kwatanabe17ahs-blog - Tumblr blog

kwatanabe17ahs-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Interest groups and PAC

Clean Water Action

The group is interested in creating strong environmental leadership and bring together many constituencies together to improve the lives, health, and problems regarding consumers the environmental and communities

They believe in creating strong leadership to improve the environment. They’re biggest goal right now is to go to Washington and convince them to help them restore the Great Lakes, as they are a great source for fresh water for the rest of the country. They have been doing so by working with large companies around the great lakes to pressure congress and President Obama into helping them allocate more money into this project. In order to leave a lasting influence on its supporters and develop a group of diverse leaders, the Clean Water Action interest group works at the national and local level. There they educate people on environmental health, specifically water, ecosystem protection, and quality of life for the community. As a result, the interest group spans across the US, effectively making a difference within the nation. The program runs on a person to person outreach and education method, so they are very effective financially as well. Recently, members of the interest group went to march in Washington DC to make a point that the power of assembly can make a difference, and that this interest group seeks change. The program offers jobs that directly work on creating safe, affordable water, and educates them about how businesses can become more environmentally friendly.

As previously mentioned, this group’s interest group is trying to get the government to restore the Great lakes. The Great Lakes provide 21% of the world’s fresh water, and provide water to 35 million people a year. The lakes also provide over 16 billion dollars worth of money to local economies a year. Clearly, the lakes are a valuable asset to the US, not only economically and environmentally, but also symbolically. In 2010, the interest group was able to get 2 billion dollars for their goals but that is not enough. Therefore, the interest group is currently Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2015 to “provide stability for Great Lakes funding for at least five years and establish a permanent program in the Environmental Protection Agency to continue these important projects”.

The interest group is located in Washington DC, I would not be able to attend any events in the near future because I will not go to DC during the summer and will most likely not go to DC during my first year in college.

There are internship opportunities but it is only for their department in Rhode Island. The job involves managing their social media sites.

Environment California

Their goal is to protect California’s environment for corporations and politicians. They also want to educate more people about the environment so they can contribute to their cause as well.

Environmental California believes in preserving and improving California’s nature reserves, grassroots action, and independent research. It is unclear as to what they do in washington as the last time the two have gotten seriously involved with each other is in 2009, when they both decided to work together to take action against global warming. Clear signs that this group believes in getting everyone involved is that it takes money that is provided by current members to educate the public about environmental health. They do this by news conferences, research reports, interviews, and op-ed serieses. In addition, the group even goes door to door to raise awareness. The organization has also largely been associated with helping California get out of the drought.

The organization has recently been successful in getting the assembly to extend the Solar Thermal Program. Now, if it passes the Senate (that’s a pretty big if though), the plan will be realized. This program fits the organization's effort to create a cleaner California because it relies on more solar energy and less on natural gasses.

They are located in Los Angeles California

There are internship opportunities available. The job involves researching one specific issue about the environment, think of smart solutions, and build public support.

United States Business and Industry Council

They are interested in expanding the domestic economy through fabrication.

The Group believes in making the US the number one leading engine of economic growth in the world. Since it’s founding, the group has always been on a national scale, and has always done what is “best” for all Americans. The group also focusses on keeping the American identity when building up the economy. Their current plan is to influence politicians through multiple manufacturing business companies so that the they can invest more money into bringing the American economy overseas.

The group is currently working to help the US Steel Industry regain it’s former status by combatting Chinese Cyber Hacking

Washington DC

There are no volunteer opportunities currently available

The first group looked the most organized. This makes sense as they operate on a national level and have a lot more supporters than the other groups. They would most likely be more successful due to the number of people in their interest group.

Environment America Action Fund

Aims to counter the unchecked contributions to pollution made by large scale industries.

They have raised $6,305,336. Of that they have spent $6,076,702, meaning they have $126,921 on hand

They have spent all of their money on Democrats.

A few of their donors are ENVIRONMENT AMERICA, INC WASHINGTON, DC 20003, ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA, INC LOS ANGELES, CA 90010, ENVIRONMENT OREGON, INC PORTLAND, OR 97214, and ENVIRONMENT COLORADO, INC DENVER, CO 80202. This signifies that they are supported on a national level.

0 notes

kwatanabe17ahs-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Political Party Action

GOP

A. The Republican party does not think that the federal government should be in charge of controlling the waters of state waters, groundwater, or watersheds; which basically covers every body of water in the USA except for the ocean. The Republican party is also interested in dismantling Waters of the United States (WOTUS), as they are not pleased with their decision to micromanage bodies of water across the USA. The Republican party seems to generally be displeased with the current environmental state, as they said that “agriculture has suffered through eight years of the Democrats’ regulatory juggernaut”.

