Environmental Policy: New Directions

for the Twenty First Century 10th

Edition, (Ebook PDF)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/environmental-policy-new-directions-for-the-twenty-fir
st-century-10th-edition-ebook-pdf/
8
Preface

As we near the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, environmental policy faces significant
challenges both at home and around the world. New demands for dealing with the risks of climate change and
threats to biological diversity, and for meeting the rising aspirations of the planet’s seven and a half billion
people, will force governments everywhere to rethink policy strategies. They need to find effective ways to
reconcile environmental and economic goals and values through new approaches to sustainable development.
In the United States, the early part of the decade saw a stagnant economy and persistently high
unemployment, which encouraged policymakers and the business community to blame environmental policies
and regulations for hindering economic growth and job creation, even where the evidence of such an impact
was weak or nonexistent. The economy improved greatly by 2017, although, as economic inequality widened,
the benefits of economic expansion failed to reach many who remained no better off than they were two
decades earlier. Partly as a result, the dialogue over environmental policy has become even more politically
contentious, and critics often blamed those policies for weakening economic growth and job creation.

Many of these criticisms continue to divide members of the two major parties deeply, as Republicans,
particularly in the House of Representatives, have called for repealing, reducing, and reining in environmental
policies and regulations in the face of strong Democratic defense of the same policies and actions. The result
has been intense and relentless partisan debate on Capitol Hill and at the state and local levels where many of
the same conflicts have been evident. Environmentalists have blamed Democrats as well for what they see as
their often timid defense of environmental policy or for the ways in which they seek to balance what they see
as competing economic and environmental goals even as new research demonstrates convincingly that this
dichotomy represents a false choice. Political debate over the next few years may continue to be framed in
these terms even as leading businesses, the scientific community, and increasing numbers of public officials
recognize that the real challenge today is to find ways to meet economic and other human needs while also
protecting the environment on which we depend.

The election of President Donald Trump in November 2016 brought a dramatic change in policy positions
and priorities after eight years of the Barack Obama administration. Particularly in his second four-year term,
Obama sought to strengthen protection of public health and the environment, foster the development of clean
energy resources, and establish a viable and broadly supported path toward global action on climate change
through the Paris Agreement of 2015. In contrast, early decisions in the Trump administration aimed to
reverse many of Obama’s major policy initiatives, especially on energy use and climate change. The differences
between the two presidencies on societal values and policy priorities, key appointments to administrative
agencies, budgetary support for established programs, and the use of science in decision making could hardly
have been greater. What is less clear is whether the positions of the Trump presidency will win favor in
Congress beyond initial actions to roll back environmental regulations, and whether the American public and
the business community will support such a major reversal in public policy.

When the first environmental decade was launched in the early 1970s, protecting our air, water, and other

9
natural resources seemed a relatively simple proposition. The polluters and exploiters of nature would be
brought to heel by tough laws requiring them to clean up or get out of business within five or ten years. But
preserving the life support systems of the planet now appears a far more daunting task than anyone imagined
back then. Not only are problems such as global climate change more complex than recognized by early efforts
to control air and water pollution, but now more than ever, the success of U.S. policies is tied to the actions of
other nations. This book seeks to explain the most important developments in environmental policy and
politics since the 1960s and to analyze the central issues that face us today. Like the previous editions, it
focuses on the underlying trends, institutional strengths and shortcomings, and policy dilemmas that all policy
actors face in attempting to resolve environmental controversies. Chapters have been thoroughly revised and
updated, and one of them is new to this edition. We have also attempted to compare the positions and actions
of the Trump administration to those of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations and to put
these differing approaches to environmental policy in the context of ongoing debates over the cost and
effectiveness of past policies, as well as the search for ways to reconcile and integrate economic,
environmental, and social goals through sustainable development. As such, the book has broad relevance for
the environmental community and for all concerned with the difficulties and complexities of finding solutions
to environmental problems at the end of this second decade of the twenty-first century.

