Nature & Democracy

The collective bargaining struggle is an environmental issue too.

My home community of Madison has become “ground zero” in the struggle for workers’ rights, and the outcome may change the face of our state’s and our nation’s social fabric. A little over a week ago, an environmental colleague referred to the huge response to the impact on unions in the budget bill by saying, “but this is a labor issue.” It didn’t take long, though, for her to realize how much more is at stake, and she and others have added their voices to the tens of thousands of supporters who understand this. It is about the ability to build and sustain a better life for everyone.  It is about the kind of people we want to be and the society we want to live in.

Public servants are the front line of environmental protection and public safety. These are the people who review and make tough decisions on pollution permits. They sample and test our water to determine whether it is safe to drink. They enforce the laws that reduce the threat of a child dying from an asthma attack or hazardous waste from seeping into your well. They manage and run sewage treatment plants and oversee projects to get toxic contaminants out of our harbors. They protect wildlife from poachers and harassers, try to keep invasive species from wiping out our fisheries, and operate and care for our public parks and wildlife refuges. They protect our health, the quality of the very air we breathe, and more broadly, the quality of our lives. And those are just the obvious jobs. 

Many of them take a lot of heat for simply doing their jobs and enforcing the law. Some of them get pressured to let things slide, or to overlook a permit standard, or ignore a violation. It’s relatively easy to threaten and intimidate a nonunion employee who stands alone under such pressures. Union employees, on the other hand, have rights, and they have used them to stand up for you and me and the law.

We want smart, dedicated professionals to do this hard and often thankless work. We want people with experience and a devotion to public service and community protection. If we strip the right to bargain collectively from these and other public servants, we’re heading down the slope of devaluing this work and the people who perform it. And, we’re joining the race to the bottom for all workers’ rights.

Many of the states with the deepest union tradition also have some of the strongest environmental protection laws in the country. This isn’t surprising because, even though we sometimes disagree, both movements share many common values:  We aspire to a live a life of dignity and safety, to give the basics of the good life to our families, and to ensure a better life for our kids.  We seek to prevent victimization and to safeguard the rights of those who do not have a voice on their own in the presence of oppressive, dangerous, or insensitive power. We are motivated by the dignity and quality of the human experience and aspiration for a better world.

No human institution or movement is without its flaws. But to relegate the labor movement to the dust heap of history, to treat it as antiquated or no longer serving a useful public purpose, is expeditiously naïve.  Millions of workers have no health care benefits, and the tragic stories of suffering, financial ruin and unnecessary deaths are all too common. The disparity between rich and poor is growing rapidly. The middle class is losing its footing and yet it is that slice of our society that gets slapped for “over reaching.”  This is not social progress for a nation that wants to continue to be a global leader. 

States that do not value their public workers are not likely to value environmental protection either.  True, quality workers and a safe environment come with costs. And yes, everyone’s budget is tight and times are tough. We all get this. So why can’t we talk about revenue and not just cuts? Why can’t we, as a civilized society, sit down and collaborate—including through collective bargaining—to come up with a way forward through which everyone has a voice and everyone shares in the solution? We can choose to chart this difficult path in ways that safeguard the things that have helped make Wisconsin a great place to live and work. Or, we can allow a handful of “leaders” to impose a more rancorous, divisive, and eventually far more costly slash-and-burn strategy through which the losses are likely to be permanent and the winners few. 

At this pivotal moment, let us aspire to greatness during adversity not divisiveness. We need thoughtful wisdom in turbulent times to safeguard our democracy, our families and the environment that sustains all of us. We’re all in this together.

Jane Elder

What's in your negotiation?

The US and Canada are forging ahead with a new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, but not telling us what's on the table.  Here's a Jane Elder short list for things we need to address in the new GLWQA.  What's on your list?

 

1. Content-lite IJC meetings, BEC, LAMPS and RAPS have added to the complexity of the Great Lakes management regime, and have done so without serving to expedite solutions, increase research and knowledge capacity, or more meaningfully engage the public. The waters are very muddy on where the buck stops (sorry about the mixed metaphor) and the relationships to “real” regulatory agencies and jurisdictions. We need simplicity, clarity and transparency of management roles and responsibilities.

