Overview

This course is the final segment in the honors environmental track, and is designed to introduce students to the intricacies and controversies of contemporary environmental politics and policy-makings. Due to the nature of contemporary environmental policy, the materials will include questions of law, science, ethics, and economics.

Key issues for this course are:

Ø What are the proper goals and priorities of environmental policy?

Ø How should environmental priorities be determined?

Ø What are the proper or most effective means to achieve environmental goals?

(Are the most proper and most effective means the same?)

Ø How should environmental policy measures be selected and implemented?

Ø How well do existing environmental policies meet these criteria?

(Are current laws too lax or too strict? Are they suitably efficient and equitable? Are the focused on the proper environmental goals?)

Ø How should environmental policy be conducted and developed in the future?

An effort has been made to cover a wide range of material on environmental politics and policy from a wide range of perspectives. This material will be supplemented by occasional guest lectures by individuals who work in the environmental field. Given the breadth of environmental policy debates and the time limitations of this course, however, there are many important issues which will not be discussed.

Assignments

Assignments for this class include weekly readings, three short papers based upon the reading, and a long research paper which students will be expected to present to the class. Tentative reading assignments are outlined on the following pages. There will be no final exam.

Readings

The weekly readings for this course cover a wide range of material and points of view. It is important that students consider each of the perspectives presented, both their strengths and witnesses. Students will be expected to read the assigned material prior to class and be prepared to discuss them. Class participation will have a significant impact on final grades.

Reaction Papers

Each student will be expected to submit three short (4-5 page, double-spaced) papers responding to the reading assignments. Each paper should analyze and address one of the issues raised in the reading assigned for the week in which the paper is submitted. These papers are not book reports or summaries of the material. Rather, they should identify an issue in dispute or with which the student has strong feelings, and analyze that issue. No outside research is required for the reaction papers.

Each student may select which three weeks they wish to write their papers, but the paper for each subject is due at the beginning of the class at which that material was assigned. (In other words, the paper must be submitted before the material to which it responds is discussed in class.)

These papers will be graded on their thoughtfulness and engagement with the material. They are intended to force students to assess material and develop preliminary concerns or conclusions about the material in a short time period, as is often required in public policy debates.

Research Paper

Each student will be expected to complete a substantial (20-25 page, double-spaced) research paper on a current environmental policy issue or controversy. The research paper should identify a policy controversy or proposal, provide background on the issue and why it is important, and then assess the issue or proposal and make specific policy recommendations as to how this issue should be addressed or controversy should be resolved. Students may select topics related to the assigned materials, or they may choose to focus other environmental policy issues. A one-page description and outline of the proposed paper topic is due no later than March 8.

Each student will be expected to submit a rough draft several weeks before the final paper is due, and present their paper to the rest of the class. For the rough draft, each student will be expected to submit two copies of their one draft at least one full week before the date of their presentation: one which I will review and provide constructive comments upon, and a second for review by fellow students, who will be expected to read each paper prior to the presentation.

The in-class presentations should be short (5-10 minute) presentations of the research paper and its conclusions. Each presentation will be followed by a short class discussion. Significant issues and concerns raised during class discussion should be addressed in the final paper.

Grading

The following is a rough approximation of the grading breakdown for this course. The research paper will be worth approximately half of each student’s grade. The rough draft and in-class presentation will count for an additional 20 percent. Each reaction paper will be worth approximately 10 percent. Weekly participation in class discussion is also important. Exceptional class participation will result in an upward adjustment of one grade (e.g. from B to B+, or B+ to A-). Similarly, if attendance and class participation are particularly poor, that will result in a downward adjustment of one grade (e.g. B+ to B).

Course Outline

Reading Materials

Books

Marc K. Landy, et al, The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions (1994)

Robert L. Fischman, et al, eds., An Environmental Law Anthology (1996)

Richard L. Revesz, ed., Foundations of Environmental Law and Policy (1997)

**Supplemental Readings (in chronological order of assignment)

Bruce Yandle, “Environmental Regulation: Lessons from the Past and Future Prospects,” in Breaking the Environmental Policy Gridlock (Terry Anderson ed., 1997), pp. 140-67.

Christopher H. Foreman, Jr., “. . . And Environmental Justice for All?” Priorities, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1997).

David Schoenbrod, “Why States, Not EPA, Should Set Pollution Standards,” Regulation, 1996 No. 4 (1996).

