Evaluating The Actors...

When considering some of the actors that have been conveyed throughout this blog assignment, it's clear that both strengths and weaknesses are evident.

In terms of strengths, these actors are fundamental in their role as a model for environmental governance. Their objectives, scientific contributions and their tendencies to partake in community engagement is invaluable.

For example, Milwaukee Water Works (MWW) has been not just a regional and national leader, but international leader as well. Their pioneering work with ozone sterilization and microbiological abatement may actually have ended up saving countless lives, as MWW practices are then implemented in other problematic regions.

MWW, however, does appear to have its weaknesses. I touched on this notion briefly in the initial post, as MWW exhibits no substantive or otherwise meaningful regulatory authority. They are confined to an observer status. This is evident when considering the studies they have conjured up. These studies are intended to influence the decision making process and provide insight into various issues that effect the water quality of the Great Lakes region, however, they lack the ability to draw out comprehensive policy recommendations and/or implementation.

That regulatory power lies within local, state and federal governments, not a water quality control and monitoring faction. MWW functions not only as an benign observer, but they also perform the function of mediating shortcomings associated with a striking lack of common-sensed water quality requirements.

Their ozone sanitation facilities may inadvertently rationalize and/or justify contamination in Lake Michigan. Policymakers may be less inclined to use their authority to govern if there are no visible or measurable manifestations of poor water quality (i.e. nobody is getting sick), as it may be deemed by the general public to be a non-issue is no serious public health-related issues arise. One might see MWW as "covering up" the dirty little secrets associated with a gross lack of environmental regulation. After all, we can't get too upset about problems if we can't see them, smell them, or even get sick from them.

In order for MWW to obtain regulatory power, the public would need to envision and advocate for a common (political) goal, and indeed, this would require an evolution of understanding.

A more substantive measure, however, was touched on in my post about microbead legislation. These types of laws have clear-cut rules, boundaries, as well as consequences associated with noncompliance. The cosmetics industry, as well as others, are legally bound to comply with the language within this type of legislation, and these laws clearly indicate a timeline for which microbead manufacturing and selling must cease. This legislation is working, contrary to the suggestion that markets are the only medium available for change.

The Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative is also not insulated from shortcomings associated with privatization, a lack of regulatory authority, as well as limited resources and scope of function. While their community outreach initiatives are inspiring and on the right side of history, it appears they suffer from the same ailments associated with any non-regulatory agency.

In the absence of clear-cut and explicitly defined rules, a private organization must resort to influential tactics, such as ranking industries or pollution-intensive firms for their supposed "responsibility". The problem here, however, is that such a small segment of the population might be inclined to avoid a polluting firm. In order to garnish serious attention regarding these suspect groups, it might require this ENGO/non-regulatory group to partake in tactics such as public shaming or smearing in order to obtain public concern, which in return may backfire and reduce credibility of the initial objective at hand.

I would imagine that the alternative would be a targeted educational effort, which in and of itself is costly, requires organization and the distribution of materials, and the effectiveness of such an effort may be limited if the issue at hand is either more complex, or perhaps does not lie in congruence with, the knowledge that the general public possesses. This suggestion then does mirror Evan's argument, that a variety of approaches (in that case: public engagement) may be most effective in influencing change.

Truly, this is a wicked problem.


Sources:
http://www.glstewardship.org/Home.aspx
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-governor-signs-bill-making-illinois-first-state-to-ban-microbeads-20140608-story.html
http://milwaukee.gov/water

Images:
http://cdn.camstar.industrysoftware.automation.siemens.com/manufacturing-geek/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/regulations.jpg