Historically, science and policy have had an intimate relationship that has lead to positive direct and indirect effects on society. After research was published exposing the health risks associated with smoking, it did not take long for important smoking bans, like the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act--the first statewide ban on smoking in most public spaces--to start popping up [9]. As soon as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were identified as the primary cause of ozone destruction, the Montreal Protocol phased out their industrial production [8]. Each of these policies were based on the results of scientific research. More specifically, scientists can provide policy-makers information to help them better understand an issue, identify solutions that may not be identifiable by policy makers, and provide the necessary analysis for predicting the effects of policy decisions [1]. People tend to believe that constructing policies around scientific knowledge makes for higher quality solutions. Recently, however, opinions have started to shift regarding the role of science in policy-making. Some people have developed a more cynical mentality, arguing that science is used only to rationalize a specific stance or policy decision made by a political group [1]. This mentality is especially evident in the climate change political arena, where climate change deniers and their opposition accuse each other of supplying false scientific facts, which effectively discredits any factual information applicable to their arguments. The role of science in policy-making will continue to change, but it is a fact that science will always have a place in the process. Science provides results about certain natural processes, and policy-makers attribute values to these results when they make decisions. Some politicians think that scientists fail to understand all the issues at play in a policy decision [10]. The stereotypical scientist who spends all of his/her time in a lab might not be able to work well with policy-makers who might have less technical backgrounds. To better understand the relationship between science and policy-making, we decided to talk to Purdue scientists about their past experiences with “doing science” and “doing policy.” Dr. Otto Doering, Agricultural Economics Dr. Doering began working in public policy after he started working at Purdue in 1972. At Purdue, especially in the 1970’s, it was not unusual for an Agricultural Economist to be “doing science” and “doing policy.” Dr. Doering decided to go along with this norm. Since then, he has played a variety of roles on the state and national levels, ranging from directing the Indiana State Utility Forecasting Group to currently serving on the EPA Science Advisory Board. Dr. Doering’s research has covered a range of policy topics, including preserving water quality and conserving natural resources. To him, “doing science” differs from “doing policy” because scientists only care about “primary impacts” while policy-makers care about “secondary impacts.” The example he gave to illustrate this distinction is that scientists might see that a tax bill reduces taxes by a certain amount, while policy-makers are concerned about how the bill will affect the income distribution of the population. When “doing science,” scientists can ensure their political views do not influence their results by bouncing ideas and results off of colleagues who have different views. Because Dr. Doering has seen his own research incorporated into enacted policies, he recognizes how effective scientists can be at informing legislators. For example, he helped to save the public $200 million over the course of ten years with one of the conservation programs he developed while serving with the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). His experiences helped him realize that scientists are most effective at influencing policy decisions when they “do their homework,” remain respectful, and communicate in terms that help policy makers understand the impacts of certain results. Dr. Doering told a story about a former chief lobbyist for the Audubon Society whose academic background was in biology. When she needed to talk to policy-makers, she “did her homework” by learning the technical aspects of a proposal and gaining an understanding about the political landscape. She was able to talk about the political fallout that could result from enacting or failing to enact a particular proposal. Dr. Doering stressed that scientists should only get involved in policy topics relevant to what they know. [5] Dr. David Johnson, Industrial Engineering and Political Science Dr. Johnson received his Ph.D. in Policy Analysis from the Pardee RAND Graduate School to prepare to work on solving some of the world’s big problems. This unique graduate program gave Dr. Johnson the “bizarre and awesome” opportunity to begin working on a project with the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) in Louisiana. He worked directly with CPRA and others at RAND Corporation to develop a Coastal Louisiana Risk Assessment model. The model has been effectively used to evaluate state-proposed projects on the basis of how well they reduce damage in Louisiana’s coastal region [4]. Today, Dr. Johnson continues evaluating and making improvements to the model, and he works on a variety of other energy and environmental policy projects. [6] Dr. Amisha Shah, Civil Engineering and Environmental and Ecological Engineering Dr. Shah is an assistant professor in Environmental Engineering with research interests in water chemistry processes, specifically with relation to water treatment and sustainable water reuse. According to Dr. Shah, it is common for aspects of environmental engineering research to find its way into environmental policies. Dr. Shah has been involved with a variety of research projects, from evaluating the impacts of carbon capture technology on water quality to assessing the impacts of ultraviolet disinfection of drinking water. Currently, she is a part of a project that evaluates the impacts of disinfectants on disinfection byproduct formation for different water qualities. This project is getting support from the EPA and is using water samples from across the country. The results of this project could possibly help guide the standards set for processes for drinking water treatment. While she has never done any “pure environmental policy research,” most of the research she has done will always have some sort of potential policy implication. Even though the opportunity to have research directly applied into policy decisions is not always present, Dr. Shah notes that the rules and regulations adopted by organizations like the EPA are definitely informed by the results of scientific experiments, and these organizations have always considered researchers’ data when setting standards. Dr. Shah sees the value of science in decision-making when it comes to green politics. She feels that without scientists, policy-makers could not make informed regulations about things like water, soil, and air quality; land management; and energy efficiency. It would be like shooting at a target blindfolded. When it comes to defectors, Dr. Shah shares that emphasizing that your results are scientific and as unbiased as possible to these people is the best way to approach them. [7] So, should scientists be involved in policy-making? We agree with the interviewees: scientists have a place in the policy-making process. While it is not advised that scientists use their positions to assert their personal opinions, it should be considered a responsibility of some scientists to help policy-makers, especially if their research is being funded by public dollars and is applicable to the policy at hand. Scientists can help directly or indirectly. According to Robert Lackey of the EPA, scientists have the responsibility to “contribute to the policy process” and to “correct misinterpretations of science” at any stage of policy-making [2]. It is important that scientists remain engaged in environmental policy-making throughout the whole process because their expertise and guidance is necessary for lawmakers to make the most informed decisions when it comes to natural resources and the environment. Michael Mann, a climate scientist from Penn State University, fervently shared that their duty as citizens and their authority as scientists should be used to advocate for more science in policy decisions. In a column for the New York Times, Mann wrote, “If scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest” [3]. Because few lawmakers understand science at the level of a scientist, researchers need to speak up on behalf of the scientific community about the current state of issues surrounding science, such as climate change and its impacts. Sources:
0 Comments
Science in Policy In an era of “fake news” and polarizing politics, it can be hard to discern fact from fiction. Politics by nature is a realm rife with subjectivity, and by extension the policy that emerges from the political process can be convoluted, contradictory, or simply misguided. Science, on the other hand, is a field uniquely oriented around seeking truth, objectivity, and fact. It would be logical, then, to involve science in policy-making, so as to establish the facts as well as possible. Especially regarding environmental policy, science and the understanding of why something occurs is incredibly important. The public is often torn between two perspectives of the future: one in which environmental action sacrifices economic productivity for the good of the planet, and another in which inaction leads to sustained economic growth, but a horrifically damaged environment, perhaps one beyond repair. With such disparate and harrowing views, it can be quite refreshing to have an indisputable truth to which to turn. As such, especially concerning the environment, science should be involved in policy-making as much as possible. Scientists should be consulted whenever it is relevant, because science is not subject to the whims of lobbyists or the desire to be reelected. Policy-makers should base their work on actual research, rather than raw emotion. Science has the potential to reassure the public of its officials’ competence and its own security in the world. Policy and Purdue Scientists We discussed the issue with Dr. Daniel Chavas, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Science here at Purdue University. He specializes in extreme weather events, like tornadoes and tropical cyclones. Chavas stresses the significance of scientists’ ability to answer questions, especially of the public, in an objective and informed manner. However, he also recognizes policy as a function of values, whereas science is one of facts, and that “agreement on science does not necessarily equate to agreement on policy.” It