B. I do not agree with their position. I feel that not micromanaging water would lead to terrible results as the massive output of trash Americans naturally produce from living can regularly contaminate the water necessary for us and other animals. I also believe that states managing their own water would result in arguments over who is tasked with which body of water. Additionally, having different water regulatory laws across states would cause some states to be healthier than others, which will lead to an unbalance in health amongst Americans.

Democrats

A. Democrats do not just want to maintain America’s water protection, they want to expand it. On the Democratic Party’s official website, they state that “Democrats will work to establish an American Parks Trust Fund to help expand local, state, and national recreational opportunities, rehabilitate existing parks, and enhance America's great outdoors—from our forests and coasts to neighborhood parks—so ‘America’s Best Idea’ is held in trust for future generations, and all Americans can access and enjoy natural spaces”.

B. I like the Democratic Party’s plan because it involves protecting the water systems of the United States. The environment is currently a very important thing to keep in mind when moving forward with technology because it is a limited resource that may never come back if we damage it without being careful.

Libertarian

A. It is unknown whether the Libertarian party intends to do something about water pollution because it does not explicitly state if they have a plan of action. That being said, they acknowledge that the environment must be kept healthy and the government has not done a good job of improving the environment in the past, so it can be assumed that they will take some sort of action for it.

B. Assuming that they support the reduction of water pollution, I agree with their effort to stop it. I can’t give a deep explanation as to why, however, because there is no information on how they intend to do this.

Green

A. The Green Party, as it can be assumed, is heavily involved in solving water pollution. They believe that it should be everyone’s duty to help create clean water, and provide it to everyone. Their ideology is that the ecosystem and environmental friendliness comes first before anything else. They also feel that it is the public's’ right to know about the current state of water, and that the privatization of water by the US Government should be banned. The Green Party’s end goal is to create a lasting solution to clean water conservation, to which everyone would be able to contribute to.

B. I agree with The Green Party’s desires and end goal, but I think that the way they plan to do it would be a bit too much. Taking away that much power from the government to monitor the environment could backfire by creating an unbalance in other aspects of government such as the economy. This could in turn damage the environment even more. What I believe is the best is for the government and organizations work together to create a lasting solution for water conservation and the environment, not just put it in the hands of one.

Peace and Freedom

A. The Peace and Freedom party believes that socialism is the key to maintaining a healthy environment, and thus a healthy state of water within the US. Additionally, they value urban planning that will help conserve the environment, and making environmental health a priority when trading with foreign countries.

B. Although I like their methods of conserving the environment, I do not completely agree with them because I do not think socialism is the key to environmental conservation.

C. I agree with the democrats the most because they seem to be considering both water pollution, and other factors of the country that need to be maintained. This implies that Democrats are aware of water pollution, but also the consequences of putting too much focus into solving the problem or changing the country’s system of government. This is not too surprising as I was expecting myself, a resident of California, to lean towards the Democrats. If the next president will actually stay true to what the party says their standpoint is about water pollution and environmental conservation, then I will vote for them. If not, I will have to assess them a bit more.

1 note · View note

kwatanabe17ahs-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Executive Action Assessment of Issue

President Trump is clearly against water pollution. In the second paragraph of “An America First Energy Plan”, it states that “President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule”. The Waters of The US is the nickname for the Clean Water Rule of 2015. The program ensures that water banks that flowing bodies that are essential to clean drinking water and animal habitats are protected, existing exemptions from the previous Clean Water Rule are carried over, water is no longer judged by a case to case basis, and that watersheds that have been shown to impact downstream water health are protected. Eliminating this rule would have a large impact to the environment and the quality of drinking water amongst Americans, showing that Trump cares little about the health of water for both the ecosystem and the citizens.

I obviously disagree with his position because I would like to see the quality of water increase over the years. Trump’s decision to get rid of the act does the complete opposite, so I do not agree with his position.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

The home page states that the EPA’s mission “is to lead EPA in a way that our future generations inherit a better and healthier environment”. This relates to my issue because the improving the environment means improving water conditions, though whether or not the EPA will stand by their word is another issue.

