Corporate Power and the Environment

George Gonzales

George A. Gonzales George A. Gonzales is an assistant professor

in the department of political science at the University of Miami at Coral Gables, specializing in environmental policy. U.S. regulatory policy, and natural resource law.He has authored several works including:

Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, and the  Empire of Capital and The Politics of Air  Pollution: Urban Growth, Ecological Modernization, and Symbolic Inclusion.

Overview Policymaking Models

Thesis

Case Studies: Evolution of the U.S. Forest Service Establishment and Mission of the National Park Service Wilderness Preservation Policy of Yosemite National Park and

Jackson Hole Creation of Redwood National Park Legislative Process of the Clean Air Act of 1990

Conclusion Implication of Corporate Power and the Environment

The Policy Making Process "Environmental policies are largely

shaped by capitalist elites and generally serve the political and economic interests of corporate America."

Policymaking ModelsPolicy Formation Models

Loci of Political Power

Business Political Behavior

Description of Policy Formulation Process

Policy Outcomes

Pluralism Numerous Interest Groups and Elected Officials

Fragmented Interest groups, rooted in different segments of society, competing vigorously

Shaped by competing interest groups and elected officials

Plural Elite

Various Interest Groups

Coordinated to Limited Extent Through Trade Associations

Different interest groups, especially business groups, domination different policy areas

Special Interest determine the content of narrowly construed policies

State Autonomy and Issue Networks

State Officials supported by Issue Networks

Fragmented State officials draw ideas, plans, and support from issue networks to develop policies

Appointed and elected officials determine the content of policies

Economic Elite

Individuals of Wealth and Corporate Decision Makers

Largely coordinated through policy-planning networks and other social and business institutions

Economic elites, operating through policy-planning networks, dominate the policy formation process

The policy preferences of economic elites predominate

"Practical" Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service Progressive era forest politics- Upper class

and corporate-based policy network Use of forestry practices in public and

private forests1. Practical forestry developed in Upper

Class and corporate community2. Forest service supported by big business3. Economic elite policy network molded

forestry profession to serve industry

Development of American ForestryEconomic Elite financed forestry in the United States.

The Origins of American Forestry 1875 - Pinchot, American Forestry Association Pinchot and Graves - The White Pine Yale School of Forestry – 1900

The National Forest Commission 1891, no federal protection or management of forest

reserves Bureaucratic fragmentation 1896, National Forest Commission 1897, Forest Management Act

Pinchot- Preservation to Usage

Expanding Private Use of “Practical” Forestry  Shift from preservation to profit Pinchot, Circular 21- “working plans for conservative lumbering” Timber lands owned by large timber owners Education toward forestry economy Practical forestry

The Establishment of Practical Forestry Yale School of Forestry- financial forestry Pinchot, Collaborator program

Transfer of the Forest Reserves American Forestry Association- Division of Forestry 1905-Bureau of Forestry in Department of Agriculture Future supply of timber, timber prices high Forestry practices

Utilitarian Policy Network Utilitarian Policy Network- economic

elite and support of large timber industries 

Conservation policies- did not succeed in spreading conservation practices

American Forest Congress

The Political Economy of the National Park System The creation of the National Park Service

furthered the interests of corporate America, and their mission continues to place those interests ahead of purely environmental concerns.

The economic elite exert a significant influence on the policy and mission of the NPS.

The Political Economy of the National Park System

Before the National Park Service Managed individually under the

Department of the Interior  Lack of direction 

Established in 1916  Businesses supported the NPS  Stephen Mather chosen as first

director

Division within the NPS

Political Tension Policy disagreement between Mather

and Secretary Fall Mather used his corporate ties to

push his agenda

Division with the NPS

The Mission of the National Park Service "Pure" preservationists advocate

environmentalism "Use"  preservationists favor tourism

The Direction of NPS Policy Lane Letter of 1918 laid out guidelines for

tourism use Mission 66 cemented the Lane Letter

precedent and further expanded Parks' infrastructure and tourist facilities

Wilderness Preservation Policy The economic elite’s influence on two

case studies. Yosemite National Park Jackson Hole National Park

“All [two] case studies suggest that, in the case of achieving wilderness preservation policy goals, active economic elite political support is a necessary condition.”

The Sierra Club and Protection of Yosemite Sierra Club: Created to preserve Yosemite. Supported by the Southern Pacific Railroad

due to increased tourism. Originally under state stewardship. In 1905 Yosemite receded to national

government. Most Sierra club members supported this, big

businesses (like the Railroad) didn't show public support.

Railroad supported park receding, but not publicly.

Rockefeller-Albright Rockefeller and Albright’s friendship began

with renovations of Yellowstone.

"The Rockefeller-Albright-Park Service-wilderness groups complex composed a policy-planning network that would influence wilderness policy throughout the middle portion of the twentieth century and is responsible for the incorporation of the Jackson Hole area into the national park system.”