Part I provides a retrospective view of policy development as well as a framework for analyzing policy change
in the United States. Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to the book by outlining the basic issues in U.S.
environmental policy since the late 1960s, the development of institutional capabilities for addressing them,
and the successes and failures in implementing policies and achieving results. In Chapter 2, Barry G. Rabe
considers the evolving role of the states in environmental policy at a time when the recent devolution of
responsibilities may face scrutiny from new federal leaders. He focuses on innovative policy approaches used
by the states and the promise of—as well as the constraints on—state action on the environment. Part I ends
with a chapter by Luis E. Hestres and Matthew C. Nisbet that analyzes changes in environmental advocacy
strategies in recent years and addresses a fundamental question about the capacity of environmentalists to
make their case to the American public and policymakers at a time when conventional movement strategies
have not been very successful and when opposition from industry and political conservatives is on the rise.

Part II analyzes the role of federal institutions in environmental policymaking. Chapter 4, by Norman J. Vig,
discusses the role of recent presidents as environmental actors, evaluating their leadership on the basis of
several common criteria. In Chapter 5, Michael E. Kraft examines the role of Congress in environmental
policy, giving special attention to partisan conflicts over the environment and policy gridlock. The chapter
focuses on recent debates and actions on national energy policy and climate change, over which Congress has
struggled for much of the past decade. Chapter 6 presents Rosemary O’Leary’s use of several in-depth case
studies of judicial action to explore how the courts shape environmental policy. In Chapter 7, Richard N. L.
Andrews examines the EPA and the way it uses the policy tools granted to it by Congress, especially its
regulatory authority, to address environmental challenges. Because regulations inherently place restrictions
and burdens on businesses and state and local governments, Andrews uses several case studies to illuminate
how the agency implements environmental policy while addressing the concerns of these constituencies and
others, such as the president, members of Congress, the news media, and the courts, about varied

10
environmental risks and the costs and benefits of acting on them.

Some of the broader dilemmas in environmental policy formulation and implementation are examined in Part
III. Chapter 8, by Edward P. Weber, David Bernell, Hilary S. Boudet, and Patricia Fernandez-Guajardo,
examines disputes over national energy policy, particularly controversies surrounding hydraulic fracturing or
fracking, coal mining and carbon emissions, and the interdependence of water and energy resources. In
Chapter 9, Christopher Bosso and Nicole E. Tichenor examine the fascinating relationships between food
and the environment, specifically the environmental impacts of the dominant food system on which the
United States and other developed nations rely, the federal environmental laws that affect the production and
sale of food, and the growing criticism about and ideas for change in the food system that are intended to
reduce its ecological footprint while also ensuring that the nation and planet can continue to feed a growing
number of people.

In Chapter 10, Sheila M. Olmstead introduces economic perspectives on environmental policy, including the
use of benefit-cost analysis, and she assesses the potential of market forces as an alternative or supplement to
conventional regulation. She sees great potential in the use of market-based environmental and resource
policies. Chapter 11 moves the spotlight to evolving business practices. Daniel Press and Daniel A.
Mazmanian examine the “greening of industry” or sustainable production, particularly the increasing use of
market-based initiatives such as voluntary pollution prevention, information disclosure, and environmental
management systems. They find that a creative combination of voluntary action and government regulation
offers the best promise of success. Finally, in Chapter 12, Kent E. Portney examines the intriguing efforts by
communities throughout the nation to integrate environmental sustainability into policy decisions in areas as
diverse as energy use, housing, transportation, land use, and urban social life—considerations made even more
important today in an era of higher energy costs.

Part IV shifts attention to selected global issues and controversies. In Chapter 13, Henrik Selin and Stacy D.
VanDeveer survey the key scientific evidence and major disputes over climate change, as well as the evolution
of the issue since the late 1980s. They also assess government responses to the problem of climate change and
the outlook for public policy actions. Chapter 14 examines the plight of developing nations that are struggling
with a formidable array of threats brought about by rapid population growth and resource exploitation.
Richard J. Tobin surveys the pertinent evidence, recounts cases of policy success and failure, and outlines the
remaining barriers (including insufficient commitment by rich countries) to achieving sustainable
development in these nations. In the final Chapter 15 we review the many environmental challenges that
continue to face the nation and the world and discuss innovative policy instruments that might help us to
better address these issues in the future.

