1. Full citation. Vogel, David. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton [N.J.: Princeton UP, 2012. Print.
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials? David Vogel is professor at the Haas School of Business and in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility.
3. What are the topics of the text?
This chapter is about the discontinuity in health, safety, and environmental risk regulations that took place on both sides of the Atlantic after around 1990
4. What is the main argument of the text?
This chapter focuses on changes in public opinion, specifically the public's risk perceptions, and the preferences of influential policy makers - bipartisan polarization, media involvement, and economic downturns lowered the public's concern for the environment.
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
Al Gore placed little emphasis on the environment during his 2000 presidential election campaign because public polls revealed that Americans did not think risk regulations were an important priority then
In contrast to the United States, public urgency about environmental problems remained high in Europe - mad cow disease (UK), blood contamination (France), chemical spills, nuclear power plant accident, etc
Bush administration - used executive authority to weaken new rules proposed by regulatory agencies - new rules had to be justified with a stringent cost-benefit analysis. This led to slowing down or reversing stringent risk regulations. The result was a highly politicized form of administration in which the political interests of the president and his supporters frequently overrode the scientific and technical advice of the bureaucracy (EU did the opposite and passed more stringent regulations than what was advised)
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
Rather than being able to devote its limited political resources to bring new risks to the public's attention, it was now forced to employ its political capital to maintain the regulatory status quo. (p 230)
In a further sign of the declining salience of environmental issues among the American electorate, Democratic Vice President Albert Gore, not withstanding his long-standing personal support for government to play a more active role in addressing environmental risks, especially global climate change, chose to place little emphasis on environmental concerns in his 2000 presidential campaign. This decision presumably reflected public opinion polls that revealed that while Americans continued to be "environmentally friendly," the enactment of new risk regulations was not an important priority of the electorate.(p 232)
Republican control of the House of Representatives following 2010 midterm elections has made the passage of more stringent consumer or environmental legislation even less likely during the remainder of Obama's first term. (p 235)
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
What would happen if environmental risk and precaution was not allowed to be affected by political interests? What are the pros and cons of such a system?
What stopped more legislation from being passed or considered after the BP Oil Spill? -> Doesn't this count as an environmental event that could have sparked more stringent regulations, like in the EU?
What would it take, besides specific environmentally damaging events, for risk regulation to be a higher priority to the American public?
8. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your perspective on environmental risk and precaution? (Provide citations, with a brief explanation of what you learned. One of these should be fully annotated, as your second required reading for each week.)
Peter Baker, "A Greener Bush?" Washington Post National Weekly Edition (January 7-13, 2008): 10-11.
It is possible for political conservatives to care for the environment - it depends on context and communication delivery, as well as business interests.
Riley Dunlap, "The State of Environmentalism in the US," Gallup Poll News Service, April 16, 2007.
The environmental movement in the United States appears to have experienced hard times in recent years - signed Kyoto protocol but not ratified, but it is not yet dead.
Giandomenico, Majone. "Regulating Europe", Chapter four. Routledge, London and New York, 1996
If the EU did not exist, it is much less likely that a significant transatlantic shift in regulatory stringency would have occurred.
Notes
This chapter is about the discontinuity in health, safety, and environmental risk regulations that took place on both sides of the Atlantic after around 1990
This chapter focuses on changes in public opinion, specifically the public's risk perceptions, and the preferences of influential policy makers
Clean Air Act amendments, Oil Pollution Act, and the Pollution Prevention Act - last of consumer and environmental risk regulation in the US - but marked the beginning of a steady expansion in the adoption of more stringent risk regulations in Europe
USA: public attention to and awareness of these problems were reflected and reinforced by substantial media coverage
HW Bush got pressured by businesses and his own party, especially in the economic downturn so he reversed his stance on environmental regulations - this ended bipartisan cooperation
Clinton's environmental policies were rejected by Congress at every turn
Rather than being able to devote its limited political resources to bring new risks to the public's attention, it was now forced to employ its political capital to maintain the regulatory status quo. (p 230)
1. Full citation.
Vogel, David. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton [N.J.: Princeton UP, 2012. Print.
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials?
David Vogel is professor at the Haas School of Business and in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility.
3. What are the topics of the text?
This chapter is about the discontinuity in health, safety, and environmental risk regulations that took place on both sides of the Atlantic after around 1990
4. What is the main argument of the text?
This chapter focuses on changes in public opinion, specifically the public's risk perceptions, and the preferences of influential policy makers - bipartisan polarization, media involvement, and economic downturns lowered the public's concern for the environment.
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
8. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your perspective on environmental risk and precaution? (Provide citations, with a brief explanation of what you learned. One of these should be fully annotated, as your second required reading for each week.)
- Peter Baker, "A Greener Bush?" Washington Post National Weekly Edition (January 7-13, 2008): 10-11.
- Riley Dunlap, "The State of Environmentalism in the US," Gallup Poll News Service, April 16, 2007.
- Giandomenico, Majone. "Regulating Europe", Chapter four. Routledge, London and New York, 1996
NotesIt is possible for political conservatives to care for the environment - it depends on context and communication delivery, as well as business interests.
The environmental movement in the United States appears to have experienced hard times in recent years - signed Kyoto protocol but not ratified, but it is not yet dead.
If the EU did not exist, it is much less likely that a significant transatlantic shift in regulatory stringency would have occurred.
This chapter is about the discontinuity in health, safety, and environmental risk regulations that took place on both sides of the Atlantic after around 1990
This chapter focuses on changes in public opinion, specifically the public's risk perceptions, and the preferences of influential policy makers
Clean Air Act amendments, Oil Pollution Act, and the Pollution Prevention Act - last of consumer and environmental risk regulation in the US - but marked the beginning of a steady expansion in the adoption of more stringent risk regulations in Europe
USA: public attention to and awareness of these problems were reflected and reinforced by substantial media coverage
HW Bush got pressured by businesses and his own party, especially in the economic downturn so he reversed his stance on environmental regulations - this ended bipartisan cooperation
Clinton's environmental policies were rejected by Congress at every turn
Rather than being able to devote its limited political resources to bring new risks to the public's attention, it was now forced to employ its political capital to maintain the regulatory status quo. (p 230)