By Carson Temple
One of the biggest factors that comes into play during the process of policy and bill creation is what party currently holds a majority. Both the democrats and the republicans have differing values when it comes to the topic of the environment. The Republican Party is notoriously known for being more “anti-environment,” favoring policies that balance economic development and private property rights, and conservation goals in the long run. Republicans believe public access to lands for recreational use should be allowed on all federal lands. They also hold the beliefs that private property ownership of land is a necessity to the environmental agenda. They feel people who the land should also be the ones who protect it, and through this is how environmental policies have best been advanced. Lastly, they encourage using market-based solutions to solve environmental problems. In contrast, the Democratic Party has been seen in the past as being more “pro-environment.” They don’t believe we have to choose between the economy and environment. They believe industries require a healthy environment and therefore, with a cleaner environment we will have a stronger economy. Because of the parties contrasting ideals over this issue, passing environmentally focused bills through Congress is a challenge. This becomes even more complicated when one party holds the majority in Congress and the President identifies with the other party. President Obama is from the Democratic Party, while Congress is currently majority Republican. This alone is a prohibiting factor for passing environmental bills, let alone any bill. Another issue that often affects the passing of environmental bills is the presence of large corporations. Although corporations don’t have an actual vote in Congress, many representatives are “in bed” with these large companies who endorse them with millions of dollars. Not wanting to lose their financial support, representatives vote in line with the corporations ideas rather than those of their constituency. Taking the above factors into consideration, bills are more likely to be passed if their outcomes or goals are not too extreme or don’t require too much disruption or change. They are more likely to not be passed if they require large amounts of money, or honestly in my opinion, effect the way in which large corporations run their business. There are certain bills currently in Congress that could go either way - they could be passed or their could be shut down. It all comes down to the representatives and if they want to vote in line with their constituency or the interests of larger companies.
There are currently a number of bills making their way through Congress that are centered around the environment. Some of them will pass, some will be shut down, and a few of them are unpredictable - they could go either way. The Keystone XL pipeline is one of the most talked about environmental bills currently in Congress. If passed, the pipeline system would carry up to 830,000 barrels of petroleum per day from Canada to ports in the Gulf Coast. Half of the pipeline already exists, however the new proposal would add a 1,179-mile addition. In my opinion, I thought it was a bill that could go either way. Environmentalists strongly oppose the Keystone XL pipeline because it revolves around an unconventional energy source, oil sands. In addition, it would require mass amounts of fuel, water and carbon emissions, all which cause toxic runoff. Also, if it were to leak it would cause more environmental damage than a regular standard oil pipeline. Proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline argue it would create more jobs and would contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. In my opinion the costs far outweigh the benefits, although given our current Congress is Republican run I could see it passing. In fact, just two days ago Congress passed the bill. Now, it goes to President Obama’s desk where he can either sign it or veto it. A lot of pressure is currently being put on Obama to veto the bill, as he would be staying true to his “pro-environment” stance and his past promise to veto the bill if necessary. Nevertheless, as we’ve seen in past history, Presidents often given in to external pressures and ultimately compromise their promises for what they believe is the betterment of our country.
Another bill that is currently in Congress is called the Western Great Lakes Wolf Management Act, or H.R. 843. In short, this bill prohibits any wolf in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin from being treated as an endangered or threatened species or as an essential experimental population or nonessential experimental population. Any wolf species, subspecies, or member of Canis lupus, would not be treated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition, it adds that each state will be allowed to have their own jurisdiction over the controlling of wolves within their state borders. I believe that this bill stands no chance in passing. There is a large population of people who feel strongly about animal rights, and passing this bill would kick thousands of wolves, which are vital to ecosystems, off the endangered species list. In addition, their populations have only recently begun to recover and it would be far too soon to remove the protections given to them by the Endangered Species Act. While I think legislatures from Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin might vote in favor of the bill, I believe those from other states will see the harmful effects and strike it down. Lastly, passing this bill would completely undercut the work of the Endangered Species Act, which is notably one of the United States’ most effective conservation laws. I think passing this act would be too big of a threat to all the passionate proponents for the Endangered Species Act.
This past summer the Water in the 21st Century Act was introduced into Congress. This bill’s main goal is to provide incentives and investments to residents, businesses, and local water agencies to help them recycle, conserve and better manage water supplies. If passed, this bill would expand grants for water efficiency, invest in water-saving technology that could help communities become prepared for the possibility of a drought, and it would also support improved local water management and storage. I believe this bill stands a good chance is being passed. Especially in states like California that are currently facing historical droughts, providing incentives for residents to more carefully use their scarce amount of water will be very persuading. In addition, this bill isn’t too drastic and demanding that Republican members of Congress would strongly oppose it. Water is one of the most basic and fundamental necessities, so protecting its quality and quantity is very important for all people in the United States, not just one population.