 

2. The shift to bi-lateral vs. bi-national-ecosystem approach has left the Great Lakes without a unifying vision and strategy, and without the independent “Lake-centric” advocacy approach previously served us well.

 

3. Dated, if not archaic, institutional missions and approaches for agencies created to respond to the environmental crises of the 1960s and 1970s continue to force a silo approach on multi-media, cross-media, and ecosystem-wide impacts of pollution, hydrology, land management, etc. The Agreement and its implementation strategies could serve to drive new, more realistic ecosystemic approaches if crafted right.

 

4. We have not solved the toxics problem—especially from atmospheric inputs and long-range transport, nor are we conducting the research and developing meaningful strategies to address the tens of thousands of new chemicals in the Great Lakes since 1987.

 

5. The land/water interface seems to have been largely forgotten other than a few high profile green infrastructure projects. High-input and industrial-scale agriculture is a major threat to Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, Saginaw Bay, etc. Forest fragmentation and new mining threats are a major threat to Lake Superior and the upper reaches of Lakes Michigan-Huron. The Agreement must address the landscape-scale issues.  Watershed-scale management is certainly a logical step, as might be "bioregional" strategies, such as the boreal forest watersheds of Lake Superior, etc.

 

6. Climate. Hello!! Terrestrial and bird species redistributions are already happening. Warmer water is already happening. The Great Lakes need a game plan for mitigation and adaptation, and the Agreement should be a central organizing force in articulating scope, goals, objectives, timelines.

 

7. Invasives. Let’s face it. North America needs a new continental game plan. The Agreement could provide the catalyst for this, with recommendations to the Parties, the CEC, etc.  It is Asian carp one day, VHS the next, and there’s no real plan to prevent the next crisis.

 

8. Energy (see climate).  See also the need to re-invent the energy systems in the Great Lakes region, and potential impacts on water quality and ecosystem health, from huge pushes to develop biofuels and potential impacts on landscape and watersheds, to the reappearance of nukes (can you temper your excitement), to wind farms in shoreline and near-shore habitat, to…well, you get the picture.

 

9. Driving sustainability and resilience strategies.  If we can’t shift to sustainable industry, agriculture and transit in the Great Lakes region, how can we expect other major freshwater ecosystem-regions of the world to do it?  We need to figure out ways that these larger strategies get “unfuzzy” and real and pragmatic in terms of urban design, water use and treatment, habitat integration and protection, etc. How can the Agreement serve to reward and incent these types of economic and social goals through its water quality strategies?

 

10. Remember research? Field data? Trends? Inter-disciplinary review? Predictive capacity? Remember how IJC-inspired work helped us figure out Toxaphene? The Agreement must serve as a catalyst for cutting edge investigation and analysis of the Great Lakes ecosystem’s health, vital signs, and prescription for recovery.

 

Now, don’t forget to check the old stuff from the May 2008 postings, some of which is wrapped into my list above.

An American Agenda for Biodiversity, 1.0

What actions could the U.S. undertake to make a really big difference on biodiversity quickly?

 

1. Join the world club. Ratify the UN Convention on Biodiversity and develop the U.S. action plan. Step up and engage in the international community on global biodiversity conservation strategies.

 

2. Deal with climate. Enact a meaningful climate change program. Quickly. Integrate the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity into U.S. strategies for climate change.

 

3. Manage land like a landscape. Develop a large-landscape land-management system for the United States (including public and private land partnerships) with an emphasis on natural systems that can conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem functions and/or help us adapt to climate change

 

4. Fix our food system. Develop a 50-year Farm Bill to restore soil quality (including biodiversity), reduce dependence on chemical inputs, better integrate habitat and carbon sequestration programs into “working landscapes,” and restore diversity in food crops and proximity to food sources.