We thank the contributing authors for their generosity, cooperative spirit, and patience in response to our
editorial requests. It is a pleasure to work with such a conscientious and punctual group of scholars. Special
thanks are also due to the staff of CQ Press/SAGE, including Charisse Kiino, Scott Greenan, Monica
Eckman, Sarah Christensen, Jennifer Jones, Erica DeLuca, Kelle Clarke, and Olivia Weber-Stenis. We are
particularly grateful for the very professional and extraordinarily thorough copyediting by Karen E. Taylor.

11
We owe a special debt to our colleagues who graciously agreed to review previous editions of the book and
offered many useful suggestions: William G. Holt, Birmingham-Southern College; Daniel Fiorino, American
University; Jeff W. Justice, Tarleton State University; Jack Rasmus, St. Mary’s College; Ninian Stein, Smith
College; Gerald A. Emison, Mississippi State University; Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo, University of Kentucky;
Sarah Anderson, University of California, Santa Barbara; Irasema Coronado, University of Texas at El Paso;
Robert Duffy, Colorado State University; Erich Frankland, University of Wyoming; Raymond Lodato,
University of Chicago; Melissa K. Merry, University of Louisville; and John W. Sutherlin, University of
Louisiana at Monroe. We also gratefully acknowledge support from the Department of Public and
Environmental Affairs at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. Finally, we thank our students at Carleton
College and UW–Green Bay for forcing us to rethink our assumptions about what really matters. As always,
any remaining errors and omissions are our own responsibility.

Norman J. Vig

Michael E. Kraft

12
About the Editors

Norman J. Vig
is the Winifred and Atherton Bean Professor of Science, Technology, and Society emeritus at Carleton
College. He has written extensively on environmental policy, science and technology policy, and
comparative politics and is coeditor with Michael G. Faure of Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the
United States and the European Union (2004) and with Regina S. Axelrod and David Leonard Downie of
The Global Environment: Institutions, Law, and Policy, 2nd ed. (2005).
Michael E. Kraft
is a professor of political science and the Herbert Fisk Johnson Professor of Environmental Studies
emeritus at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. He is the author of Environmental Policy and
Politics, 7th ed. (2018), and coauthor of Coming Clean: Information Disclosure and Environmental
Performance (2011, winner of the Lynton K. Caldwell award for best book in environmental politics and
policy) and of Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives, 6th ed. (2018). In addition, he is coeditor
of both the Oxford Handbook of Environmental Policy (2013) and Business and Environmental Policy
(2007) with Sheldon Kamieniecki and of Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and
Transformations in Environmental Policy, 2nd ed. (2009), with Daniel A. Mazmanian.

13
About the Contributors

Richard N. L. Andrews
is a professor emeritus of public policy, environmental studies, environmental sciences and engineering,
and city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A primary focus of
his research and writing is the history of U.S. environmental policy. He is the author of Managing the
Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy, 2nd ed. (2006), “The
EPA at 40: An Historical Perspective” (Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 2011), “Reform or
Reaction: EPA at a Crossroads” (Environmental Sciences & Technology, 1995), and many other articles
on related topics.
David Bernell
is an associate professor of political science in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University
and the coordinator of the energy policy concentration in the master’s and PhD programs in public
policy. His research and teaching focus on U.S. energy policy, energy security, and international
relations. He is the coauthor with Christopher Simon of The Energy Security Dilemma: U.S. Policy and
Practice (2016) and the author of Constructing U.S. Foreign Policy: The Curious Case of Cuba (2011). He
formerly served with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in the natural resources, energy,
science, and water divisions, and with the U.S. Department of the Interior as an adviser on trade and the
environment.
Christopher Bosso
is a professor of public policy at Northeastern University. His areas of interest include food and
environmental policy, science and technology policy, and the governance of emerging technologies. He
is author of Framing the Farm Bill: Interests, Ideology, and the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2017) and editor of
Feed Cities: Improving Local Food Access, Sustainability, and Resilience (2017) and Governing Uncertainty:
Environmental Regulation in the Age of Nanotechnology (2010). His 2005 book, Environment, Inc.: From
Grassroots to Beltway, was cowinner of the American Political Science Association’s Lynton K. Caldwell
award for best book in environmental politics and policy.
Hilary S. Boudet
is an assistant professor of climate change and energy in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State
University. Her research interests include environmental and energy policy, social movements, and
public participation in energy and environmental decision making. She coauthored, with Doug
McAdam, Putting Social Movements in Their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United
States, 2000–2005 (2012). Her recent work focuses on public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing and
community-based interventions designed to encourage sustainable behavior.
Patricia Fernandez-Guajardo
is a Fulbright Scholar and PhD student in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University. Her
master’s research examined water governance and institutional capacity in Mexico. Her current research
explores the water-energy nexus, specifically, the transitions from traditional irrigation systems to
integrated sustainable systems in the rural American West.