is interesting to consider the role of scientists in policy as more passive than active. Chavas finds his and other scientists’ function to be serving as repository of information to be queried, rather than a moving force in the political sphere. Basing one’s thoughts off popular culture, contrarily, might lead one to believe policy is driven solely by outspoken activists, but Chavas’ view certainly calls that into question. This is logical and parallel to our viewpoint. By staying away from vocal activism, scientists retain their status as impartial purveyors of the truth, leaving the ethicism and interpretations of such up to those for whom it is a livelihood. Chavas is also enthusiastically positive about his experience in public policy. Like any scientist worth his or her salt, he appreciates the different perspectives offered by discussion with the public. He also noted the frustration involved with disagreeing opinions, and how this can be solved by mutual compassion. This is quite the intriguing proposition one might not consider straight away. Especially in the realm of public policy, it can be quite easy to fall in the trench of one’s own ideology and utterly ignore any contrary reasoning. Chavas, however, offers a refreshing perspective communicating how listening to differing opinions in turn makes one’s own more listenable and facilitates productive discussion as a whole. Finally, Chavas views his work in policy as ultimately successful. He measures success as how effectively and positively he can spread information. For him, beneficial public work is having a respectful, informed conversation with someone who in turn disseminates the information gained to his or her friends and family. This exposes one of the most significant dichotomies between scientists and policy-makers: while one is motivated by spreading the truth and maximizing the potential of his or her work, the other is motivated primarily by satisfying his or her agenda and pleasing his or her constituents and lobbyists. Where a politician would see simply creating discussion as a neutral activity at best, this is the pinnacle of achievement for a scientist such as Chavas. One of Chavas’ most stringent points is that scientists are supposed to inform, not persuade, and this is most certainly upheld by his measure of success, and the motivations and experiences of his work as a whole. Policy vs. Science and the “Honest Act” Taking a current look that the role of environmental science in the world of policy, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently made news by claiming his agency would stop using what he called “secret science”; studies and research whose raw data is not released to the public (Aschwanden). Pruitt’s announcement was inspired by the so called “Honest Act” introduced by Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, which has passed the House and is currently under deliberation of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The critical portion of the legislation reads : “This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.” While Pruitt’s policy could be easily overturned by a new director, the “Honest Act” would invoke Congress’s power of congressional oversight, and would bind the EPA to only use publicly available data until the bill was overturned, much in the same way the CDC has been barred from researching gun violence in the United States and any link it may have to mental illness. While on the surface this may seem like a move to combat potentially unverifyable information, many scientists around the globe reacted with outrage as their work often involves data from participants who only agree to offer their information on the basis it remains confidential, such as health records or identifiable information. (Friedman) So while science can often be brought into the world of policy, policy can certainly shape the way of science, especially if that science gets in the way of pure politics. It’s important then that when merging these two very different worlds, the integrity and intention of research remains to seek the truth. As put by Dr. Chavas; “it is also important to recognize that policy is principally about values -- which can vary from one person to the next -- while science focuses on facts. Agreement on science does not necessarily equate to agreement on policy”.
Sources: Aschwanden, Christie. There’s Still No Such Thing As Sound Science. FiveThirtyEight. March 29th 2018. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-still-no-such-thing-as-sound-science/ Friedman, Lisa. The E.P.A. Says It Wants Research Transparency. Scientists See an Attack on Science. The New York Times. March 26th 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/climate/epa-scientific-transparency-honest-act.html Full text of House Bill 1430:https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1430 (Special thanks to Dr. Chavas!) Indiana’s ban on plastic bags was signed into effect in March of 2016. The bill prohibits municipalities from banning, taxing, or restricting the use of single use plastic bags. The bill saw mostly Republican support in the Senate. Senator Brent Steele, the bill’s sponsor, said that business and industry groups were opposed to regulating plastic bags as the rationale for the bill (IndyStar). Multiple municipalities and states across the country have been doing the exact opposite of Indiana’s bill by taxing or restricting single use plastic bags. In fact, several municipalities within Indiana were in the process or already restricting plastic bags. One of these specific municipalities was Bloomington, IN. Bring Your Bag Bloomington was founded in 2014 had been working for two years to get city council members to restrict plastic bag use in Bloomington. Then the bill was signed into law and more or less eliminated all the work this group had done in an attempt to help do their part. Ron Bacon, the bill’s author, says that the state did not want a patch-work of plastic bag policies across the state, and that keeping plastic bags would help save jobs. The members of the group believe that this issue should have been one handled by local governments and not the state (Downing, K). As mentioned earlier many states across the country have done the opposite of Indiana and banned or restricted in some form the use of single use plastic bags. While in most states this discussion is left to local municipalities, California was the first state to ban plastic bags across the state. It has now been over a year since the plastic bag ban was implemented in California and as the Los Angeles Times put it “this momentous change was not a big deal.” There was no substantial conflict after the ban was implemented; people just had to adjust their lifestyles to live without plastic bags. Businesses that used plastic bags also did not see too much of change after the change was implemented. The only big difference California has seen is less plastic bags on their beaches. In fact, plastic bags now only account for 3.1% of the state’s litter. This is down from 7.4% in 2010. Indiana is a minority in this issue, meaning that in numerous states and cities within the U.S., England, Mexico, India, Italy, Burma, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and Australia, there are bans against plastic bags. Australia’s ban alone was an attempt to cut down on 6.7 billion plastic bags used annually- and that’s just in one part of that one country! For those who have not banned them, there is an economic tax to disincentivize people from using them. Countries which have enforced this include Belgium, South Africa, and Ireland. California, well-known as a leader in global environmental politics, banned plastic bags on July 1, 2015. While at first this was a controversial issue solely due to convenience, the culture in California has transformed over the past two and a half years. Now, anyone who visits the sunshine state will notice that everyone has culturally begun to carry reusable bags with them at all times. If they do not have one, they are able to buy one at most stores for less than a dollar, or use paper bags instead. The statistics are insane. There are 500 billion bags consumed annually, and 1 billion of those are thrown in the trash as soon as the carrier arrives at home. The truth of these statistics are that millions of animals die each year from plastic pollution in the environment, and plastic bags are a huge contribution to them. These bags are suffocating animals, or being eaten by turtles who mistake them for floating jellyfish in the oceans. They also break down to tiny pieces of plastic which are ingested by fish, dolphins, seals, turtles, and other animals unfortunate enough to feed where these bags fatefully end up. There isn’t a person alive today who can’t say they haven’t seen a plastic bag floating in the air, or on the ground, or stuck in a drain pipe we all know leads to water sources and, inevitable, the ocean. The phenomena even made it to fame in Katy Perry’s infamous “Firework,” in the lyric “Do you ever feel | like a plastic bag | drifting through the wind | wanting to start again?” Furthermore, retail businesses are said to spend about $4 billion dollars on plastic bags each year. The banning bill doesn't even prohibit stores from charging customers for each plastic bag used. Wouldn’t it be a win-win, for customers as inhabitants of planet earth, and businesses as economic vacuums, to reject plastic bags altogether? We think yes. Retail giants like Walmart can start doing so to save money on plastic and promote sustainable shopping, meanwhile showing social responsibility to investors. As college students, we probably couldn't do much to revert the decision of the bill. What we can do is to become self-aware of the consequences when we use plastic bags in stores, and try not to use them. It is very simple to bring your own reusable bags to Walmart, Target, or grocery stores. People should embrace this plastic-free lifestyle (the way shopping for groceries was like before plastic bags even existed) and responsibly reuse the plastic bags we already have. So why did Indiana lawmakers make this counterintuitive decision? Well, we know Indiana has been a historically very, very red state. Relative to presidential elections, the state has voted Republican in every election except in 1964 and 2008. When the ever-so-lovely past Republican Governor Mike Pence (now Vice President of the United States) signed the bill into effect in March of 2016, it became effective immediately. The state government was absolutely not considering that they were second-handedly contributing to clogging their sewers, landscapes, and farming equipment. They didn’t consider the wildlife that falls prey to this material. Instead, they were focusing on ensuring that smaller communities from creating policies that could be any threat or detriment to businesses at all. You can read more about this at this Sierra Club link: https://www.sierraclub.org/ohio/blog/2017/12/why-are-so-many-states-banning-plastic-bag-bans Is the pollution our planet suffers really worth the “convenience” of bringing your chips and milk to your car, and then from your car to your home? Those collective 45 seconds contribute to a problem that will persist for hundreds if not thousands of years. Regarding the bill itself, we believe it should be overturned. Conclusively, it can actually benefit businesses economically not to have plastic bags, and there are some things that should just be viewed as more important than this sort of political chess- like the health of our environment, and the suffering wildlife that has no say in what is going on. -Yuxuan Chen, Cole Janssen, and Sabrina Sutton **If you want to follow this issue on twitter, here are two accounts that tweet continually about this issue: Bye Bye Plastic Bags https://twitter.com/BBPB_bali Ban Plastic Bags UK https://twitter.com/BanPlasticBagUK Bibliography Bill banning local plastic bag restrictions signed into law. (2016, March 23). Indy Star. