Final review

The 8 Theories

I have a major stakeholder in regional environmental issues in We Energies. A powerful and controversial piece of legislation in the Clean Power Plan, and a voluntary network with big goals but no authority to get them there. Where do they fall within Evans final observations?

These are my thoughts and observations, an in no way are they meant to be objective.

Theory 1 Networks and markets are the best thing we have.
I think relying on market based governance and volunteer markets is a quick way to bring us to environmental catastrophe. We already know that companies who pollute will do the absolute bare minimum (with few exceptions) to meet environmental laws. When we allow We Energies greater leverage, they will use it to create more profits at the expense of the environment. It seems volunteer networks have some use, at least by bringing different stakeholders to the table, but are ineffective at exacting rel change, without the help of policy like the CPP.

Theory 2 Governance is about evolution, not revolution.
I like this idea, but some actors are so powerful, like We Energies, they can bully both local and national stakeholders. Otherwise the idea of appropriate levels of governance, according to scale, makes sense. This theory assumes that meta governance will always evolve slower or that the lower orders will be effected by it at a constant rate. With a changing world that is beginning to see increasingly larger environmental catastrophes, its hard to be rigid in finding the appropriate scale of government to deal with environmental issues. We have to be more flexible than that.

Theory 3 Getting the mix of approaches right is critical.
I think this theory works when you look at the full scope of environmental problems we have world wide. A one size fits all solution is impossible. We Energies does not need a myriad of solutions though. It needs clearly defined top down regulation and it needs to be enforced. Not every problem needs that. The CPP is one such piece of legislation attempting to do that. Wisconsin Partners for Clean Air is a different and largely ineffective approach.

Theory 4 Governance requires political vision
Unfortunately, this theory has been mostly successful in creating bad scenarios for our environment. Political leadership and corporate controlled media have partnered with large polluters and turned the general public against environmental stewardship. How many people even know about the Wisconsin Partners for Clean Air? I would wager not as many as there are people that have seen a pro Brad Schimel (WI Attorney General) ad using fear-mongering to manufacture support for his lawsuit against the CPP for the benefit of WE Energies. It is effective in creating support for the environment as well, and there will be a tipping point for global warming acceptance.

Theory 5 Governance is about learning
"The success of governance depends on the ability to adapt to changing contexts through a process of learning". I would attribute both the WPCA and the CPP to this idea. Networks were created as an idea to bring actors together, pool resources, share responsibilities, etc.. The top down hierarchical governance evolved into networks through experience and learning. We also learned the shortcomings of voluntary governance, thus the need for legislation like the CPP.

Theory 6 Duality of structure is critical
I think the CPP is a piece of legislation that allows small scale freedom to get to a common goal. We live in a capitalist society, and although I would prefer our utilities to be nationalized, since they are not, we must allow them room to come up with a cost effective way to meet emissions goals. The companies would prefer a network without enforcement capabilities, but usually get a mix of both. Participation within networks like WPCA seems to help them fall inline with regulatory bodies like the EPA.

Theory 7 Governments matter.
"Governments shape markets" Evans states the not so obvious. There is no such thing as a free market because it is always set by the government. The invisible hand of the market that so many market based environmentalists think can help solve problems, is really controlled by government policy. This is my favorite theory. Actors like WE Energies need a strong government with clear policy. Otherwise, they'll do as capitalists do. I agree that networks have a place, like the WPCA, but those are mostly just to get all the actors around the table. It's direct government action that can have the most impact at the meta level, and even below that as well, depending on the circumstance. I think federal environmental laws are at their best when they coerce states into following them. States are so full of anti-environmental cronyism!

Theory 8 Hybrid institutions are critical in coordinating action across sectors.
I think these are important for disseminating policy across actors and governments. This is one way in which I think networks find their niche. I think without the help of these institutions, we have no CPP.

I still think we need an evolved hierarchic form of governance. Giving companies some freedom is good, but we need gentle reminders to keep moving forward until the problem of global warming is solved. This won't happen without regulatory power. The political vision and political economy need also to be there as well to enact stricter governance, which I feel is why polluters have fought so hard to gain public support of a more relaxed regulatory environment.