Thursday, February 28, 2013

Contentions with SB78 and policy recommendations

Waterloo Recreation Area in Pinkney, MI 2010
Photograph by Ian Tran
[The views presented here do not necessarily reflect those of the Student Environmental Association at The University of Michigan-Dearborn]

Honorable Governor Snyder and Honorable Senators of the Michigan State House:

I provided ecological economic advisory for the City of Dearborn’s sustainability master plan and was nominated subsequently for the Dearborn Mayor’s Environmental Commission in 2010.  I remain an ardent proponent for examining issues by their existing and potential consequences they have on people affected by the intermingling of social, economic, and environmental challenges.  I’m a realist rather than an environmentalist.  I oppose and urge you to oppose SB78, which strives to amend the Michigan Natural resources and environmental protection act, for the following reasons.

Summary of contentions:
1) SB78 would create uncertain and ambiguous risks to the state, businesses, and citizen taxpayers
2) Economic and scientific research provide compelling if not clear reason for environmental conservation
3) Underutilized or unconsidered alternative consensus processes exist for sound risk governance, programming, and policy solutions to ensure benefit for all stakeholders

1)  Removing regulatory capacity for conservation from state agencies create ambiguous risks which can negatively impact the state, local businesses, and citizen taxpayers in the long-run

The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) categorizes uncertain and ambiguous risk [0] as follows:
Uncertainty refers to a lack of clarity or quality of the scientific or technical
data.
Ambiguity results from divergent or contested perspectives on the justification,
severity or wider meanings associated with a given threat.
SB78 facilitates uncertain risk because we lack proper baseline data for accurately recognizing state-level benefits of biodiversity and conservation management, yet the legislation seeks to reduce the state’s ability to maintain and manage the areas crucial for data collection and analysis.  We also have few guarantees that unforeseen consequences of resource extraction (i.e. natural gas, shale oil) will have proper and thorough remedial response.  Many of those who testified to the committee or submitted comments presented perspectives that contested the nature and potential repercussions of SB78; these perspectives exemplify both the ambiguity and uncertainty associated with this bill.  The legacy of negative consequences from disastrous events remain real risks for the Michigan citizen from an economic and environmental health perspective.[1]  Furthermore, the state remains unprepared to thoroughly mitigate these disasters.[2]  DNRE policies and programs regarding our natural resources may require further clarification; however, removing the DNRE’s regulatory capacity is certainly excessive.

The typical citizen would rarely take issue with an individual, business, or government that strives to save money for the sake of the people's current and future well-being. Doing conservation for the sake of appropriate, ecologically informed biodiversity and long-term economic security ought to do the same.  In this sense, conservation facilitates opportunity through discipline. In other words, conservation remains a proper priority in fiscal and environmental matters alike, even if we cannot (and ought not) assume everything we live with can be approximated to a dollar value.

The principles for the origins of conservativism are shared between political, economic, and environmental practice: we conserve to know that we may live well now, and ensure that others may live well in the future. Everyone can agree with true conservative principles regardless of political background.  Conservation management looks to foster well-being for us and for things beyond our own species; the ability to exercise proper stewardship of the land we live with does not detract from our own well-being but rather supports it.

2) Economic and scientific research provide compelling if not clear reasons for environmental conservation

The bill misses an important nuance of the environmental-economic issue at hand: the two aren't necessarily opposed to one another.  Economic studies of states with sound environmental policy demonstrate [1]:
      The impacts of new environmental regulations are small if not negligible
      Had greater rates of job growth
      Had lower rates of business failure
      Foster a resilient economy
The economic benefits of biological conservation outweigh the costs, even under consideration for forestry, agriculture, tourism, hunting, etc.  [i.e. 2, 3, 4, 5].
Scientific and economic research demonstrates findings which stand opposed to the revised language proposed in SB78:  economic forces, spurred by intentional human actions, drive extinctions and environmental degradation [2].  In SB78, the bill's revisions would turn away from vigorously established science and economics at the expense of the people's and state's ability to ensure long-term social, economic, and environmental well-being.  The concepts conveyed by the Michigan Environmental Council and Dr. Burton Barnes are sound and commonly found in the theory and practices utilized by undergraduates and professional practitioners of the environmental field such as those in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment alike.