 

5. Stop pumping toxics into the system. Enforce our pollution laws and bring them up to date with what we know about new chemical inputs and distribution in the environment. Reinvigorate initiatives to reduce global loadings of bioaccumulative toxic pollution, starting with mercury, PCBs and PBDEs.

 

6. Control invasives. Develop a comprehensive national policy to prevent the introduction of invasive species, starting with ballast water controls. Then, invest in the research to determine the best ways to deal with the mess we’ve already got, including biological controls.

 

7. Protect the Oceans. Become a global leader in protecting the marine environment and marine species, tackling overfishing, marine pollution and investing in marine research to understand and respond to climate impacts in the marine environment.

 

8. Educate as though life on earth depended on it. Invest in ecological and sustainability education. Take environmental education out of the “pond water” box (or should I say Mason jar) and build ecological literacy, trans-disciplinary skills and systems thinking into our core education from K through Ph.D.

 

9. Sew the ecological seeds of peace.  Drought, crop failures, hunger and disease foster social instability, exacerbate poverty, and create dangerously fertile conditions for violence, oppression and war. Ecological restoration can improve availability of clean water and food sources, and strengthen the social fabric, all of which contribute to stability and security. Our security depends on greater ecological security throughout the world, and US investments in this arena will benefit life on earth, and earth’s people.

 

10. Improve education and economic opportunity for women in the developing world. These are the perhaps the most powerful tools for stabilizing population and improving health, stability and environmental quality in much of the world.

 

I’d love to see what’s on your top-ten list, and then perhaps we could get together with others who are thinking seriously about this topic and ally our strengths. 

Why we need a US Alliance for Life on Earth

I've been urging organizations and institutions to coalesce in a new alliance for life on earth. Why?

Urgency. Time is not on our side. Extinction is indeed, forever. Action was urgently needed in 1992, and is even more so now, given the rapidly growing impacts of a changing climate.

 

Scaling up. We must act at a significant scale. Isolated snippets of biodiversity conservation aren’t enough. The United States, especially, needs a coordinating body to coalesce complementary efforts into a powerful national strategy.

 

Community. We must galvanize the vast, dispersed community of interest—the scientists, activists, educators, managers, farmers, ranchers, business people, faith leaders, and others—through networks that can garner the resources and focus human capacity at the scale needed.

 

Coordination. Our work can become more efficient, our communications stronger, and our strategies more robust when we work in concert, not in silos.

 

Saliency. Our society is largely unaware of the value and requirements of biodiversity. This is a major barrier to protecting Life on Earth. The public can drive sound policies and lifestyle and consumption choices, but only if they are engaged. Wider audiences must grasp why this crisis is important to our common future.

 

Synergy. Strategies to reverse ecological degradation must go hand in hand with those tackling climate change. The goals are the same: to safeguard the fabric of life on earth. In concert, wise choices will help solve both problems, while disparate approaches may increase threats to biodiversity and ecosystems. Likewise, strategies for economic and social sustainability are directly linked to a healthy environment and robust biodiversity.

 

Timeliness. It is a new era. We can capture the promise of scientific integrity restored and unprecedented opportunities for action to protect the environment. And, we need to capture new opportunities to address the emerging generations’ missing connections to nature.

 

We envision that the Alliance for Life on Earth (ALOE) will act as catalyst, convener, and clearinghouse to:

Shape the development of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (as required under the Convention on Biodiversity) to anchor an American agenda on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation.

 

Build collaborative relationships with other governments, international organizations, and other parties to promote biodiversity and ecosystem conservation internationally.

 

Build and coalesce leadership capacity to pursue these strategies at home and abroad, including among national, state, and local policymakers.

 

Build professional teams and cross-sector partnerships to address core challenges, creating opportunities to collaborate across fields and sectors. 

 

Develop a vigorous public communications campaign and an education strategy to:

- improve ecological literacy among the American public;

- build the next generation of biodiversity and ecological scientists, strategists, and problem solvers;

- motivate and engage public action on biodiversity protection;

- build social networks and information systems to accomplish these goals.