The EPA Facility Stormwater Management seems to be the only program that has to do with improving the quality of water. The program aims to "reduce runoff and improve water quality by implementing stormwater management at its facilities". Once more water is collected by stormdrane, the water will be purified and sent to aquifers or streams and other bodies of water. The goal is that these storm drains will help create reusable clean water as well as improve the health of water in the ecosystem.

I am displeased with the president because he feels that water pollution is an unnecessary issue, but am glad that the EPA is still making somewhat of an effort to improve the situation. I am afraid that Trump’s decision to defund programs like the EPA will further his stance on water pollution, and will cause the USA to pollute the water even more.

S- Cleaning the waters in The Great South Bay near Long Island

A- Lisa W. Foderado

C- The Great South Bay has long been polluted due to outdated pipe infrastructure, and the content leaking out of some of those pipes. This affects the wildlife in not only the immediate area but the bodies of water that connect to it. Suffolk Company and other local companies in NewYork are hoping to update the piping using the Clean Water Infrastructure Act, which “allocates $2.5 Billion to a variety of projects, as concerns about the safety of drinking water are growing”.

A- The most relevant audience would be the residents of Long Beach, but it is applicable to anyone trying to learn about water pollution.

P- There actually seems to be no bias on here as the author only states data on past cases of water in the area, and the process on how to get the Clean Water Infrastructure Act into action.

S- The significance of the article is that people will be able to learn more about the steps that are being taken to help improve the condition of water in the United States of America.

1 note · View note

kwatanabe17ahs-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Blog Post #5

Desaulnier

Desaulnier believes that water pollution is a very important issue right now because there are many corporations that do not care about the effect they make on the health and safety of Americans in the long run. This means that they are putting the cleanliness of air and water at just as much risk.

Desaulnier has created the Search for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome act to prevent corporations from creating excess waste

Harris

Harris believes that cleaning polluted water is important, and is very concerned about the fact that EPA cuts may prevent the state of California from enforcing its own motor vehicle pollution regulations that lessen the pollution in the air and water.

Harris has not recently sponsored any bills regarding water pollution.

Feinstein

Feinstein has always been a supporter of lessening water pollution, and she continues to hold that stance today.

Recently, she has recently sponsored “A BILL To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a grant program to support the restoration of San Francisco Bay.”

There are at least 70 bills pertaining to water pollution

Bill #3582

The Bill grants a federal trust fund to help replace and repair outdated, or damaged wastewater treatment facilities.

It impacts funding solutions for clean water infrastructures.

I would vote Yea because I believe that this will provoke more people to vote for programs that will improve the condition of water in the United States.

It originated in the House, but has not been reviewed by either house. It is currently waiting to be voted on.

I am glad that this bill exists but am disappointed because it was introduced on November 20th of 2013 and still has not been reviewed.

1 note · View note

kwatanabe17ahs-blog · 8 years ago

Text

a. Senator Glazer believes that water pollution is a serious problem that should be dealt with, and has shown that he means it by taking appropriate action. Some of such actions include supporting programs that ban microbeads, which can cause water pollution; and voting to increase pipeline biogas to decrease short term pollutants to the environment. I emailed Catherine Baker, but haven't yet received a reply.

b. I agree with their position because I am against the polluting of water, and they are as well.

c. Catherine Baker passed a bill known as the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, which aims to reduce pollution of oil, and improve air quality. Although this does not directly help solve water pollution, the reduction of oil will have a clear effect on our water as well.

d. I am currently waiting for Catherine Baker’s response.

==============================================================

a. The Bill number is No. 1605

b. It was introduced on February 17, 2017

c. The last usage of this bill was on April 5th of 2017 in San Bernardino, to discuss water finance.

d. I agree with this bill and would like my representatives to support it because it aims to decrease the effect of water pollution to the environment, and aims to keep existing water pollution from spreading.

==============================================================

S- The EPA’s first steps and what it has done

A- The author is Mary Anne Hitt

C- THe context of the article states how the EPA is trying to roll back the standards for the biggest source of water pollution in the country: Coal Fired Power Plants. These power plants not only cause massive amounts of air and water pollution, but can also serious health problems because of the chemicals within the burned coal. However, a polluter lobby group has petitioned to get the standard reviewed, so there is still some hope.

A- The intended audience is all residents of the USA

P- There is of course, always a bias. However once again, the article is mainly factual with little analysis, so the bias is not that significant.

S- The significance of the article is that it can inform the public as to what the EPA is doing and the potential dangers of it's decisions. This allows the people to decide what to do and take action.