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/23/bill-banning-local-plastic-bag-restrictions-signed-law/82183114/ Downing, K. (2016, March 25). Bloomington group outraged at Indiana's prohibition on "plastic bag bans". Retrieved March 07, 2018, from http://fox59.com/2016/03/25/bloomington-group-outraged-at-indianas-prohibition-on-plastic-bag-bans/ Plastic Bag Ban Locations (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2018, from http://www.factorydirectpromos.com/plastic-bag-bans Political Origin of the Ban of Bag Bans Indiana joined the ranks of banning bag-restriction on Mar. 23, 2016, when Gov. Mike Pence signed a bill into law disallowing local municipalities from limiting consumer bagging options. Pence couldn’t help but secure plastic bag manufacturing for his home state. Hilex Poly LLC, a manufacturer in Indiana, is one of the leading plastic bag manufacturers in the country, as well as co-founder and large contributor to the Progressive Bag Alliance. The ban-of-bans is the least Gov. Pence could have done to help the Alliance, as they were already spending $3M in California for fiscal year 2015 in combating their ban on plastic bags. Other municipalities across the country were battling for the environment, while here in Indiana it is all about jobs. Plastic Bags as a World Problem It is estimated that 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are used annually worldwide. In the US, only 5% of the 100 billion shopping bags used annually is getting recycled. As these single use bags find their way into our landfills and our environment, they are broken down by the sun into microplastics that disrupt ocean ecosystems and fragment community food chains. Plastic accounts for 70% of all ocean litter, with plastic bags begin the 7th most common item retrieved in cleanup efforts. A reduction in their use and circulation would undoubtedly reduce their impact on our environment. Why are Plastic Bags so Hard to get rid of? The hard truth of the matter is that there is no better single-use alternative to the plastic bag. In 2007 the Australian Government Agency released a report on the environmental impact of different plastic, paper, and reusable bags based on a full life-cycle assessment. Their key findings included the following: • Reusable bags are better than all single use options • Bags with recycled content had less environmental impact • A bag’s end of life destination is highly important in deciding its environmental savings. The most pronounced of their key findings was that any “shift from one single use bag to another single use bag may improve one environmental outcome, but be offset by another another impact”. It continues to say that “as a result, no single use bag produced an overall environmental benefit”. These findings have been at the heart of The Progressive Bag Alliance arguments. So long as there is demand for single-use shopping bags, all options are equally bad. “Green Bags” have shown themselves as the clear winner in our environmental predicament, and now the country is fighting to make them the economical alternative as well. What does a “Ban of Bans” do? The ban of bans are used to benefit the suppliers of plastic bags domestically. Groups like The Progressive Bag Alliance spend great deals of money fighting municipal governments as they attempt to implement their own bans of single-use plastic bags. For these groups, a ban-on-the-bans is a preemptive guard that protects them from having to spend money fighting progressive legislation. These groups are funded by the plastic bag manufacturers, and their purpose is to obfuscate and divert the argument. A ban-of-bans in Indiana means that no single-use bags will be taxed or removed from stores, which is largely to the benefit of the suppliers. Since these bags are identifiably a problem for our local and global environments, this means that we are not actively mitigating a point source pollutant within our community. While a ban-of-bans is ultimately bad at reducing plastic bag use, it may allow for a larger opportunity to remove single-use bags in their entirety. The Progressive Bag Alliance promotes information noting that paper bags have their own environmental impacts, arguing that they are even greater than plastics. To circumvent their well-positioned argument, a move could be made to remove all forms of single-use bags instead. In Indiana’s case a ban of plastic and single-use bags is currently illegal, but a strong defense of this legislation by lobbying groups makes it more vulnerable to more sweeping and aggressive legislation later. Minnesota fight for Banning Bags In 2017 Minneapolis politicians drafted an ordinance to ban plastic bags in stores starting May of 2017. The ban forbid stores from providing single use plastic bags for shoppers and stores can offer paper bags to consumers for 5 cents each. The bill was created to keep plastic bags out of the cities garbage burners and to get Minneapolis closer to its zero-waste goals. Even though this ordinance had a lot of support from citizens and major companies such as Target Minnesota had the same fate as Indiana. One day before the start of the ban the Minnesota State government made a state law outlawing cities from prohibiting any kind of bag. This doesn’t mean city leaders will give up on the ordinance. Minneapolis City Council Member Cam Gordon said, “We’ve seen cities go out on their own and do things in the past, including the indoor smoking clean air acts which the state eventually adopted, so [the plastic bag ban] is something that would follow suit”. After this chaos Target and other Minnesota based companies started encouraging customers to not rely on their plastic bags and bring their own by giving customers who bring their own bag a 5 cent discount. Results on Washington’s Bag Bans Many cities in Washington State have been making ordinances to ban single use plastic bags. One of the major cities was Seattle. 6 years after ban has been in place (2016) Seattle Public Utilities issued a report on Seattle’s plastic bag ban ordinance which concluded the “ban has been effective in reducing the number of plastic bags distributed throughout the city, [but] there is also opportunities for improvement in compliance.” Highlights from investigation: • It is harder for smaller businesses to follow the ordinance • Most stores were aware of the ban, but some were unaware of the requirement to charge a fee for paper bags. • Between 2010 and 2014, the amount of plastic bags in residential garbage declined from 262 tons to 136 tons. Concerns from investigation: • Reusable bags may become contaminated and threaten customers and retail staff. • Some stores have removed their plastic bag recycling containers, resulting in more bags going into the waste stream. • There has been an increase in flexible packaging, such as pouches containing food, which are not recyclable. California’s ban on single-use plastics On November 8, 2016, California approved the Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum (Prop. 67) in a 53-47 approval by its citizens. This proposition enacted the ban of plastic bags to be distributed by stores, and require consumers to bring reusable or paper bags. Approval for this proposition began with local bans since 2010 to reduce plastic bag litter on beaches. This eventually influenced a statewide ban to reduce overall harm on the environment, specifically for plastic entering in bodies of water. California became the first and only US state to ban the distribution of plastic bags. Initially, they were generating about 35 million single-use plastic grocery bags per day. And for California, it didn’t turn out to be a big deal for consumers as they were able to bring in their own reusable bags, either independently or through the stores themselves. Additionally, it was neither harmful for the state’s environment nor for their economy. As a result of the ban on single-use plastic bags, shoppers did not revolt or campaign against the ban, no problems with transporting groceries to people’s houses, and no problems with reusable bags. Additionally, there was a 72 percent drop in plastic bag litter on their beaches between 2010 to 2017, and now account for 1.5 percent of all litter as opposed to 10 percent in 2010. An important feature to note is that California approved Prop. 67 in 2016, yet the decrease of litter and environmental harm has been significant in more recent years. Indiana’s Influence on a greener future Defenders of a ban on plastic bag bans would argue that it is not the government's place to force its citizens to make environmentally friendly decisions. Our group does not see it to be this way. Since the negative effects of an individuals use of plastic bags extends to having global impact, it is the function of government to regulate single-use bags. In support of a global cause, Indiana should reform its ban of bag bans and switch its position to taxation of single-use bags. Research has previously identified that reusable “Green Bags” are the clear environmental solution, and with appropriate taxation we hope to see it become the economical solution as well. If a progressive fight cannot be won to entirely remove single-use bags from our stores, we hope taxation would adequately reduce demand for them. Reduction in single-use bags will lead to a reduction in point source pollution coming from our grocery stores. Resources: https://www.sierraclub.org/ohio/blog/2017/12/why-are-so-many-states-banning-plastic-bag-bans http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/05/31/mpls-scraps-plastic-bag-ban/ https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/05/twin-cities-suburb-heads-for-showdown-withplastic-bags/ http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-plastic-bag-ban-starts-june-1-unless-the-state-saysno/424160873/ http://www.bagtheban.com/multimedia/item/the-truth-about-plastic-bags http://www.banthebagspdx.com/?p=395 http://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/Public_Works/solidwaste/plastic-bag-ordinance.htm http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2016/Paper-or-Plastic-An-Overviewof-Plastic-Bag-Bans.aspx https://www.sierraclub.org/ohio/blog/2017/12/why-are-so-many-states-banning-plastic-bag-bans http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/12/26/one-year-later-california-plastic-bag-ban-impact-felton-beaches/ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/plastic-makes-nearly-70-all-ocean-litter https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/23/bill-banning-local-plastic-bagrestrictions-signed-law/82183114/ http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/01/29/banning-thebans-state-and-local-officials-clash-over-plastic-bags http://calaccess.