Horace Albright Resigned as Park Director of Jackson Hole to

become president of the U.S. Potash company. He was part of the "Power Elite" due to his

status as president of the Potash Company. Appointed to various advisory positions during

WWII that controlled the economy. Though no longer working for national parks,

he lobbied for national park causes for the rest of his life and held positions on wilderness preservation groups, including several government positions.

Jackson Hole Was under the control of U.S. Forest Service,

failed to be included in Yellowstone National Park in 1919 due to cattle ranchers’ influence.

National Parks could only survive if they were worthless for resource harvesting –Runte (Historian) The Wilderness Act of 1964 set aside 9 million acres of

national forest, because there was very little timber. Jackson Hole was Economically valuable to cattle

ranchers. Rockefeller and Albright’s influence overcame cattle

ranchers’ opposition.

Rockefeller Jr. and Jackson Hole Rockefeller Jr. was saddened by development Albright had not been able to obtain funds to buy the

area. Rockefeller wanted to protect $1,000,000 worth of land

(Albright originally wanted $250,000). President Coolidge withdrew the land from Federal control

and Rockefeller's company (the Snake River Land Company) purchased 35,000 acres at $1,400,000.

Congress refused to accept the area to be a National Park. Even once FDR created the park, congress (somewhat successfully) tried to keep the park from being protected.

Rockefeller used his economic influence to kill Barrett Bill and compromised with legislators to create the park.

Jackson Hole

"The Tetons, rising abruptly alongthe fault line a few miles south ofYellowstone [National Park], areone of the most distinctive mountain ranges in the world. Jagged and ice-hewn, much like the High Sierra, these peaks surpass even the Swiss Alps in the grandeur of their natural setting. Juxtaposed against the high-rising Tetons is Jackson Hole, a stretch of rolling green meadows and flatlands running to the northeast toward Yellowstone, forming a spectacular valley." (Swain, 1970, 114).

Overall…

Economic elite have more power in the creation and management of national parks than the politicians do. In these cases the influence was positive.

Creation of Redwoods National Park Redwoods National Park founded in

1968 Two political groups involvedThe Save-the-Redwoods League

The Sierra Club "Traditional" Conservationism:

private funding, intrinsic value of nature, science, business "Radical/Progressive" Conservationism: 

The Save-the-Redwoods League Founded in 1918 to preserve Redwoods for science

and scenery "Traditional"/conservative environmental policies

Lead by "economic elite" with influence, money, political power

Self perpetuating leadership and ties Largely private funding (50% in 1940)

 Sensitive to commercial interests 1921 Redwood Preservation Bill, pressure from Pacific

Lumber Co. Maintained traditional policies to maintain

monetary/political support J. D. Rockefeller donated $2million in 1930

The Sierra Club Originally, traditional conservationist,

economic elite David Brower named first executive director in

1952  "Radical" environmentalist Aggressive policy changes and political

confrontation▪ Upper Colorado River Basin Issue 1950, wanted entire

project ended  Funded by membership dues Members elect leadership Pluralist policy change model

A Park is Created Post WWII boom put strain on Redwoods

Soil Erosion around parks caused damage  Controversy between Club and League over location and size

 League: Mill Creek Watershed (42,000 acres) Club: Redwood Creek (90,000 acres)

US Park Service supports smaller     park at Redwood Creek due to      infrastructure at Mill Creek

Laurence Rockefeller said to      have brokered Redwood Creek      compromise Ties to League (son of JDR), 

          Horace Albright Advisor to LBJ Business associates with timber companies

Ultimately…

Economic elite model brought about policy change Laurance Rockefeller Logging Companies around parks US Park Service caved to popular

demand, and infrastructure Pluralist model less significant

Votes of Club members not enough to bring about change

The Clean Air Act of 1990 -"Dominated by the very special interests that the act is expected to regulate"

Why the New Legislation?

Symbolic Palliatives for the Public or genuine progress?    

Which Policy Model?

Pluralist Policy Combination of Business and Environmental Interests

Economic Elite Policy  Decidedly Pro-Business

Which Model Policy?

Competing Coalitions Clean Air Working Group (Big Business)▪ Limited or no restrictions

National Clean Air Coalition (Pro Environment)_▪ Significant reform

Pluralism or Corporate Liberalism?

SOME restrictions = Pluralism Real Restrictions?

"Corporate liberals are willing to accept, and will even advocate, mild reforms of capitalism in exchange for social and political stability” 

Minimal Reforms = Corporate Control "The most significant environmental proposal to make it into

the act - the permit trading system - conforms to the corporate view of a regulatory regime. ” 

SUM: Corporate control of policy procedure = Economic Elite

Conclusion

The Economic Elite theory is the only viable model "Corporate decision makers and other

persons of wealth have been the most powerful influence in the management of the national forests and the national parks, as well as in the development of federal wilderness preservation and federal clean air policies."

Implications of the Economic Elite's Dominance Interaction between the environment

and humankind will be mediated by the market

Environmental advocates have had a limited effect on environmental policy in the U.S. "The federal government's most

important environmental regulatory policies can be viewed as more symbolic than substantive.”