 

The Alliance could help us clarify an American agenda, and perhaps then, our pent-up need to connect with the American people on this topic could really get some traction.  

The Call for a Forum on Nature and Democracy

Designing the Human Capacity to Sustain Earth’s Major Ecosystems

Jane Elder (with contributions from Dave Dempsey and Cynthia Sampson)

Forum on Nature and Democracy May, 2008

Context

Over the last several years many of us have become increasingly concerned about the gap between stresses on the Earth’s ecosystems and the human capacity to respond to the scale of the challenges we face in the early 21st Century. Global warming/climate change and the rapid loss of biodiversity are at the top of that list of stresses, but we also need to consider the impacts of globalization and a human population that will surge well past 6 billion by mid-century.

My recent work on the Presidential Climate Action Plan (www.climateactionplan.com), especially in the areas of natural resources and oceans, has helped me realize that our environmental agencies haven’t been given the resources or the mandate to build the capacity to respond to the changes we are likely to see in the next several decades. Moreover, as the need to respond to natural systems on their own terms increases, we find governance and management systems constrained by historic legal frameworks and institutional silos that carve the management of living systems into often-disconnected pieces.

In 2005, scientists described the Great Lakes ecosystem – the world’s largest concentration of fresh water – as nearing an ecological tipping point after which recovery might not be possible. This warning – close to home and close to my heart – is a call to action if there ever was one.

The challenges of grappling with complex jurisdictions, political will, funding, institutional accountability, scientific capacity and meaningful public involvement are not new in ecosystem management, and they certainly aren’t unique to the Great Lakes.

Our nation needs a new road map to protect biodiversity and sustain ecosystem health in the global warming era. Even the most aggressive low-carbon energy strategy will not mitigate the need for new thinking and new practice in ecosystem protection, given the warming trend already upon us and the spectrum of other environmental stresses we already face.

A Forum on Nature and Democracy

Over the last year I’ve been talking with many colleagues about these challenges, and have proposed that we organize a working group to provide a forum for wider discussion and collaborative work. We see the need for some serious thought and discussion as to how we link these challenges in governance and literacy to the growing body of scientific knowledge that continues to warn us of the fragile state of Earth’s ecological resilience. The outcome of such a dialogue (at least an initial outcome) could be to craft specific recommendations for new strategies in ecosystem governance and management, starting in the U.S., and potentially Canada.  We also see the need to develop pilot projects and identify opportunities for priority response in highly vulnerable ecosystems.

We’re suggesting that a U.S./Canada Forum on Nature and Democracy could serve as a base and a catalyst for a dialogue on these and other challenging questions.

While we will need expertise from diverse fields to explore solutions, we also need the grist of input from experienced people in the broad fields of resource management, as well as elected officials, community leaders, business leaders, etc., because we all have a stake in shaping strategies for how we live on Earth. There’s a wealth of experience in what has worked on the ground, and what hasn’t, that should be part of this consideration. Turning this experience and foresight into tangible reforms that can make a measurable impact on the health of major ecosystems like the Great Lakes (and other systems) must be a priority.

Those of us engaged in these discussions so far recognize this is ambitious, but the actions we take in the next 5-7 years will be among the most important in environmental history, so I’m game for a little wild imagination and bold thinking.

We've posted three short background pieces.

1. The State of Ecosystem Management

2. Key questions for 21st Century Ecosystem Management

3. Barriers to Better Ecosystem Management: Observations from the Great Lakes.

We invite your feedback.

