may mal. If Michigan were to have an agency like LEAF it they would have prevented the situation all together by vetoing their plan in the first place. Because it was strictly just to save them money because flint is a poor black community and they would have saved a lot of money from it. LEAF would have set a standard and there for forced them to continue having safe drinking water and helped find an alternative way to save money. This is one piece of evidence that proves the value in having programs like LEAF, to insure that things such as the Flint Michigan Crisis doesn't happen.

mackenzee holloway

10/24/2017 08:23:06 pm

BTW this is my source:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/465545378/lead-laced-water-in-flint-a-step-by-step-look-at-the-makings-of-a-crisis

the other Pusch kid

11/27/2017 08:43:44 am

I like the use of extra sources 👌

Tori

10/25/2017 08:52:01 am

Programs like LEAF help the environment by protecting from contamination like pollution. The purpose of LEAF was to offer health care or health assistance to low income community because it was one of the main contributor to pollution like human waste and trash. Taking a look at the present, this same problem is happening in slums all over the world. Dharavi is the world's second largest slum in the world. Trash and human waste is visible all over the place. Health is not good there and there is almost no money flowing in because the people living there can't find jobs. LEAF helped Florida fix this problem. I think something like LEAF would be able to help Dharavi if given the opportunity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/06/dharavi_slum/html/dharavi_slum_intro.stm
How can this be related to the problem described in the article from 1998?

Tori

10/25/2017 08:53:49 am

Should the world be responsible to help or should the country/state be responsible to helping? Why?

Teagan

10/25/2017 01:59:16 pm

I think that each state/areas should have its own programs and rules on how they protect the environment. I think this because with state/area rules, they would be more specific to that region and what that region needs. The whole world should be participating in keeping our environment clean and healthy, but this is better done when their are specific rules for each part of the world.

gundy link

10/25/2017 09:34:44 pm

I agree with Tori because, I also think that the counties we have with transportation is ruining the air quality. I agree that the people need to do something about. I wonder if there is a way where people can find a balance between the ways of life like transportation we are living in now and protecting the environment. I also wonder what it would take for people to realize how badly we are ruining our environment.

Ally

10/25/2017 08:52:23 am

Question 2: Russell Train said "the average is citizen... beginning to recognize that there were difficult choices to be made,that some cherished patterns of behavior may have to be modified. Russel is saying that each individual person can have either a positive or negative affect on the environment. We are given choices; some are better for the environment, while others are harmful. When families buy a car, they have a choice. They can either buy a fuel efficient Toyota Prius, or they can buy a gas-guzzling Ford Explorer. I understand different size families have different vehicle needs, but I do believe that some people have the ability to down size. This relates to current debates because people have the ability to recycle plastic water bottles and other items, but families don't want to spend the extra $10.00 a month for a recycling bin. That $10 could improve the environment for the better and it's not that difficult.

Ally

10/25/2017 09:07:08 am

Question 3: "In both I96I and I962, Petris introduced bills in the California Assembly calling for a moratorium on bay- fill. Both bills died in committee." (350). In 1964 McAteer sponsored a bill creating a commision to study the bay. The three women had already introduced two bills 3 years prior, but both had failed. The amount of work these women put in for the conservation of the bay is huge. I believe that the process we use today is still acceptable, because it shouldn't be easy to get a bill passed. If the bill is worth passing, people will be dedicated enough to put in the work hopefully.

gundy link

10/25/2017 09:32:42 pm

The BCDC started 8 years before it was established, after 3 women created a campaign to prevent the city of Berkeley into pursuing fill projects in the Bay. Then they got help from Nicholas Petris, who introduced the bills in the California assembly in 1961 and 1962. Both of the bills failed.
Then there was a lot of research done directly on the bay and in 1964 a senator sponsored a successful bill creating a commission to study the problems of the Bay. Then McAteer and Petris sponsored a bill establishing the Bay Conservation and Development Commission as a temporary agency. They could grant or deny permits for development and fill, so that the Bay would be protected.
The commission suggested that they should continue to have power to grant or deny permits for bay-filling and should have authority to direct shoreline development. This was the foundation for establishing the permanent agency. The the 10 bill of the continuation of he BCDC were introduced in a legislative session and only 4 were taken seriously. Soon after in 1969 all four bills were pending in the legislature, the problem was all four bills had a great weakness. Two women were aware of how hard it was to get a tough bill passed, so they took the public in the campaign to help back it up. In the legislative process the bill was sent to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, they approved the bill and was sent to the assembly. After the assembly it was sent to the Senate. In the end the bill was passed and it is a landmark in the development of environmental law. I do think that it is important to have all these steps, so there is not a ton of people that think they can pass any bill. I think that you just need to know what you are doing to get it passed. Fore example if they would have known that having public citizens to back you up, then the process would have went a lot faster for them.

Amanda

10/26/2017 01:12:25 pm

The Legal Assistance Foundation (founded in Florida) address both environmental and social issues. For example, to help the environmental in 1996 LEAF created a petroleum cleanup program. Regarding the social issues aspect, LEAF allows health services to low-income families living near possible areas of contamination .

Typically, the lower income families near in environmentally "dirtier" areas. The government begins to put less money toward keeping those neighborhoods clean and as a result is unfair living conditions'
According to MIT who analyzed 30 years of demographic data, low-income neighborhoods are unfairly targeted by factories and other waste sites.

Amanda

10/26/2017 01:18:14 pm

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/23414-targeting-minority-low-income-neighborhoods-for-hazardous-waste-sites

Rylee

10/26/2017 07:35:59 pm

Question 1: The value in programs such as LEAF is to help the less fortunate though protecting the environment by decreasing the contamination in the environment they live in. There job is to help the other countries who maybe cant afford to help there country with anything environmental and to also help the people of the country who could be harm by the environment. Unfortunately for the poor people in most countries they are less taken care of and programs like LEAF are given money from the rich to help the poor, if other programs were like this then the poor would benefit more from these programs.

Horvath

11/9/2017 01:39:39 pm

Question 1: things like LEAF help people that are poor and can't afford any place to live except in the places that are contaminated. They will provide health care for the people who are effected by the things that others do. For example if someone has a car that's pollution coming out of it and the people that are in high levels of pollution are affected by that. I think there should be more programs like LEAF so it can help not just people here but in other countries.

Environmental Policy Class Forum

Welcome to the Forum! Here is where you will be answering your daily warm-up questions. Please do not enter your last name for privacy reasons, and you may use a nickname if you would like (Just make sure Mr. Tredinnick is aware of the nickname you are using). Write out thoughtful responses to the forums on the days they are assigned. If you miss a day please take it upon yourself to complete the Forum you missed. Each Forum has the targeted Learning Objective(s) there so you can see what the focus of the day's class will be.

Unit II Discussion - Environmental Legislation

Leave a Reply.

Environmental Policy Class Forum

Archives

Categories

Home

Geography for Geographers

About