14
Luis E. Hestres
is an assistant professor of digital communication and affiliate faculty of the Center for Digital Politics
Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio, where he teaches courses on digital media
production; the socioeconomic, cultural, and political aspects of digital media; and digital activism. His
work has been published in the journals New Media & Society, International Journal of Communication,
Social Media + Society, and Environmental Politics, and in The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate
Change Communication. His latest project is a book about climate change advocacy organizations and the
role that digital communication technologies have played in their development. The book will be
published by Lexington Books in 2019. Before earning his PhD from American University in 2014, Dr.
Hestres worked as a digital strategist at the U.S. House of Representatives and for several progressive
advocacy organizations in Washington, DC. Most recently, he was the Internet director for the 1Sky
climate change campaign, which merged with 350.org in 2011. For more information visit
www.luishestres.com.
Daniel A. Mazmanian
is a professor of public policy in the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern
California. From 2000 to 2005, he served as the C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor of the
School of Policy, Planning, and Development (today, the Price School), and prior to that, he was Dean
of the School of Natural Resources and Environment (today, the School for Environment and
Sustainability) at the University of Michigan. Among his several books are Can Organizations Change?
Environmental Protection, Citizen Participation, and the Corps of Engineers (1979), Implementation and
Public Policy (1989), Beyond Superfailure: America’s Toxics Policy for the 1990s (1992), Toward Sustainable
Communities, 2nd ed. (2009), and Elgar Companion to Sustainable Cities (2014).
Matthew C. Nisbet
is a professor of communication studies at Northeastern University and editor-in-chief of the journal
Environmental Communication. The author of more than seventy-five peer-reviewed studies, book
chapters, and reports, Nisbet focuses on the role of communication and the media in environmental
advocacy and politics. Among awards and recognition, he has served as a Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard
University’s Kennedy School of Government, a health policy investigator with the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, and a member of the National Academies consensus study committee on science
communication. More information on his research and writing can be found at
www.matthewnisbet.org.
Rosemary O’Leary
is an environmental lawyer, Stene Chair Distinguished Professor, and director of the School of Public
Affairs at the University of Kansas. She has written extensively on the courts and environmental policy.
She is the winner of sixteen national research awards, including five senior scholar achievement awards
(the Gaus Award, the Waldo Award, the Routledge Award, the Frederickson Award, and the Provan
Award). In 2016, the article she coauthored with Susan Raines on alternative dispute resolution at the
EPA was selected as one of fourteen Public Administration Review articles “that have made important
contributions to the study of environmental policy, regulation, and governance” in the last seventy-five
years. She is coeditor, with Robert Durant and Daniel Fiorino, of the MIT Press book Environmental

15
 Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities, 2nd ed. (2017).
Sheila M. Olmstead
is a professor of public affairs at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of
Texas at Austin, a visiting fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF) in Washington, DC, and a senior
fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana. She was previously a
fellow and senior fellow at RFF (2010–2013) and an associate professor (2007–2010) and assistant
professor (2002–2007) of environmental economics at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies. Her research has been published in leading journals such as the Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, and
Journal of Urban Economics. With Nathaniel Keohane, she is the author of the book Markets and the
Environment. From June 2016 to June 2017, she served on the President’s Council of Economic
Advisers.
Kent E. Portney
is a professor and the director of the Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Bush
School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. Previously, he taught for many
years at Tufts University. He is the author of Sustainability (2015), Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously:
Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities, 2nd ed. (2013),
Approaching Public Policy Analysis (1986), Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities: The NIMBY
Syndrome (1991), and Controversial Issues in Environmental Policy (1992). He is also the coauthor of
Acting Civically (2007) and The Rebirth of Urban Democracy (1993), which won the American Political
Science Association’s 1994 Gladys M. Kammerer award for best book in American politics and the
American Political Science Association Organized Section on Urban Politics’ 1994 award for best book
in urban politics.
Daniel Press
is a professor of Environmental Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he teaches
environmental politics and policy. He is the author of Democratic Dilemmas in the Age of Ecology (1994),
Saving Open Space: The Politics of Local Preservation in California (2002), and American Environmental
Policy: The Failures of Compliance, Abatement, and Mitigation (2015). California governors Gray Davis
and Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed him to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board, a state agency charged with enforcing state and federal water quality laws and regulations. He
served from 2001 to 2008. He currently serves as the executive director of the UC Santa Cruz Center
for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, the country’s foremost university-based organic
agriculture teaching and training farm.
Barry G. Rabe
is the J. Ira and Nicki Harris Family Professor of Public Policy and the Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of
Environmental Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He
also serves as a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and chaired the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Assumable Waters Committee from 2015 to 2017. He is the author
of numerous books and articles, including Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American
Climate Change Policy, which received the 2017 Martha Derthick Book Award from the American