As we’ve seen through Congressional history, passing thoughtful and effective environment related bills has been a challenge. What party controls Congress, and what party the president is from has a drastic effect. It will be interesting to see how our 114th Congress comes down in the decision of the bills I discussed. But first, it will be interesting to see how President Obama handles the situation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, will he veto or will he disappoint his environmentally cautious constituency?
References:
http://www.democrats.org/issues/environment
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/opinion/the-republicans-vs-the-environment.html?_r=0
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14107/top-us-corporations-funneled-173-million-political-nonprofits
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/what-does-the-proposed-keystone-xl-pipeline-entail.html?_r=0
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr838/summary
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5363
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/114th_United_States_Congress#mediaviewer/File:114th_United_States_Senate.svg
There are currently a number of bills making their way through Congress that are centered around the environment. Some of them will pass, some will be shut down, and a few of them are unpredictable - they could go either way. The Keystone XL pipeline is one of the most talked about environmental bills currently in Congress. If passed, the pipeline system would carry up to 830,000 barrels of petroleum per day from Canada to ports in the Gulf Coast. Half of the pipeline already exists, however the new proposal would add a 1,179-mile addition. In my opinion, I thought it was a bill that could go either way. Environmentalists strongly oppose the Keystone XL pipeline because it revolves around an unconventional energy source, oil sands. In addition, it would require mass amounts of fuel, water and carbon emissions, all which cause toxic runoff. Also, if it were to leak it would cause more environmental damage than a regular standard oil pipeline. Proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline argue it would create more jobs and would contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. In my opinion the costs far outweigh the benefits, although given our current Congress is Republican run I could see it passing. In fact, just two days ago Congress passed the bill. Now, it goes to President Obama’s desk where he can either sign it or veto it. A lot of pressure is currently being put on Obama to veto the bill, as he would be staying true to his “pro-environment” stance and his past promise to veto the bill if necessary. Nevertheless, as we’ve seen in past history, Presidents often given in to external pressures and ultimately compromise their promises for what they believe is the betterment of our country.
Another bill that is currently in Congress is called the Western Great Lakes Wolf Management Act, or H.R. 843. In short, this bill prohibits any wolf in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin from being treated as an endangered or threatened species or as an essential experimental population or nonessential experimental population. Any wolf species, subspecies, or member of Canis lupus, would not be treated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition, it adds that each state will be allowed to have their own jurisdiction over the controlling of wolves within their state borders. I believe that this bill stands no chance in passing. There is a large population of people who feel strongly about animal rights, and passing this bill would kick thousands of wolves, which are vital to ecosystems, off the endangered species list. In addition, their populations have only recently begun to recover and it would be far too soon to remove the protections given to them by the Endangered Species Act. While I think legislatures from Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin might vote in favor of the bill, I believe those from other states will see the harmful effects and strike it down. Lastly, passing this bill would completely undercut the work of the Endangered Species Act, which is notably one of the United States’ most effective conservation laws. I think passing this act would be too big of a threat to all the passionate proponents for the Endangered Species Act.
This past summer the Water in the 21st Century Act was introduced into Congress. This bill’s main goal is to provide incentives and investments to residents, businesses, and local water agencies to help them recycle, conserve and better manage water supplies. If passed, this bill would expand grants for water efficiency, invest in water-saving technology that could help communities become prepared for the possibility of a drought, and it would also support improved local water management and storage. I believe this bill stands a good chance is being passed. Especially in states like California that are currently facing historical droughts, providing incentives for residents to more carefully use their scarce amount of water will be very persuading. In addition, this bill isn’t too drastic and demanding that Republican members of Congress would strongly oppose it. Water is one of the most basic and fundamental necessities, so protecting its quality and quantity is very important for all people in the United States, not just one population.
As we’ve seen through Congressional history, passing thoughtful and effective environment related bills has been a challenge. What party controls Congress, and what party the president is from has a drastic effect. It will be interesting to see how our 114th Congress comes down in the decision of the bills I discussed. But first, it will be interesting to see how President Obama handles the situation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, will he veto or will he disappoint his environmentally cautious constituency?
References:
http://www.democrats.org/issues/environment
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/opinion/the-republicans-vs-the-environment.html?_r=0
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14107/top-us-corporations-funneled-173-million-political-nonprofits
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/what-does-the-proposed-keystone-xl-pipeline-entail.html?_r=0
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr838/summary
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5363
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/114th_United_States_Congress#mediaviewer/File:114th_United_States_Senate.svg