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1372902&view=expenditures&sessio n=2015 https://www.ptonline.com/articles/making-old-bags-new-again http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resources/publications/plastic-bag-phaseout/LCA_shopping_bags_full_report%5B2%5D_2.pdf https://conservingnow.com/plastic-bag-consumption-facts/ http://www.conecomm.com/insights-blog/eleven-ways-to-reuse-your-target-bag https://storyofstuff.org/blog/save-our-parks-rivers-and-oceans-fight-plastic-pollution-ban-the-bag/ Yes! You heard that right. Indiana has had a ban on banning plastic bags since 2016. Originally proposed by Ron Bacon, the bill states that a city may not “regulate, or adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution to regulate the manufacture, distribution, sale, provision, use, or disposition or disposal of auxiliary containers” among other things [1]. What was their reasoning? The ban on plastic bag bans was passed in response to efforts by Bloomington to place restrictions on the use of plastic bags. The environmental group “Bring Your Bag Bloomington” was campaigning to ban single-use plastic bags in the city, and according to co-founder Libby Gwynn, the effort was gaining traction. At the time of this state law being passed, no municipalities in Indiana had actually banned plastic bags yet. Representative Ron Bacon, the author of the bill, said that one reason for the law was to unify regulations at the state level. “What we’re trying to do is de-regulate what the cities and towns and counties and municipal governments are doing on an individual basis and not have a patchwork of different rules and regulations throughout the whole state of Indiana,” he said. Economic concerns were another reason for the law. Plastic bag bans are often opposed by local businesses, such as supermarkets and manufacturers of the bags. Bacon cited the manufacturing of plastic bags in Indiana as a reason for his law, saying that bans on plastic bags could have economic consequences, such as loss of jobs [2]. What could happen? On the one hand, this state law had very little impact, because no cities in Indiana had actually banned plastic bags. However, the law did stifle the efforts of groups like “Bring Your Bag Bloomington”, who were campaigning to ban the bags in Bloomington. If their efforts had been successful, it is possible that the campaign would have spread to other liberal cities in Indiana, such as West Lafayette and Indianapolis, which would have resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of plastic bags being used, so this law did have a negative effect on the environment. The law had a positive effect on Indiana manufacturers of plastic bags, such as Four Star Plastics and Ameripak, who saw a potential threat to their business neutralized. The law was also good for supermarkets and businesses who use plastic bags and would like to continue to do so. Other Opinions of the Ban We talked to Mark Hinton, a candidate for Indiana House District 39 out of Carmel whose main issues are on women’s rights, redistricting, improving jobs, and education. We asked him how he felt about the ban on plastic bag bans, and he felt that the measures were an overstretch of government power over cities. He felt that local cities should have more power to create their own policies. He says that when the state government has something “they don’t like, they ban the local cities from doing it.” He even compares the plastic bag ban to RFRA, stating that “that’s exactly what RFRA was. It was them telling the locals that you cannot have, you cannot offer, a wider net of protection against discrimination… The state really has no reason to say you cannot do that, just because we do not like it.” We wanted to find out what local residents felt about this law, so we asked two local students what they felt. Nikita Prabhakar, a Purdue student, said she originally “didn’t even know about” the ban. When we explained that Indiana had passed a law banning plastic bag bans, she said that it was “good for the environment,” but upon clarification that this wasn’t a ban on plastic bags, she stated that it was “bad, obviously, because a ban on plastic bags would have been good.” Another Purdue Student, Tomasz Parzadka, responded that the ban is “obviously bad. I don’t even know how to answer. How can you ban something that bans other things?” Success of Bans Currently, plastic bag bans have been effective in numerous cities in the United States. One of the most notable is the statewide ban of plastic bags in California. This ban prohibits all grocery, convenient, and drug stores from distributing plastic bags and encourages shoppers to bring reusable bags. Paper bags are still available, but there is a minimum 10 cent charge added to each bag. Other states such as Florida, New York, and Oregon (to name a few) have issued similar sorts of bans or fees to prohibit or reduce the distribution of single use plastic and paper bags. The effects of such bans can be seen from a case study done in San Jose, California. After the ban of plastic bags was put in place, it was observed that 75 percent of shoppers either brought their own reusable bag or simply opted for no bag at all [4]. Decreasing the use of plastic bags by issuing bans is feasible and is possible. Outside of the United States, countries such as Australia, China, Ireland, India, most of Western Europe, some of North Eastern Africa and many more have successfully issued plastic bag bans. Results have been favorable, including an increase in natural resource conservation, increase in national wealth, and a decrease in overall pollution. Impact of Bans on Indiana, United States, and the world
Banning plastic bag bans would not be good for Indiana or the world. While some sources point out that plastic bags cost and require less natural gas to produce than paper bags, nearly 1 percent of the total 500 billion plastic bags produced each year are recycled. Thus, they continue to pose a severe threat to the environment despite being better for the United States economy, which is dominated by big oil and fossil fuel companies. Additionally, banning plastic bag bans is a threat to local governments as it takes away their power to make and enforce regulations. This would be detrimental to the state of Indiana if the government of the United States decided to prohibit state and city governments from issuing plastic bag bans because it would decrease local sovereignty. This would also be a detriment to the world because the United States is a large contributor to the plastic pollution in the oceans, so nations other than the United States would likely be the ones impacted the most. Smaller nations would not have enough influence and power to right the pollution done by plastic bags from the United States, so it is imperative to allow smaller governments to enforce plastic bag bans should they deem it fit for their community. Considering plastic bags are made from oil and natural gas, having the ability to ban bags could save countries massive amounts of natural resources. For example, China has saved nearly 1 million tons of oil since banning the bags [3]. While the ban of plastic bag bans would increase the power of the United States, it would severely restrict the state of Indiana and severely impact the world. References [1] House Enrolled Act No. 1053, 2016, https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1053#document-d2328d28 [2] Downing, Kendall. Bloomington group outraged at Indiana’s prohibition on “plastic bag bans”. March 25, 2016. http://fox59.com/2016/03/25/bloomington-group-outraged-at-indianas-prohibition-on-plastic-bag-bans/ [3] Plastic Bag Bans in the World. (n.d.). Retrieved March 04, 2018, from https://www.reusethisbag.com/reusable-bag-infographics/plastic-bag-bans-world.php [4] The Proliferation of the Plastic Bag...BAN. (n.d.). Retrieved March 04, 2018, from http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/the-proliferation-of-the-plastic-bagban Do Reusable Bags Help or Hurt? Banning plastic bags is a hotly contended issue within the United States. While some argue that a plastic bag ban will help our environment by limiting the plastic waste which ends up in the landfill, others dispute a ban will hurt the economy as potential manufactures will lose business and workers will end up unemployed. Like most issues, the topic is far more complex than one might gather at first glance. Simply looking at the numbers of the issues:
Presented with these appalling statistics, it appears as though there is a dire need for people to switch away from classic plastic bags and instead select an option which may be sturdier (provide a material less likely to rip or be damaged such as cotton or a thicker plastic), and provide more uses. But is forcing consumers to switch to alternative bagging options really best for our environment? The answer isn’t as simple as one bag preference over another, but instead is in the lifetime use of the bag. In a study conducted by the Environment Agency of the United Kingdom, completed 2011, the lifecycle of various supermarket carrier bags was analyzed in order to assess the environmental impact each has. This study found that while polypropylene (PP) bags or cotton bags may be preferred alternatives to traditional HDPE (high density polyethylene) bags, the global warming potential (GWP, measured in kg CO2 eq.) far exceeds that of conventional bags. Figure 5.1 provides a visual representation of the global warming potential associated with each bag type tested. One may notice that cotton bags is excluded from the figure; this was due to the fact that its GWP was 10x greater than any other carrier bag (Edwards/Fry, 2006). The primary conclusion from this study which is of interest is that cotton bags must be used a minimum of 131 times, and non-woven PP bags a minimum of 11 times, in order to ensure that they have a lower global warming potential (GWP) than traditional HDPE bags. From this data, we can conclude that the type of bag used is not as important as the frequency of use. If you choose to purchase a reusable bag, make sure that it is a staple in your shopping routines. If you choose to continue using store bags (HDPE bags), be sure to recycle them (either in bins provided by your local supermarket or re-use them on the next shopping trip), or find uses for them around the house (such as garbage bin liners in smaller trash cans). Be mindful, be creative, and chose to use plastic bags responsibly. The Stance of Indiana On March 23rd of 2016, then governor Mike Pence, signed House Bill 1053 into law in the state of Indiana. This law, written by Representative Ronald Bacon of Indiana’s 75th District, prohibits local governments in the state of Indiana from “(1) regulating: (A) certain activities with respect to reusable or disposable auxiliary containers designed for one time use…; or (B) a manufacturer of, a distributor of, or a food or retail facility that sells, provides, or otherwise makes use of, auxiliary containers…; or (2) imposing any prohibition, restriction, fee, or tax with respect to auxiliary containers”(Bacon, 2016). Companies that operate within the state of Indiana, be they local, national, or international, can still uphold their own policies on the use of auxiliary containers such as plastic bags. This law, for example would not prevent companies such as ALDI for charging for the use of a plastic bag, but it does stop the debate that was occurring in Bloomington, Indiana at the time about what restrictions that they, as a city, could place on the use of items such as plastic bags. As of the end of 2017, Indiana is one of nine states with a ban on the banning of plastic bag bans nationwide, in comparison to the seven states where some measures have been taken against plastic bags, be it outright bans, additional taxes, or reuse programs. In the states that have placed bans on the banning of plastic bags, it has been done, so that grassroots movements do not have the opportunity to give way to statewide policies as was the case in California. In Indiana an additional reason for this law was the opposition to a plastic bag ban presented by concerned business and industry groups that operated within the state.
Economic and Environmental Impacts of Plastic Bags Now that we have an idea of the impacts of plastic bags, the banning of them, and the current state of the issue in Indiana, we will now take a look at both the environmental and economic impacts of plastic bags by analyzing the banning of plastic bags in San Diego, CA to potentially get a better idea of what would happen if the state of Indiana were to swing the other way and enact legislature that would promote the banning of plastic bags. According to the Equinox Center, the numbers are clear. With plastic bag bans and fees, there would be a reduction of not only solid waste, but also greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy spent per year; the only caveat being a greater increase in fresh water consumption (Equinox Center, 2013). Now while there is a large increase in the consumption of fresh water, the benefits of such a trade off is clear. The effects of the such legislature would result in a major positive impact on the environment. Now to address the impact of such legislature on the economy, we will take a look on the impact of retailers, consumers, cities, and plastic manufacturers. To begin, a large concern is that if plastic bags were banned, retailers would lose business. To address this, a study has been done that gives us some solid numbers. It states that although in city retailers would suffer, retailers outside the impact zone would actually benefit (Equinox Center, 2013). Although there is some evidence with this study, more studies would probably have to be conducted to see how it would perform in Indiana. Moving on, regarding how policy would affect consumers, plastic bag bans would have an initial flat fee in the beginning, but in the long run would actually start to save money given some additional policy that would discount an individual’s purchase by using reusable bags. Now addressing the issue of the effects on cities, the major point to examine is how much money that cities have to spend in order to clean plastic waste. With the reduction of plastic bags, cities are projected to save a large sum of money. That is in San Francisco, an estimated $700,000 in total. Of course this is in another city, but we can see how it might work similarly in Indiana. Finally to address plastic manufacturers, the ban of plastic bags may affect jobs of employees of such companies. This could be potentially true, but it is more likely that the companies’ revenue streams would take the hit before the jobs and with reusable bags being made out of different plastics, switching could prove to be a good solution. Overall, there is no clear winner when it comes to the economic effects, which isn’t amazing, but is good considering the very positive environmental ones. Sources: Associated Press. “Indiana Senate Approves Bill Banning Local Plastic Bag Restrictions.” Indianapolis Star, AP, 23 Feb. 2016, www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/23/indiana-senate-approves-bill-banning-local-plastic-bag-restrictions/80813858/. Bacon, Ronald. “House Bill 1053 - Regulation of Packaging Materials.” Indiana General Assembly, 5 Jan. 2016, iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1053#digest-heading “Banning Local Restrictions on Plastic Bags | Hoosier Environmental Council.” Hoosier Environmental Council RSS, Hoosier Environmental Council, 2016, www.hecweb.org/bill-watch-2016/hea-1053-banning-local-restrictions-on-plastic-bags/ Edwards, C., Fry, J.M. “Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available in 2006.” Environment Agency (UK), February 2011, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf “Fees, Taxes and Bans: Recycling and Reuse” National Conference of State Legislature, 7 May 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx “Plastic Bag Ban: Analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts.” Equinox Center, 23 Oct 2013, https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/Plastic-Bag-Ban-Web-Version-10-22-13-CK.pdf “Stop Banning Plastic Bag Bans.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 12 Jan. 2017, www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bag-preemption-2017012-story.html. 2016 was not only declared the hottest year on record, but was the third consecutive year to break that record in the state of Indiana. However, the question must still be asked. Why should Hoosiers be concerned with Climate Change? In a single sentence, within the next decade Indianapolis is projected to have more than 80 days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, with at least 28 days above 100 degrees. Side effects of hotter summer 1. Agriculture: Indiana is one of the nation’s top states in terms of agricultural yields. Warmer winters and summers can lead to decreased crop yields and lowered livestock productivity. This heat stress can cause severe droughts, leading to decreased agricultural yields, crop death, and even soil erosion as experienced in other drought-prone parts of the nation. In addition, crop pests have traditionally been killed off by Indiana’s intensely cold winters, but with warmer winters ahead of us farmers will have to offset the increased insect population by spending more money on insecticides. 2. Air pollution: Air quality worsens as temperature rises. Ozone is a natural gas that protects Earth from UV rays when concentrated in the Earth’s mid-atmosphere, an area known as the Ozone Layer. However, ozone gas can also be a by-product of man-made pollutants and ultimately concentrates itself where humans and other creatures can breathe it in. This lower-altitude ozone pollution, known by many as smog, is harmful to the Earth, humans, and other organisms that rely on breathing in oxygen. People with asthma and other respiratory illnesses will be at risk, along with the elderly and children. “Spare The Air” days will become more common, those with compromised respiratory systems will be advised to stay inside, and among those unable to find shelter from the summer sun, heat-related deaths may rise. 3. Flooding: While Indiana’s upcoming summers are projected to be much drier, our winters, springs, and falls are projected to become much wetter in the same period of time. The rain that does fall over these seasons are going to be in heavy, concentrated storms. Spring rainfall is projected to rise by around 15% in the next several decades, would push back the planting of spring crops and can lead to polluted rivers. In addition, due to the fact this rainfall will occur in larger storms rather than spread out across seasons, rivers that are already prone to flooding will likely flood more severely, and those which previously came close to flooding are more likely to pass their banks entirely. We asked 50 Hoosiers about their opinions of the threat of Climate Change. In order to collect this information, we created an online poll to send via email and telephone. Each participant in the survey was asked to choose from the options of if they were “Alarmed”, “Concerned”, “Cautious”, “Disengaged”, “Doubtful”, and “Dismissive” with regards to Climate Change after being given a short summary of what each of these options implied. Over half of the participants chose “Cautious”, which was defined as “Believing that Climate Change is a problem, but not a personal threat. No urgency to deal with it”. The Hoosiers surveyed ranged from college students at Purdue University, from a mix of rural and urban backgrounds, as well as individuals that were born in the “Baby Boomer” generation. Many were surprised to hear that, when Yale University surveyed a group of American adults, more than half of the participants voted “Alarmed” or “Concerned”, which were defined as, “Very convinced Climate Change is happening, and willing to/already have taken action”. So, what explains this disconnect between the individuals surveyed in the two studies? There are multiple possible explanations. One is that, on average, Hoosiers are simply not educated enough on the issue. As our study showed, people in Midwestern states are aware that Climate Change will affect Americans, but do not believe it will affect them personally. In the image below, areas where Climate Change is discussed often are colored purple and areas where Climate Change is usually not a topic of conversation in green. As is evident, with the exception of rare, isolated districts, Midwestern areas show significantly less concern about Climate Change than coastal areas. If Hoosiers are concerned, how do their elected officials feel?