16
 Political Science Association for making a lasting contribution to the study of federalism. His latest
book is Can We Price Carbon? (MIT Press, 2018), and he is also examining the politics of severance
taxes and sovereign wealth funds related to oil and gas production.
Henrik Selin
is an associate professor in the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University, where
he conducts research and teaches classes on global and regional politics and policymaking on the
environment and sustainable development. He is the author of Global Governance of Hazardous
Chemicals: Challenges of Multilevel Management (MIT Press, 2010), coauthor of The European Union and
Environmental Governance (Routledge, 2015), and coeditor of Changing Climates in North American
Politics: Institutions, Policymaking, and Multilevel Governance (MIT Press, 2009) and Transatlantic
Environment and Energy Politics: Comparative and International Perspectives (Ashgate, 2009). In
addition, he has authored and coauthored more than four dozen peer-reviewed journal articles and book
chapters, as well as numerous reports, reviews, and commentaries. He also serves as an associate editor
for the journal Global Environmental Politics.
Nicole E. Tichenor
is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of New Hampshire’s Sustainability Institute. Her
transdisciplinary research focuses on food system sustainability and food security. She has experience in
food and agricultural policy, spanning the local to national levels, through her work at the Douglas
County Food Policy Council in Kansas and the National Family Farm Coalition in Washington, DC.
She recently received her PhD from Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and
Policy, where she was awarded fellowships from the Friedman Foundation, the Robert and Patricia
Switzer Foundation, the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, and the Tufts Institute
of the Environment to support her research, teaching, and engagement efforts.
Richard J. Tobin
has spent most of his professional career working on international development. After retiring from the
World Bank, he has served as a consultant to UNICEF, the United Nations Development Programme,
the United Nations Population Fund, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank,
the Arab Administrative Development Organization, and the Organization for Security and Co-
operation in Europe. He continues to serve as consultant to the World Bank and has also worked on
projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the United Kingdom’s Department
for International Development, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Stacy D. VanDeveer
is a professor in the Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance at
the University of Massachusetts Boston. His research and teaching interests include the global politics
of resource overconsumption, international environmental policymaking and institutions, connections
between environmental and security issues, and comparative and EU environmental politics. In addition
to authoring and coauthoring over ninety articles, book chapters, working papers, and reports, he is the
coeditor or coauthor of nine books, including EU Enlargement and the Environment (2005), Changing
Climates in North American Politics (2009), Transatlantic Environment and Energy Politics (2009),
Comparative Environmental Politics (2012), Transnational Climate Change Governance (2014), The Global

17
 Environment, 4th ed. (2015), The European Union and Environmental Governance (2015), and Want,
Waste or War? (2015). He also coedits the journal Global Environmental Governance.
Edward P. Weber
is the Ulysses G. Dubach Professor of Political Science in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State
University. His research focuses on natural resource/environmental policymaking, policy
implementation, democratic accountability, sustainability, and the design and operation of alternative
decision making/governance institutions, particularly collaborative governance arrangements. He is the
author of Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability, and Sustainable
Communities (2003), Changing Philosophies and Policies: Endangered Species Across the Years (2016), New
Strategies for Wicked Problems: Science and Problem Solving in the 21st Century (2017), and over fifty
articles and book chapters. He also is the former leader of the Thomas Foley Public Policy Institute at
Washington State University (2001–2008).

