The Nature of Environmental Conflict Chapter 1 Environmental Dispute Resolution Bacow & Wheeler, 1987

Not that long ago, economic development was viewed as the cornerstone of social progress However, since the 1960s attitudes have changed a great deal because people realized that few of the benefits of ED come without costs The negative consequences of ED have always been with us, what has changed is peoples’ attitudes about them Changing Attitudes Toward the Environment

Plausible explanations for rising environmental consciousness include: The costs of economic development are often long term & cumulative, and therefore it takes years for people to fully appreciate the impacts of pollution Peoples’ values have fundamentally changed Recent wave of environmentalism grew in the turbulent period in the 60s & 70s – a time of political ferment and change Reaction to excessive materialism Antiestablishment impulse Political & legal institutions lay the groundwork for environmental change Passage of new legislation has created momentum for the environmental movement as a whole Water quality legislation passage in the 60s created momentum for clean air provisions in the 70s

As distinct as these three explanations appear, the common thread among them is that they are each grounded in conflict To the extent that environmentalism is related to a growing awareness of the long-term impacts of development, some people will suffer costs more acutely than others To the extent that environmentalism is related to a change in peoples' values, the attitudes of particular individuals & groups may still be in sharp conflict To the extent that legal and political institutions influenced the rise of the environmental movement, they have always operated in a contentious arena

Environmental conflict has been manifested repeatedly in a wide range of cases and in a variety of forms (demonstrations, court injunctions, objections in regulatory hearings, etc.) Conflicts do not come without costs Transactions costs Costs related to the methods of resolving conflicts When environmental disputes go to court, litigants on all sides can incur substantial legal fees Delays in the courtroom impose great costs on developers and consumers When industry, government & citizen groups get locked into contentious battles, they all inevitably must consume resources that could be used elsewhere productively Costs associated with the ends of a conflict as well as the means

Although environmental conflict cannot be eliminated, there is still reason to believe it can be managed more efficiently Costs can be reduced The quality of decisions can be enhanced For the most part, the environmental debate has been focused on substantive, transactional questions rather than overlying strategies for resolving conflicts

In attempting to identify the methods that can be used to address environmental conflict, it is relevant to ask the following questions: What is gained/lost when judges must resolve complex scientific questions? What way do current administrative procedures breed disputes instead of preventing them? Is it possible to revise our procedures so as to promote more equitable and efficient environmental policymaking? What are alternatives to environmental litigation? Why is it often difficult to solve environmental cases out of court? To what extent do collective bargaining and mediation of international disputes offer useful lessons?

The Sources of Environmental Conflict People have differing views over what constitutes good policy for the environment The essence of the dispute is a question of policy If environmental disputes are to be resolved, it is essential to understand the more fundamental conflicts that underlie them People often take opposing positions because they have differing stakes in the outcome A simple assessment of the distributional consequences (who wins and who loses) can provide important insights into the politics of environmental controversies Such an assessment can be the first step in creating solutions as it enables us to enumerate costs and benefits of potential policies Because of uncertainty involved in environmental policymaking, it is oftentimes impossible to identify winners and losers

Decision Trees Illustrate how uncertainty about physical and economic impacts is central to many environmental disputes Introduces a mode of analysis for making decisions when the consequences are not completely clear

Landfill Incinerator Simple Decision Tree

Landfill Incinerator P P-1 X X-1 Dirty Clean Dirty Clean Decision making under uncertainty

Landfill Incinerator Dirty (-$1,000,000) Clean (-$0) Dirty (-$25,000) Clean (-$0) Comparing probabilities and impacts

Most environmental conflicts are similar to the landfill-incinerator example Conflict arises not only because of the distributional consequences of the project, but because people assess probabilities, outcomes, and risks differently