1 note · View note

kwatanabe17ahs-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Blog Post #3 (SACAPS)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/climate/trump-epa-budget-cuts.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&_r=0

S- How Trump’s EPA cuts affect the environment and people.

A- Hiroko Tabuchi from the New York Times.

C- The Context of the article describes how Trump’s decision to cut EPA funding, various problems such as Tap water contamination, pollution control, and Climate Protection cannot be solved. My particular interest lies in Water pollution. The article states that the EPA cuts causes programs designed to clean up toxic pollution, combat invasive species, and prevent runoff, from large bodies of water will be underfunded. These bodies of water include Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, South Florida, and the Great Lakes.

A-The intended audience is people concerned about the environment, and people who want to learn more about how Trump’s policies will start to affect the country. However, this article should be intended for everyone in the USA. The contamination of tap water affects everyone who owns a faucet in the USA, and the other programs that will be underfunded will also cause people to suffer.

P- The quote “even Republican lawmakers are expected to push back.” (Tabuchi 1), suggests that the author is democratic, and perhaps liberal. However, the article is completely factual and there is no analysis, so the bias in this article should not be that prominent.

S- The significance of this article is that it allows a large amount of people to learn more closely about how the EPA cuts will affect them on a personal level, as well as how it will affect the local ecosystem, national ecosystem, and the international ecosystem.

1 note · View note

kwatanabe17ahs-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Blog Post #3

1. Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann

2. 2013

3. Tarrant Regional Water District (Tarrant) is in charge of distributing water to North-Central Texas, and has been allowed to negotiate water allocation from the Red River with Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma under the Red River Compact, which was signed in 1980.

In 2007, Tarrant applied to the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) to take water from three location in Oklahoma, and use it in Texas. On November 1st of 2007, Tarrant sued OWRB and sought Declaratory and Injunctive relief about Oklahoma’s statutes on water usage. Tarrant argued that OWRB’s statutes were a burden on interstate water commerce, and was unconstitutional under the Red River compact because it overstepped the bounds of what the states were allowed to do.

4. The constitutional issue is if the Red River Compact was a congressional act that suggested states are allowed to break laws regarding interstate commerce of water, and if the Compact preempts the restriction of water to states.

5. If this case was to relate to a part of the constitution, it would be article IV, which talks about the relationship between states and the relationship between states and the federal government.

6. The decision was unanimously voted no on both questions.

7. The precedent set by this court case is that Compact approved and created in the future are well aware of state borders, and respects them. Thus, further Compacts created cannot be tried in supreme court as they would be deemed constitutional, and not violating the commerce clause.

8. I agree with the supreme court’s decision as any other viewing of compacts would confuse the authority of state laws and the rules of the compacts. By assuring that they are constitutional, it sets a clear rule as to what laws to abide by.

2 notes · View notes

kwatanabe17ahs-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Blog Post #2

Alright, this blog post is going to be about the people who are affected by water pollution and what we can and will need to do to fix it.

There might eventually be some people who have nothing to do with my school project and just want to learn about water pollution, so I’ll try to keep my posts in a casual tone.

1. Who are the people affected by water pollution and in what way?

Everyone, including animals, are affected by water pollution because of a really fundamental idea: animals need water to survive, and thus they will be affected by it if it is not clean.

Individual humans are affected by water pollution. if we consume fish or other animals that have directly been exposed to water pollution. This will cause us to become ill and use a lot of money towards medication, or they could even just die.

Businesses are also affected by water pollution. If water in the nearby area is polluted, businesses who are in charge of cleaning water will have to invest a lot more of make sure water is drinkable. Local farms and agricultural businesses are also affected by water pollution because it can contaminate their products, and set them back financially.

Even the government is affected by water pollution, because the government is in charge of making sure the general population is safe, which would include making sure they are healthy. Programs designed to clean water would increase, and the government would have to spend more money towards the issue.

Finally, animals are affected by water pollution more than anyone else because they have no means of cleansing their own water. Unless animals are related to humans in a way that will ensure their health, they have no way of dealing with polluted water. This will cause certain species to die and will create an unbalance in the ecosystem and the food chain. If this happens, it is hard to tell what the effects will be and humans may suffer as well.

2. Is the resolution towards water pollution a necessity or a luxury?

Clean water is necessary for all humans, and most animals, to live which makes it absolutely vital towards our survival. The pyramid below represents the needs of a human, and the needs turn to wants as the pyramid goes up. In order to move up in the pyramid, the bottom layers must be fulfilled to some degree. You will notice that at the very bottom of the pyramid are absolute needs, and among them is water. This means that without water, humans cannot properly fulfill all other aspects of life, proving that water is an absolute necessity.