While many Hoosiers are at least aware of the realities of Climate Change, elected officials in the state are a more mixed bunch. As according to USA Today subsidiary IndyStar, Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett believes in severely reducing and mitigating his city’s Greenhouse Gas emissions in order to reduce its contribution to the state’s overall climate footprint, in order to eventually reach the goal of carbon neutrality. Contrasting that however, is Indiana’s state politicians, who have shown a personal, if not institutional, policy of ignoring or outright denying the existence of Climate Change. For example, Senator Jim Banks has shown a track record of voting against environmental regulations, for example choosing to vote for the repeal of 2015 EPA regulations over water safety, and expressed disbelief over the scientific consensus of Climate Change. At the same time, both former governor Pence and current head of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, have opted to prevent the instantiation of coal-fired power plant regulations, despite the existence of EPA requirements for these reductions, under the so-called “Clean Power Plan”. This is likely at least in part due to the prevalence of coal mining within the state, as well as Indiana’s traditional stance as a heavily pro-industry state. This ultimately aligns with the attitudes of the Hoosiers surveyed. Either Climate Change is not an immediate concern, or it is not something to be worried about at all. It is possible that individuals simply view it a small enough priority that other voting preferences take precedence, but either way, Indiana citizens and officials do not show a particular concern with the dangers of disruptions of the climate, man-made or otherwise, at least on a statewide level. Is this a concern? Overall, yes. If the issue is a simple lack of awareness or education, then there is at least a major chance to improve public outlook, particularly through more aggressive education and outreach efforts, but as shown by the outlook of state officials such behavior may be considered insufficient or not worth paying attention to. As such, the lack of education is not a particular surprise. After all, if no effort is made to educate, there is no way to ensure, or even expect, attitudes to change. Once consequences of Climate Change begin to make themselves more evident, however, it is possible that opinions will change. The question of whether that will be too late remains to be seen. Sources: https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/resources/docs/ClimateImpactsIndiana.pdf https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/stateClimateReports/IN_ClimateReport_CSRC.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-change-indiana.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html https://apnews.com/5cce22a1321547968280452de6ac4501/indiana-will-defy-obama-climate-change-plan http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/idem-chief-obama-climate-change-plan-bad-for-hoosiers/article_fc4d0f52-3db5-5474-9212-29f86f7e70f3.html https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/09/15/indy-mayor-vows-city-act-climate-change/663771001/ https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-in.pdf https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q4/studys-projections-show-climate-change-to-increase-commercial-indiana-energy-consumption,-reduce-residential-use.html The Crossroads of America is notorious for many things—among them, an apathy and often flat-out denial of environmental change among its state representatives and residents. Indiana representative Jim Banks even went so far as to state that climate change is “largely leftist propaganda to change the way Americans live and create more government obstruction and intrusion in our lives."[1] While this may seem like a more extreme example to many, Indiana has had a string of politicians that clearly align themselves with Banks’ beliefs. With regards to climate change, as governor of Indiana for two terms and your current president here at Purdue, Mitch Daniels stated on C-Span in 2010, “There’s been nothing but dubious news about the science of all this now for about a year, including apparent scientific wrongdoing.”[2] Not only do these statements reflect the opinions of the politicians themselves, but of a large portion of Indiana residents. Known to be a major player in the “backbone of America” and for decades as an agricultural powerhouse, Indiana residents strive to attain the American dream, and any slight opposition is dismissed quickly. In order to maintain competitiveness in the future, all science suggests that without changes, temperature rises, floods, and more will most definitely affect Indiana residents and their productivity; fortunately, it is not too late even for Hoosiers to change how they perceive the environmental future. Indiana residents often have conflicting views regarding the various aspects of climate change. As an Indiana resident who attended a private, Christian school in Indianapolis, I remember several times when peers and teachers alike denied global warming, making a fast, dubious comment on the matter and quickly changing direction. However, in a recent survey of 800 Indiana voters, 71% of Hoosiers agreed that protecting the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of slowing economic growth. What’s more, 70% believed that the government should do more to combat climate change.[3] So what’s the problem? Why does a majority of Hoosiers want their government to be more involved in the fight against climate change, yet a shocking number of Hoosier leaders are so strongly opposed to it? The answer is likely a combination of several factors. The first regards an unequal distribution of wealth and power within the state. White, wealthy, male, and Protestant, Hoosier politicians are exceedingly homogeneous in a state of diverse racial backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses. Because of this, a discrepancy exists between Hoosiers and those who make political decisions on their behalf. Additionally, those who hold more traditional, religious values tend to view the Earth as something God intended for humans to dominate and use to flourish, rather than a place to be cared for. The second factor concerns Hoosiers themselves. While Indiana is hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean, residents don’t have to worry too much about rising sea levels. Because of this, apathy begins to grow for issues so far from home. Indiana is also infamous for terribly hot summers and bitingly cold winters, so extreme temperature changes are often perceived as the “same, crazy Indiana weather,” and climate change’s magnitude may be downplayed. Hoosiers themselves have the ability to pressure their representatives to make changes, but when a lack of knowledge exists about our own effect on global warming and its future impacts on us, this pressure is deficient. So, while the majority of Hoosiers clamor to reduce climate change impacts, their cries aren’t loud enough, so their incredulous representatives are slow to make change. Although Hoosiers and the Indiana government don’t seem to be making strides towards reducing climate change impacts anytime soon, it may become an absolute necessity very soon. The effects of climate change on Indiana and the rest of the Midwest are already very apparent in the last century and don’t seem to be slowing down at all. Considering the already volatile weather that this state has, this could mean extremely dangerous conditions for us in the near future. In the last century, Indiana has already experienced an increase in average climate by one degree.[4] Although one degree doesn’t feel like a whole lot, a climate change of two or more degrees can change entire ecosystems and weather systems, so we’re getting there soon. In addition, Indiana has already been experiencing an increasing frequency and intensity of summer heat waves. For example, a 2012 drought in the midwest caused all shipping in the Mississippi River to be shut down and cost the Midwest region around $275 million, and another in 2005 caused commercial transportation in the Ohio river to shut down.4 Hundreds of people have died from midwest heat waves in recent decades, and we’re expected to have at least 10 more days above 95 degrees a year in the next 70 years. In addition the Great Lakes have already warmed up by a few degrees, which makes deadly algal blooms far more likely. Another huge problem for Indiana in terms of climate change is floods. The average annual precipitation in the Midwest was already pretty high, but has increased about 5-10% in the past half century. Even worse, rainfall in the 4 wettest days of the year has increased 35% and streams have had 20% more water overflowing during floods than before. So basically our weather is just getting more and more extreme, which could mean deadly and unlivable conditions in the near future.[4]
It seems clear that climate change is no longer a distant problem that only other parts of the world must deal with, but has instead slowly approached inland America. Indiana must take measures to limit climate change soon or risk destroying the state before the end of this century. The first step in this change involves changing the minds of those who have control of the state’s future- Hoosiers themselves. While the majority of them agree that global warming must be stopped, they likely underestimate the gravity of the situation. To begin, more media should be covering the science behind global warming, as mentioned previously. By raising awareness of the issue, Hoosiers will more eagerly pressure their local government representatives to make changes; the skepticism of these representatives will matter less given enough pressure from Indiana residents. If the state makes even one compulsory environmental course for high school students, this will greatly influence students to make green changes at home or in their future careers. Indiana has the power to prove to other states that being politically conservative and being at the forefront of limiting environmental impact aren’t mutually exclusive; this has the potential to make waves for other states that share similar opinions. Hoosiers must be made aware of how they can make changes themselves outside of government as well. Discussion and education are key steps toward an informed electorate. The ways in which these conversations are approached is also a crucial step toward change. For example, information can be presented or addressed in different ways