18
Part I Environmental Policy and Politics in Transition

19
Chapter 1 U.S. Environmental Policy Achievements and New
Directions

Michael E. Kraft
Norman J. Vig

During the 2016 presidential election, the Republican nominee and later president, Donald Trump,
frequently questioned the reality of climate change and pledged to dismantle the Obama administration’s
most significant environmental policy initiatives. These included the 2015 Clean Power Plan of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to phase out coal-fired power plants and the adoption of new
vehicle fuel economy standards embraced by the auto industry in 2012. These two rules were central
components of U.S. climate policy, and they allowed the nation to meet its commitments under the global
Paris Agreement on climate change that took effect in November of 2016. Trump also said during the
campaign that he would end U.S. participation in the climate accord and abolish the EPA itself. He later
modified the latter position to say he would work to “refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean
air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans.”1

In his first year in office, the new president followed through on these promises by appointing a prominent
climate change denier and fierce opponent of EPA regulation, Scott Pruitt, as the agency’s new administrator,
proposing large budgetary and staff cuts for the EPA and signing executive orders intended to reverse both
the Clean Power Plan and the fuel economy standards. He also pushed strongly for development of the
nation’s fossil fuel resources, among other actions to roll back Obama-era environmental policy achievements
(see Chapters 4 and 8). The previous EPA administrator in the Obama administration, Gina McCarthy,
described the proposed budgetary cuts as a “scorched earth budget that represents an all-out assault on clean
air, water and land.”2 Further signaling his intention to reverse President Obama’s climate change initiatives,
on June 1, 2017, Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement,
a move widely criticized by environmentalists, governors and mayors in many states, corporate CEOs, and
world leaders. Surveys indicate continued strong and bipartisan support by the American public for the accord
and for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions despite the president’s decision.3

The Democratic nominee in 2016, Hillary Clinton, offered a markedly different posture on these issues. She
described climate change as an “urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.” She promised not only to
maintain Obama’s environmental policies but to strengthen them, and she called for “taking on the threat of
climate change and making America the world’s clean energy superpower.” The contrast between the
candidates and their party’s positions could hardly have been greater.4

These striking differences between the two major party nominees reflect the increasing partisan and
ideological polarization that had emerged on environmental and energy issues by the late 2010s.5 These
patterns differ greatly from the bipartisanship that characterized the environmental decade of the 1970s and
also was evident, albeit to a lesser extent, over most of the past five decades as the nation adopted dozens of
major public policies to deal with both national and global environmental problems, and provided the funds

20
necessary to implement those policies. Today, partisanship and ideological polarization often make it
exceptionally difficult to build political backing for policy adoption even when the general public is strongly
supportive of it, as was the case on climate change and energy issues in 2016 and 2017.6 Yet the political
conflicts today also speak to new challenges that the nation and world now face, especially climate change,
challenges requiring different kinds of governmental and private sector actions and new policy approaches that
differ from those that have been relied on in previous decades.

To help address these critical questions about the appropriate role of government and public policy, this
chapter provides a historical and institutional analysis that seeks to explain how policymakers have addressed
environmental problems and the policy choices they have made since the modern environmental era began in
the 1960s. We review the activities of government in addressing environmental problems, the structure of
U.S. government that can facilitate or hinder decisions, the processes of agenda setting and policymaking,
major policy decisions made over the past five decades, and what those policies have achieved since their
adoption. In the concluding chapter in this volume (Chapter 15), we return to the many remaining challenges
of the twenty-first century, and we explore the need for a fresh examination of environmental governance and
the possible new directions in policies that better match the problems that the nation and world now face.

21
The Challenges of Contemporary Environmental Problems
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, environmental issues soared to a prominent place on the political agenda in
the United States and other industrial nations. The new visibility was accompanied by abundant evidence,
domestically and internationally, of heightened public concern over environmental threats and broad support
for governmental action.7 By the 1990s, policymakers around the world had pledged to deal with a range of
important environmental problems, from protection of biological diversity to air and water pollution control.
Such commitments were particularly manifest at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (the Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where an ambitious agenda for redirecting
the world’s economies toward sustainable development was approved, and at the December 1997 Conference
of the Parties in Kyoto, Japan, where delegates agreed to a landmark treaty on global climate change.
Although it received far less media coverage, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in
September 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa, reaffirmed the commitments made a decade earlier at the
Earth Summit, with particular attention to the challenge of alleviating global poverty. The far-reaching goals
of the Earth Summit and the 2002 Johannesburg meeting were revisited at the 2012 Rio+20 United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development held once again in Brazil.