3. What goods or services would be necessary to solve water pollution

Solving water pollution on a global scale is very difficult because of the amount of pollution humans produce every year. The most effective way to solving water pollution is for people to focus on small areas individually, and eventually broaden out until those individual areas have cleaned a larger area of the planet.

One of the most effective goods for solving water pollution are Aquatic Macrophytes. These plants grow underwater and are known to drastically improve water conditions, and the wildlife that surrounds it. Aquatic Macrophytes can be laid out in the water to change the chemical environment in the water and in the rhizosphere, the area of soil where chemicals affect the growth of plant life. Aside from that, creating deltas of water and dams to decrease water flow help too because it helps create an environment for people to clean the water or use patches of Aquatic Macrophytes. Physical means of cleaning up trash are nets and trashcans but neither of those have been proven to be effective enough to drastically change anything. Nets are also dangerous to wildlife as they can get caught in the net as well. Finally, there has been an idea to stop giving non-organic fertilizer, but this would be hard to enforce as many farmers prefer to use non-organic for its strength. Source: (http://mit.biology.au.dk/~biohbn/hansbrix/pdf_files/Ambio_1989_100-107.pdf)

4. What factors of production would be necessary to alleviate this issue

Land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship are all necessary for solving water pollution. A good abundance of natural resources to plant and grow macrophytes, and redirect water is necessary. Labor is needed to do such tasks. Capital is needed because machines are necessary to effectively help humans perform labor. Entrepreneurship is necessary because we need knew thinkers to create new methods that will revolutionize aspects of both cleaning water and making sure water doesn’t get anymore polluted.

5. Incentives to clean water

The incentives for solving water pollution are pretty straight forward: People need clean water not only for drinking, but for a safe ecosystem, agricultural uses, and many other purposes.

6. Opportunity costs of clean water

The biggest problem with solving water pollution is money. It takes a large sum of money for both governments and organizations to clean water or make sure it is not littered as much. The second is the immense. The second issue is time. For a problem this big to be solved, the public must not only be well informed about the subject and its solutions, but care enough to do something about it. Most people do not want to do something unless they feel it directly jeopardizes something they care about. Thus, informing people about the potential risks and making them care enough about the consequences of water pollution is another reason why the human population has not started a giant movement to clean all bodies of water.

7. Benefits of such opportunity costs

On the bright side, if these two problems were to somehow be solved, it would be a giant step towards solving water pollution. With more people caring about the condition of water in the world and in their communities, more people will try to do something. This means all four factors of production necessary to solve water pollution will be fulfilled and internationally clean water will become much more of a reality.

8. Businesses that profit from this issue

Ironically, businesses that profit the most from water pollution are water cleaning companies. Water cleaning companies can clean dirty water and channel it to agricultural businesses or other businesses that require clean water.

9. Businesses that profit from the solution

Businesses that profit from this solution are businesses that need clean water to maintain business such as farmers, fishers, and electric factories. Aside from that, clean water also provides clean environments for animals, which helps out nature reserves and animal protection businesses.

10. Is water pollution a result of an externality?

Yes, water pollution is largely caused from waste products flowing into bodies of water from factories and businesses. For example, pesticides and toxic chemicals can flow from farms when the farmers use weed killers. Additionally, oil companies can cause water pollution when unused resources flow into bodies of water. However, the biggest externality is us individuals. Our daily lives contribute to water pollution because we throw away things every day. People who litter can contribute to water pollution, but so can those who properly throw away trash because that trash can eventually become landfill, which has the potential to decompose into a body of water. This is why water pollution is such a difficult problem to solve, because there is no effective way to stop it completely.

11. Can the government help solve water pollution using government subsidies or transfer payments?

To some degree, the government can help. As mentioned before, it is very difficult to solve water pollution. However, using subsidies to hire more workers, and transfer payments to realize the means of fixing water pollution can be a great help towards reducing water pollution levles.

12. Chart on water usage

This is a chart by the United States Geological Survey team describing water usage from 1995 to 2010. The graph describes how much water was taken from over ground and underground, and the total. We can use this information to see how effectively water was conserved, and how much clean water was drawn by looking at the amount of water drawn underground. The more water drawn underground, the more water was not clean on the surface as it would need more work to clean. The audience for this data is people wanting to learn about water conservation like us, or government officials who need this information. There is no bias on the information as it is a graph on an official government website.

2 notes · View notes