Barriers to better ecosystem management: Great Lakes Observations

Barriers to better ecosystem management: Great Lakes Observations

• The complexity of the decision-making regime (layered across multiple jurisdictions, borders and agencies).  This muddies the waters on where bucks stop (if we ever get the bucks in the first place) and leads to a lack of clarity on management roles and responsibilities;
• Erosion of the effectiveness and political will of federal enforcement agencies such as EPA, coupled with severe financial constraints and repeated budget and program cuts in state enforcement agencies, which translates into further erosion of enforcement capacity;
• Similarly, there is less capacity and less of an independent, “bi-national” voice within the International Joint Commission, reducing its credibility and effectiveness as an independent body to address the issues of U.S./Canada boundary waters;
• There is a lack of accountability by the U.S. and Canadafor failing to meet objectives under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
• An erosion of cutting edge research and scientific analysis capacity, including monitoring and surveillance;
• Lack of political will in Congress to address long-standing issues that require public funding and new regulation, from enforcement of the Clean Water act, to modernizing sewage infrastructure, to serious strategies for managing invasive species.
• Dated if not archaic institutional missions and approaches for agencies created to respond to the environmental crises of the 1960s and 1970s whose approach and mandate needs revisiting;
• Related to the above, a disconnect between a relatively strong public desire for Great Lakes conservation and the capacity of the institutions to invite, absorb, respond to and capitalize on that interest and passion through action.

Key questions for 21st Century ecosystem management

• How do we implement ecosystem-scale policy, while respecting and making best use of the roles and responsibilities of the multiple levels of jurisdictions with legal authority in a bi-national region?
• How do we create efficiency and streamline complexity across multiple programs, while protecting unique fields of expertise, institutional memory, local responsiveness, etc., that the diverse programs bring to management, research and regulation?
• How do we support effective solutions that deal with the needs of specific places (e.g. communities, watersheds, key wetlands, shorelines) while also developing solutions and responses to impacts from the global commons – such as climate change, atmospheric deposition of toxic pollutants, etc.?
• To reduce and eliminate pollution, how do we strike a balance between permit-based regulation and newer approaches that rely on incentives, consent decrees and other planned prevention approaches? What is effective under which circumstances, and is there an optimal mix of approaches? How do we take steps toward maximum reduction of pollution instead of assuming that pollution is just part of business as usual?
• How do we establish equitable and ecologically sound management of natural resources? What about consumptive uses?
• How do we create democratic and inclusive systems that engage a broad public spectrum in decision-making, and also engage the best expertise of leaders in science, environment, health and business?
• As global warming further changes the biosphere and has dramatic impacts on world fresh water supplies, how do we design regulatory and management systems that can best safeguard freshwater resources and other critical ecosystem functions?

The State of Ecosystem Management

1. While governments and individuals have risen to address specific crises (such as nutrient pollution in the 1960s), strategies to maintain and support overall ecological health have been less successful.

2. The “silo” approach to environmental management (e.g., toxics in one division of one agency, and fisheries health in another division of another agency) has carved “whole” systems into artificial pieces, driving management to treat isolated symptoms instead of root causes and systemic health and resilience.

3. Short-term funding cycles and complex layers of governing authority make bold and long-term action very difficult.

4. The success of agendas by some interests to persuade the public that “government is bad” and arguably that the civil service system itself is bad, has succeeded in starving agencies of resources and talent. Leadership and professional capacity for environmental protection in public agencies has atrophied over the last two decades, and we expect to see record turnover in agency leadership as a generation of “boomer bureaucrats” heads into retirement. The shrinking value of public service, even if only a perception, is robbing the public of institutional memory, mission-driven leadership, and bold strategies.

5. Our public education systems have not succeeded in substantially raising adult literacy on key ecological concepts and principles, and thus our human dependence on healthy, functioning ecosystems is neither well understood nor appreciated. Higher education, with its emphasis on reductionism, has also failed to develop broader expertise in ecological systems thinking, environmental ethics, and the social and cultural aspects of environmental problem solving.

6. Our cultural values and social priorities have placed concern for the environment in the second tier of public issues, and the public still largely views these as issues for experts to solve. Moreover, environmental policies are often viewed in isolation, and not in the context of economic and political security, conflict resolution, health, and overall human-well-being.

7. Many citizens feel as though their capacity to shape government decisions is limited in the face of powerful special interests. While voices for the environment are beginning to reframe and re-shape communications strategies, reversing these attitudes will take time and concerted effort.

As a result of all of these things, short-term gains are not adding up to long-term success. The need to envision strategies that transcend these barriers have never been greater, or more urgent.