according to one’s audience. Those who are more skeptical about global climate change might be more receptive to being given information about the effects on a local level rather than a state wide or global perspective. Another way to persuade those who might be skeptics or who don’t care about climate change is to educate using non-biased media sources and open forum discussions. Education is also a crucial aspect of getting Hoosiers to care about climate change. Climate change initiatives integrated into community programs could help foster a generation that is concerned with preserving the quality of our world. By learning about ways to limit one’s carbon footprint, Hoosiers can better understand their individual impact. Also, learning about ways to integrate green technology into Indiana companies can make an incredible difference. Instead of placing climate change on the backburner, small changes now will have profound positive impacts on the Hoosier state and overall help Hoosiers become more concerned with the issue of climate change. References [1] Francisco, Brian. “3rd District Rivals Sound off at Forum.” The Journal Gazette, 4 Oct. 2016, http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/local-politics/3rd-district-rivals-sound-off-at-forum-15610761 [2] Armbruster, Ben. “Daniels: Climate Science is ‘Dubious,’ ‘Extreme Measures’ Advocated by ‘Zealots’ Won’t Address Global Warming.” ThinkProgress, 5 Apr. 2010, https://thinkprogress.org/daniels-climate-science-is-dubious-extreme-measures-advocated-by-zealots-won-t-address-global-ff6e632fc00e/ [3] Bowman, Sarah. “Hoosiers Concerned about Cleaning Waterways over Lowering Taxes, Poll Says.” Indianapolis Star, 24 Aug. 2017, https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/07/23/hoosiers-concerned-cleaning-waterways-poll-says/493994001/ [4] “What Climate Change Means for Indiana.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Aug. 2018, https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-in.pdf [5] Raymond Bradley, Ambarish Karmalkar, Kathryn Woods. “How will global warming of 2 degrees C affect Indiana?” Climate Change State Profiles Indiana. 2010, https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/stateClimateReports/IN_ClimateReport_CSRC.pdf Indiana: Indecisive on Climate Change - Garrett Illa, Trey Jagiella, Jacob Yeager (Group 10)3/3/2018 As the threat of climate change looms over the globe, are Hoosiers expressing concern over its effects? How will climate change affect Indiana, and should Hoosiers be concerned about these effects? In this post, we will explore the expected effects of climate change in Indiana and determine the level of concern among Hoosiers using both our own polling data and the findings of others. Research findings consistently agree that Indiana will experience consequences of climate change. Temperatures year-round are expected to increase. If carbon emissions continue at a high rate, these increases are expected to be exacerbated. While temperature increases are a major climate concern, winter temperature increases will not be as harmful to the state; in fact, they may have some benefits. Greater winter temperatures will potentially lengthen the growing seasons of crops as well as allow for shipping to and from the state via rivers and the Great Lakes to be extended throughout the year. However, it is possible that these warmer winters, as well as springs, will be wetter and will lead to increase flooding, which can disrupt the benefits of the longer growing season. These warmer winters would also make it easier for pests and diseases to damage crops. Additionally, summer temperatures may increase to the point that the weather becomes hot and dry, making it difficult to grow crops. Despite this, the overall expectation is that Indiana and the Midwest will still be the best location for growing corn and soybeans. Ultimately, while it is believed the state’s agriculture may take a hit due to climate change, it is also believed that Indiana will be able to continue to operate as an agriculture-heavy state. The warmer weather is expected to decrease cold-related illnesses and deaths while increasing heat-related ones. Additionally, the high temperatures may lead to a decrease in both water and air quality. Increased levels of carbon dioxide cause algal bloom in water bodies to further reduce water quality and disrupt ecosystems. Climate change may also lead to extinction in species of mussels, fish, and amphibians in the state and may harm wild plant life as well. Unlike many areas of the world, Indiana will not be affected by sea levels rising or desertification that will render the area uninhabitable. It is believed that Indiana’s staple crops will still be able to be grown and shipping by water will still occur. As a result, it appears that while Hoosiers do have reasons to be concerned about climate change, Indiana will likely be less affected than other areas of the world, thus potentially giving less reason to be concerned. Understanding the concerning effects of climate change on Indiana, we delved further into the perception of climate change from Hoosiers. More than many would expect, people were concerned. In a state that is surrounded by the great lakes to the north, the Ohio river to the south, and the White and Wabash rivers running through Indiana, it makes sense that residents worry about the pollution of their waterways. In a 2017 poll conducted by the Morrison Institute of eight hundred registered voters in the state of Indiana, fifty percent were very concerned about pollution in the rivers and lakes and forty percent were somewhat concerned. This trend was consistent across many environmental issues that face Indiana. Most people were relatively concerned in topics like air quality, protection of wildlife, and greenhouse emissions. Hoosiers tended to express at least some level of concern for all issues, with variations in political party. Democrats and younger female populations voiced the highest concern out of all demographics, while male republicans were the lowest. However, if a closer look is taken, the data runs deeper than the interests of the people in the poll. People care about climate change, but it is simply not a prominent issue for Hoosiers. People reported being more interested in education improvement, healthcare, and attracting and retaining jobs to the eleven percent that said protecting the environment should be the top priority. Only forty-six percent of those people put protecting the environment in their top three priorities. Due to the impersonal nature of climate change and the time it takes for effects to become noticeable in Indiana, people are worried, but not enough to do anything drastic. This mindset seems to be consistent to us in how Indiana relates to rest of the United States. Indiana is the eighth largest state in contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and the residents’ opinions on climate change reflect poorly to address this issue. According to the Yale Climate Opinion Map (2016), Hoosiers fall behind the national average on global warming worry, perception on how harmful global warming will be to the individual, and perception on how harmful global warming will be to the United States. Hoosiers will water their lawns less, recycle more, and sign petitions, but because most do not see climate change as an immediate threat to the state of Indiana, they have not been found from external data wanting to take all the necessary steps to properly handling climate change. Our personal data found many similar opinions among Hoosiers. For our survey we polled 153 people on a variety of climate related questions. Our findings were that Hoosiers show a moderate level of concern, scoring a 7.0/10.0 when asked “How worried are you about climate change”. Hoosiers showed less concern about whether or not they would be personally affected(6.4) and higher regarding whether or not other people should care(7.4). This data suggests a problematic mindset, the belief that there is a problem but that it won’t affect them personally. We sorted the survey responses by four metrics: age, region, gender, and socio-economic class. We found that in all three metrics there were significant differences. The first metric that we evaluated was age. Data showed that with increasing age there was less concern about both climate change and its effect on Indiana. This correlated directly to the opinions of the US economic policy. These changes we believe are the result of new information being taught in schools and exposure to climate change news from a young age. Our second metric was region. The important distinction was rural vs urban habitation and from the data collected, with 109 urban and 44 rural, concern about climate change was 19.3% higher for people living in urban environments that those in rural areas. This is consistent with a poll of 724 Indiana farmers, where 79% stated that climate change is “an ongoing natural process.” This statistically significant difference may be attributed to similar factors as age, that higher average education results in greater concern for climate change. Urban areas have 46% more college degrees per capita than their rural counterparts, with 41% possessing a degree. The third metric we used to differentiate groups was gender. Our findings were that on average Hoosiers women(7.6/10) were 20% more concerned about climate change than Hoosier men(6.6). This likely has a multitude of causes, but from research, some of the largest are societal pressures and predispositions. Our final metric, socio-economic class was the least extreme in the differences between groups, but still showed that when it comes to caring about climate change the upper class was 16.7% more worried than the lower class. This large gap between upper and lower class seems to emphasize the impact of education on concern about climate change. In total, people from Indiana care about climate change. The state itself is very dependent on environmental conditions due to its agricultural foundation and dependency on its bodies of water. This is all well placed concern because the state will experience a myriad of negative repercussions from a changing climate. From water quality in jeopardy, to the risk of multiple years of bad harvests, climate change is something which Hoosiers have reason to be worried. However, with the effects of climate change prominent far from Indiana, and the general worry (perceivably) decades away from today, people do not care enough to adequately prepare for this global crisis. Hoosiers care about climate change, but not enough to make the difference.
