One of the topics we spoke about in class today was the cooperation of environmental non-profits and corporations. These two groups seem like an odd couple because they generally have conflicting agendas. One of the readings about the McKenzie Watershed featured one of these odd couples. In the McKenzie Watershed fast facts it mentioned that “There are six dams providing hydroelectric power, flood control and/or recreation, but which also have undesirable impacts on fish.” It was interesting to note that EWEB (Eugene Water and Electric Board) and the Springfield Utility Board make up about 47% of the McKenzie Watershed Council’s revenue in the 2008 fiscal year. The Leaburg Waterville and the Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project are located on the McKenzie and serve as a source for some 11,600 customers (www.eweb.org/public/documents/energy/EAP_Brochure_2008.pdf) or about 15% of EWEB’s energy income (http://www.eweb.org/sustainability/report/energy). Not to mention the fact that all of EWEB’s water comes from the McKenzie river. Despite the fact that the hydro-electric dams damage the ecosystem it seems befitting that the relationship is symbiotic. Both parties really benefit from the cooperation of the other. The MWC, which regularly holds meetings at the EWEB, benefits by the funding EWEB sends, to improve the fish habitat restoration. EWEB, a contributor to undesirable impacts on fish, can mitigate its environmental impact by allowing MWC to perform water quality evaluations and habitat restoration projects.
The article Why Mr. Gore Chose Venture Capital and Not the Nonprofit World: The Environmental Social Commons Transition to the Marketplace was particularly compelling for me. I feel that in a capitalistic society it is very important for environmental action to actually have a market based value. That is why I'm a huge fan of the cap and trade policy. Cap and trade policies make companies have mandatory caps on emissions. The cap is then sold to firms in the form of emission permits or credits. Firms that emit below the cap may trade their permits to firms that over-emit. Thus firms have a market based incentive not to pollute. While I certainly feel that non-profits should have a role in the environment, particularly in bringing issues on the policy agenda, I think market driven solutions are more probable for catching on. One solution that Obama mentioned in the State of the Union address was the high-speed rail system. In the SOU address Obama said he wanted to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/us-high-speed-rail-plan_n_820234.html?ir=Green. Spatially America is an infrastructure nightmare, particularly in terms of public transportation. Our public transportation ranks near the bottom of the developed world. In order to get off the reliance of fossil fuels I think that there must be a shift in how American's look at driving cars and using public transportation. Low and behold Obama unveiled a $53 billion dollar spending plan for planning for high-speed rail for the next 6 fiscal years http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/us-high-speed-rail-plan_n_820234.html?ir=Green. Should congress approve the plan it could make for trains that could travel as fas as 250 mph. This plan could give American's a market-based reason to not rely on cars and thus reduce carbon emissions.
I feel as though non-profit play an important role in the environment, particularly because for-profits have a generally external agenda for the environment. However, that being said, should businesses be forced to internalize some of their externalities they could provide for the environment while continuing their market based operations. It is important that non-profits play a role in introducing analysis that can be digested by for-profits, rather than butting heads where nothing generally gets down it is important to find a common ground. Often times it can be in the business's best interest to go green and non-profits can be an important outlet for providing this, as the McKenzie Watershed example shows. Non-profit NGOs play an important role in getting environmental legislation on the table but that is only the first part of the equation. Following up with proper business responses to the environment is necessary
High speed rail shows an area where it is best to have government leadership. It seems great that our stimulusisgoing towards something that will create lasting benefits. It seems like we are already lagging behind much of the world who already has high speed rail among other forms of transit. In the EU for example you can purchase a train and bus pass which connects you to almost every corner of each country. It seems like the current problem with creating transregional transit is that we need to firstdevelop our local transit systems. What is going to happen when you step off the train? Heres a link to the planned tracks that are going from Eugene to Vancouver and at speeds up to 150 mph.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-high-speed-intercity-passenger-rail-program-eugene-portland
In regard to EWEB it seems that everyone can agree that hydroelectric power is a necessary evil. It is great to see that the impacts are mitigated in whatever way they can. I just feel like other private companies would not have the same relationship if costs were high in pollution reduction. If it were a zero-sum game between profits and mitigation we would need further government regulation such as cap and trade to solve the problems. Local approaches seem important but this should not take the place of regulation.
It seems that every American president since Grover Cleveland has been promising a better railway system. Besides the popularization of the car, massive nationwide freeway projects, vast square footage, costs, and incompetence surrounding Amtrak (long waits, inconvenience, reports of poor customer service, etc.), America's sense of tremendous individualism may be the biggest factor in our nation's refusal to adopt a European public transit system.
ReplyDeleteI think nonprofits generate great results for environmental change. I enjoyed reading the article about the McKenzie Watershed Council and the communal work that they do. Partner organizations like EWEB enable people to adopt real and longlasting change not necessarily through cap and trade regulations, but through education systems and school outreach programs that teach people about their surrounding resources and promoting volunteer efforts.
I agree that oftentimes when businesses and nonprofits work together both parties greatly benefit and the MWC and EWEB are a great example. If no relationship existed, then the environmentally harmful actions of EWEB may not be balanced by their support of and contributions to the MWC. However, just because EWEB gives monetary support to an environmental nonprofit does not mean that they should be able to then pollute and/or disrupt habitats or ecological cycles. EWEB should use their relationship with the MWC to discover and implement more environmentally friendly practices.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the video you included, Obama mentions that "our own engineers" gave America's infrastructure a D, and when you think about how inefficient it is to get around most cities, especially between cities, it definitely makes sense that the US would get such a low grade. In Eugene it is easy to get around on bike and via public transportation, but Eugene is the exception. The potential of a high speed rail system is a very exciting one.