Robert H. Nelson, “Government as Theater: Toward a New Paradigm for the Public Lands,” 65 University of Colorado Law Review 335 (1994).

Dave Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior (1991), pp. 59-86, 177-92.

Sharon Dennis, “The Takings Debate and Federal Regulatory Programs,” in Let the People Judge: Wise Use and the Private Property Rights Movement (J. Echeverria and R. Epy eds., 1995), 158-68.

Nancie Marzulla, “Property Rights Movement: How It Began and Where It Is Headed,” in A Wolf in the Garden: The Land Rights Movement and the New Environmental Debate (P. Brick and R. Cawley eds. 1996), pp. 39-58.

Glenn P. Sugameli, “Environmentalism: The Real Movement to Protect Property Rights,” in A Wolf in the Garden: The Land Rights Movement and the New Environmental Debate (P. Brick and R. Cawley eds. 1996), pp. 59-72.

Robert J. Smith, “Property-Based Conservation: The Free-Market Approach,” in Property Rights Reader (Competitive Enterprise Institute 1995).

Roger E. Meiners, “Elements of Property Rights: The Common Law Alternative,” in Land Rights: The 1990s’ Property Rights Rebellion (B. Yandle ed., 1995), 269-93.

Michael Bean, “Endangered Species, Endangered Act?” Environment, January/February 1999.

Ike C. Sugg, “Caught in the Act: Evaluating the Endangered Species Act, Its Effects on Man, and Prospects for Reform,” 24 Cumberland Law Review 1 (1993-94).

William J. Snape III et al., Biodiversity and the Law (1996), pp. 1-32.

Stephen R. Edwards, “Conserving Biodiversity: Resources for Our Future,” in The True State of the Planet (R. Bailey ed., 1995), pp. 211-65.

Paul R. Ehrlich & Anne H. Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason (1996), pp. 107-24.

Fred L. Smith, Jr, “Conclusion: Environmental Policy at the Crossroads,” in Environmental Politics: Public Costs, Private Rewards (M. Greve and F. Smith eds., 1992), pp. 177-97.

Lester B. Lave & Robert Crandall, “EPA’s Proposed Air Quality Standards,” The Brookings Review Vol. 15, No. 3 (Summer 1997), pp. 40-47.

Richard L. Stroup, “Superfund: The Shortcut that Failed,” in Breaking the Environmental Policy Gridlock (Terry Anderson ed., 1997), pp. 115-139.

Christopher Douglass, “Environmental Crossing Guards: International Environmental Treaties and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Working Paper 168 (Center for the Study of American Business, May 1998).

[Readings on climate change to be determined two weeks prior to the scheduled class on that topic.]

Tentative Assignments

DATE	SUBJECT	READINGS	OTHER
11-Jan	Introduction
18-Jan	-- No Class --
25-Jan	Institutional Choice	Landy 3-48; Revesz 130-161; Fischman 65-197; **Yandle
1-Feb	Distributional Issues, Federalism, & Public Choice	Revesz 102-130; Fischman 46-64; Foreman; Revesz 161-182; Schoenbrod, Revesz 183-222
8-Feb	The Commons; Public & Private Land Management	Revesz 3-17; Fischman 279-281;282-339; Nelson; Foreman
15-Feb	Private Property and Public Trust	Fischman 339-388; Dennis, Marzulla, Sugameli, Smith, **Meiners
22-Feb	Wildlife, Habitat, and Endangered Species	Bean, Sugg, Snape, Edwards, **Ehrlich
1-Mar	-- No Class --
8-Mar	Risk Assessment/Risk Management	Revesz 45-102; Fischman 389-467; **Smith	Paper Topics/ Outlines Due
15-Mar	Air Pollution	Landy 49-88, 204-237, 259-262, 263-265, 285-89; Revesz 223-247; **Lave & Crandall
22-Mar	Superfund and Hazardous Waste	Landy 89-172, 262-63, 265-68, 297-300; Revesz 247-78; **Stroup
29-Mar	International Issues	Revesz 307-334; Fischman 467-516; Revesz 279-307; **Douglass
5-Apr	-- No Class --		Draft Due (I)
12-Apr	Paper Presentations I	Student Papers I	Draft Due (II)
19-Apr	Paper Presentations II	Student Papers II
26-Apr	Climate Change	Readings to be determined
7-May	No Exam		FINAL PAPERS DUE