GEORGE A. GONZALEZ - fieldi

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 87A number of major corporations supported the 1974 proposition, includingBank of America, Atlantic-Richfield (an oil firm), and Crocker NationalBank. 4 Importantly, major oil firms did not come out in opposition to Proposition5 (Whitt 1982, 131). Detailing the lack of any serious opposition tothis proposition, Whitt (1982) explains that “only $1,700.29 was put upagainst Proposition 5.” He adds that “$203,215 was contributed” to supportpassage of the measure, “with 99.4 percent coming from business” (132).CONCLUSIONIn examining the history of Los Angeles’s economic growth and the creationof California’s air pollution abatement regime, we can see that many of theindividuals, institutions, and interests that promoted and economically benefittedfrom Los Angeles’s growth also took the lead in shaping and establishingCalifornia’s pollution control efforts. Their air pollution reductionand growth objectives were reconciled through the utilization of pollutioncontrol technology to achieve the former. Hence, economic growth couldcontinue and air quality could improve. Improved air quality would, in turn,protect the business milieu.The technology control approach to air pollution abatement wasextended to automobile emissions. A conciliatory attitude was taken towardthe automobile, not solely because of formal economic ties among automotive-relatedfirms and leading economic interests in the state (Whitt 1982),but, as I discussed in chapter 4, large land holders and land developers in LosAngeles, and throughout the state, by the 1940s and 1950s had become aseconomically dependent on the sale and use of automobiles as automotiveinterests themselves. Thus, when the opportunity opened to shift a significantamount of financial resources away from the development and maintenanceof publicly financed automotive infrastructure and toward the development,maintenance, and operation of non-polluting mass transit, localgrowth coalition members in the state stood largely idle while automotiverelatedinterests, especially oil, closed it off.Finally, the policymaking process that led to the establishment of theautomobile as a major contributor to smog, and the subsequent creation ofCalifornia’s automobile emission regulatory regime, demonstrates that thecurrent policy approach taken by public agencies in California to the issue ofautomobile emissions is not the result of public officials seeking to navigatethe competing and somewhat conflicting preferences of the public, as positedby Sudhir Rajan (1996). Nor is this approach the result of public officialsstriving to reconcile economic growth and air pollution concerns, as held byDaniel Mazmanian (1999). Both Rajan’s and Mazmanian’s arguments areconsistent with the state autonomy/issue networks model. Instead, we seethat the current contours of California’s clean air policies resulted from the
88THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONcoordinated efforts of economic elites to develop an approach to reducing airpollution that would protect their collective economic and political interests.California remains as the U.S. center of policymaking on the matter ofautomobile emission standards. Massachusetts, for instance, by law ties itsstandards to those of California (Ridge 1994). By the 1970s, environmentalgroups were seeking to directly shape California’s public policies on air pollutionabatement, especially as they related to the automobile. How havethese efforts affected the state’s and nation’s clean air politics and policies? Itis to these issues that I turn to next.
Page 2:
The Politics of Air Pollution
Page 7:
ContentsAcknowledgmentsviiONELocal
Page 12 and 13:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 3tion, such
Page 14 and 15:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 5how the U.
Page 16 and 17:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 7growth (Ta
Page 18 and 19:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 9In this pe
Page 20 and 21:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 11ity tend
Page 22 and 23:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 13In the ar
Page 24 and 25:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 15who reduc
Page 26 and 27:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 17cally mod
Page 28 and 29:
TWOPolitical Economy and thePolicym
Page 30 and 31:
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 21moves to
Page 32 and 33:
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 23eral gov
Page 34 and 35:
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 25groups
Page 36 and 37:
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 27Given in
Page 38 and 39:
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 29tions, t
Page 40 and 41:
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 31the Conf
Page 42:
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 33lars 199
Page 45 and 46: 36THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONCOAL
Page 47 and 48: 38THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONa go
Page 49 and 50: 40THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONrush
Page 51 and 52: 42THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONattr
Page 53 and 54: 44THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONScot
Page 55 and 56: 46THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONthe
Page 57 and 58: 48THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONcrit
Page 59 and 60: 50THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONwhen
Page 61 and 62: 52THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONin t
Page 63 and 64: 54THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONThe
Page 65 and 66: 56THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONfirm
Page 67 and 68: 58THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONinno
Page 69 and 70: 60THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONThe
Page 71 and 72: 62THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONFHA
Page 73 and 74: 64THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONgone
Page 75 and 76: 66THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONPres
Page 78 and 79: FIVEThe Establishment ofAutomobile
Page 80 and 81: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 71ext
Page 82 and 83: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 73Ano
Page 84 and 85: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 75the
Page 86 and 87: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 77thr
Page 88 and 89: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 79was
Page 90 and 91: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 81exp
Page 92 and 93: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 83acc
Page 94 and 95: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 85Thu
Page 98 and 99: SIXDemocratic Ethics,Environmental
Page 100 and 101: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 91At the core of
Page 102 and 103: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 93senior attorney
Page 104 and 105: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 95ments mount cha
Page 106 and 107: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 97frameworks, as
Page 108 and 109: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 99mobiles and gas
Page 110 and 111: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 101the ecological
Page 112 and 113: CONCLUSIONPolitical Power andGlobal
Page 114 and 115: CONCLUSION 105quality became manife
Page 116: CONCLUSION 107lation, the U.S. econ
Page 119 and 120: 110THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONCHA
Page 121 and 122: 112THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTION6.
Page 123 and 124: 114THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTION4.
Page 126 and 127: BibliographyAcher, Robin. 2001. “
Page 128 and 129: BIBLIOGRAPHY 119Brienes, Marvin. 19
Page 130 and 131: BIBLIOGRAPHY 121Cole, Luke W., and
Page 132 and 133: BIBLIOGRAPHY 123——— . 2002. W
Page 134 and 135: BIBLIOGRAPHY 125——— . 1975.
Page 136 and 137: BIBLIOGRAPHY 127Hayward, Clarissa R
Page 138 and 139: BIBLIOGRAPHY 129——— . 2001. E
Page 140 and 141: BIBLIOGRAPHY 131——— . 1988.
Page 142 and 143: BIBLIOGRAPHY 133Perez-Pena, Richard
Page 144 and 145: BIBLIOGRAPHY 135Runte, Alfred. 1997
Page 146 and 147:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 137Tarr, Joel A. 1996.
Page 148:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 139Wiewel, Wim, and Jo
Page 151 and 152:
142THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONChi
Page 153:
144THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONTuc
show all

GEORGE A. GONZALEZ - fieldi

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?