3) Underutilized or unconsidered alternative consensus processes exist for sound risk governance, programming, and policy solutions to ensure benefit for all stakeholders

Based on my independent assessment of testimonies submitted on the 14th of February, and the ambiguity inducing risks which arise from the possible root intentions for SB78, I suggest utilizing consensus processes to harness comprehensive stakeholder ownership of policy and programmatic decisions as a preliminary alternative to this legislation.

While I oppose the bill, it has summoned precious information that’s crucial to making Michigan a more resilient state in its policy, economy, and environment.  Companies like Louisiana-Pacific clearly demonstrate valid requests for better policy and programmatic outcomes that can work for them.  While these companies do not comprehensively represent Michigan’s citizen base and the state’s economy, their possible needs are worthy of consideration and can carry very real consequences for the people and communities they may employ.  The Feb. 14 and 21 testimonies of the Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) offered assistance to the Senate committee to review, clarify, and consider revisions to improve proposed BSA/Living Legacy programs.  While I support the MEC’s motion and affirm the insight, I believe the diversity of perspectives found in the testimonies of the bill should be put to a collaborative workgroup to explore and resolve the concerns raised by existing and potential environmental policy and programs.  Organizations such as The Engineering Society of Detroit Institute (ESDI) can help facilitate strategic solutions-oriented dialog and actions.[3]

As the potential impacts of the language found in this bill risks compromising aspects of Michigan’s social, economic, and environmental well-being, I strongly encourage you to halt its immediate passage. Instead, both supporters and opponents of this bill should view this as an opportunity to bring the many organizations, corporations, and individuals that may be impacted by its passage together to develop a robust and coherent environmental policy.  In doing so, we can foster authentic and exemplary outcomes for a civil and sensible Michigan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ian D. Tran
---

B.S. Environmental Science, Political Science Minor
Class of 2012
The University of Michigan-Dearborn


[0] IRGC, 2005 “An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework”
http://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/An_introduction_to_the_IRGC_Risk_Governance_Framework.pdf
Additionally, see: IRGC, 2005 “White Paper on Risk Governance, towards an integrative approach” for strategies
[1]  Meyer, S. "The Economic Impact of Environmental Regulation" MIT Press
[2]  IUCN, 1994 “The economic value of biodiversity” The World Conservation Union
[3]  Pimentel et al.,1997 “Economic and Environmental Benefits of Biodiversity” BioScience
[4]  Naidoo & Adamowicz 2005 “Economic benefits of biodiversity exceed costs of conservation at an African rainforest reserve”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of America
[5]  For more, see “Economic Benefits of Biodiversity” page of the Conservation Tools website



[1] For example, the record of remediation and response from the industry remains poor. i.e. the Enbridge Oil spill in Marshall, MI.  While we may have a history of safe mining operations underway in various parts of Michigan, we also have the toxic remnants of mining operations from times even in the recent past--the Upper Peninsula underwent acid mine pollution (water turns to sulfuric acid), and heavy metal (particularly selenium) contamination. Taxpayers shoulder the burden of these events. 
[2] According to reports and first-hand accounts from peers who work in the field of remediation for the environmental clean-up industry, the cleanup efforts enacted by the government and contracted firms remain insufficient either due to insufficient State funds, or due to the nature of our economic system, environmental consulting firms foremost vested in making profitable but not necessarily thorough clean-up.  Yet well maintained environments can help remediate up to 75% (by weight) of chemical pollution [5].
[3]  Full disclosure: I worked with the ESDI in the past and cite them because it’s the only entity in the state I know of with keen experience in facilitating complex technical initiatives.  The Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion may be a valuable facilitator for delicate dialogs, but I’m unfamiliar with their actions.