References: https://www.earthcharterindiana.org/si-2016/perception-of-indiana-positive-and-negative https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84878456259&origin=inward&txGid=330a90d61c6f8ced4dbdd30b9615cc96 https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/07/23/hoosiers-concerned-cleaning-waterways-poll-says/493994001/ https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3898848/In-Environmental-Attitudes-Poll.pdf http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/?est=happening&type=diff&geo=state&id=18 https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-change-indiana.pdf http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-education/ https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-12-08/in-americas-rural-urban-divide-age-earnings-and-education-are-prominent https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/15/climate-change-gender-divide-belief https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-in.pdf https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/resources/docs/ClimateImpactsIndiana.pdf Climate change has world-wide effects and Indiana is not exempt from those changes. Many isolate the idea of climate change to melting ice caps and rising sea levels, but landlocked states like Indiana are also facing serious challenges. Indiana faces reduced water and air quality, decreased crop productivity, heavy rainfall, heat waves, shorter winters which increase tick and lyme disease exposure, delayed freezes which lengthen ragweed allergy seasons, and species loss like the blue karner butterfly (Dukes 2018). All of these impact everyday life in Indiana. Increases in lyme disease, allergies, flood induced water-borne illness, and heat-related ailments all affect the health of Hoosiers. Flooding, storm damage, and heat waves can damage infrastructure, houses, bridges, and buildings, thus costing the state, the taxpayer, and individuals more of their hard earned cash. By this logic, everyone should care about climate change, or at least it’s affects. Determining whether Indiana citizens care about climate change is not particularly simple. Climate change is a controversial and partisan subject. Democrats and republicans in both the general population and in government routinely fall on separate sides of the issues surrounding climate change and policies driven by it. Indiana is historically a very Republican state. In presidential elections, the state has voted Democrat only once since 1968, and twice since 1940. This is also reflected in the state’s representatives. Indiana currently has 9 US representatives, 7 Republican and 2 Democrat. According to the League of Conservation Voters, the Republican representatives have combined to vote for less than 6% of Pro-environment action introduced to the house, whereas the democratic representatives have voted for over 80%. The trend holds in the senate, where Todd Young rarely votes for climate legislation (3%) and Joe Donnelly votes for about 59%. All this would seem to indicate that Hoosiers do not care about climate change, at least when they are voting. A poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication asked several questions about climate change to people around the country. The results were then separated by party and state. The results from the most pertinent questions are included below in figure 1. <<img world directly to the right (not between paragraphs)>> This poll shows a different result from the extremes highlighted in Indiana’s lawmakers. This chart shows that over half of republicans support regulating Carbon Dioxide emissions, which is a much different stance than the state’s lawmakers’ dogged denial of climate change and its impacts. Because of the political party system, these voters are left with choosing between two representatives that they do not completely agree with. The GOP would be reluctant to support any candidate who would vote for sweeping environmental policy change. This could be one of the reasons environmental legislation rarely makes it through congress, even though a majority of the US wants change. Indiana is about 55% republican and 40% democrat. That would mean about 40% of Indiana citizens are worried about climate change consequences and 62% support carbon dioxide regulation. In some cases, there might be a majority of the state that cares about climate change. Clearly there is more than a 7:2 ratio. Part of Indiana cares about climate change, but their voices are drowned out by those who religiously vote red. Climate change has always been a very controversial topic and is subject to every individuals opinion. In a state like Indiana with huge chunk of the population working on agriculture and in factories the outlook of climate change is affected. With increasing concerns about climate change in the population, the jobs of a lot of people have come under scrutiny leading to a negative outlook about the same. With climate change and its effects not being mandatory to be taught to all the students in middle or high schools they do not have a opportunity to think and make a well reasoned judgement about this topic. The ever changing political scenario in Indiana does not help with the situation. After talking to several students who go to school at Purdue the truth about Indiana’s attitude about climate change has come forth which is that a small group of individuals believe in climate change and they are ignored by the majority in the society as ‘liberal outcasts.’ For people who believe that climate change is a hoax they have reasons which are directly linked to their livelihood and with no food on the table at home for children they tend to ignore the much less direct threats due to climate change. When increasing rain or drought patterns along with sudden tornadoes it would be natural to assume that Hoosiers should be concerned about climate change but that isn’t happening. Climate change awareness leads to oil industry which if on decline affects jobs in factories which are a major source of income for a lot of people in Indiana. Thus it becomes a circle which Hoosiers cannot jump out of causing them to believe that climate change is hoax. This unsurprisingly aligns with the political affiliations of a majority of Indiana residents. We believe that the effects climate change has on Indiana should spur a motivation to do something. That hoosiers across the state should be armed with the knowledge of what is being done to the planet and prepared to do what they can to change the way they treat the planet. With lives being impacted and the hard stance our political leaders have taken, Hoosiers need to stand up for the planet, vote to elect more officials who care, implement change in their own lives, and work to create green policies in local businesses. The jobs that hoosiers rely on could be revolutionized with newer, greener, technologies if investments came from places who have the environment in mind. As of right now, life in Indiana is business as usual, and something should be done before disaster strikes, and it’s too late to make real change. Dukes, J. & Widhelm M. (January 2018). What Will Climate Change Mean in Indiana? Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment Factsheet. Retrieved from http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/docs/ClimateFactsJan2018.pdf League of Conservation Voters. (2017). 2017 National Environmental Scorecard. Retrieved from http://scorecard.lcv.org/sites/scorecard.lcv.org/files/LCV_Scorecard-2017-Full.pdf Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. (2016). Partisan Climate Opinion Maps 2016. Retrieved from http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/partisan-maps-2016/?est=human&group=rep&type=value&geo=cd |
AuthorsThese blog posts are written by students in the POL 327 Spring 2017 class. Archives |