Despite the notable commitments made and actions taken at these and many other comparable meetings,
rising criticism of environmental programs also was evident throughout the 1990s and in the first two decades
of the twenty-first century, both domestically and internationally. So too were a multiplicity of efforts to chart
new policy directions. For example, intense opposition to environmental and natural resource policies arose in
the 104th Congress (1995–1997), when the Republican Party took control of both the House and Senate for
the first time in forty years. Ultimately, much like the earlier efforts in Ronald Reagan’s administration, that
antiregulatory campaign on Capitol Hill failed to gain much public support.8 Nonetheless, pitched battles
over environmental and energy policy continued in every Congress through the 115th (2017–2018). Both
antiregulatory actions and fights over them were equally evident in the executive branch, particularly during
the George W. Bush administration, as it sought to rewrite environmental rules and regulations to favor
industry and to increase development of U.S. oil and natural gas supplies on public lands, and even more
directly in the Donald Trump administration, which shared many of the same priorities (see Chapter 4). Yet
growing dissatisfaction with the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of environmental policies was by no
means confined to congressional conservatives and the Bush and Trump administrations. It could be found as
well among a broad array of interests, including the business community, environmental policy analysts,
environmental justice groups, and state and local government officials, although without the ideological
agenda that was so evident in the Bush and Trump administrations.9

Since 1992, governments at all levels have struggled to redesign environmental policy for the twenty-first
century. Under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA tried to “reinvent” environmental
regulation through the use of collaborative decision making involving multiple stakeholders, public-private
partnerships, market-based incentives, information disclosure, and enhanced flexibility in rulemaking and
enforcement (see Chapters 7, 10, and 11).10 Particularly during the Clinton administration, new emphases

22
within the EPA and other federal agencies and departments on ecosystem management and sustainable
development sought to foster comprehensive, integrated, and long-term strategies for environmental
protection and natural resource management.11 Many state and local governments have pursued similar goals
with the adoption of innovative policies that promise to address some of the most important criticisms
directed at contemporary environmental policy (see Chapters 2 and 12).12 The election of President Barack
Obama in 2008 brought additional attention to new policy ideas, especially in his second term of office when
he pursued strong and often innovative policies on clean energy and climate change (see Chapter 4).

The precise way in which Congress, the states, and local governments—and other nations—will change
environmental policies in the years to come remains unclear. The prevailing partisan polarization and policy
gridlock of recent years may give way to greater consensus on the need to act; yet policy change rarely comes
easily in the U.S. political system. Its success likely depends on several key conditions: the saliency of the
issues and the degree of public support for action on them, the way various policy actors stake out and defend
their positions on the issues, media coverage of the problems as well as the political disputes over them, the
relative influence of opposing interests, and the state of the economy. Political leadership, as always, will play
a critical role, especially in articulating the problems and potential solutions, mobilizing the public and policy
actors, and trying to reconcile the deep partisan divisions that exist today on environmental protection and
natural resource issues. Political conflict over the environment is not going to vanish anytime soon. Indeed, it
may well increase as the United States and other nations struggle to define how they will respond to the latest
generation of environmental problems.

23
The Role of Government and Politics
The high level of political conflict over environmental protection efforts in the past several decades,
particularly evident at the beginning of the Trump administration, underscores the important role government
plays in devising solutions to the nation’s and the world’s mounting environmental ills. Global climate change,
population growth, the spread of toxic and hazardous chemicals, loss of biological diversity, and air and water
pollution require various actions by individuals and institutions at all levels of society and in both the public
and private sectors. These actions range from scientific research and technological innovation to improved
environmental education and significant changes in corporate actions and individual behavior. As political
scientists, we believe government has an indispensable role to play in environmental protection and
improvement even as we acknowledge the importance of corporate and individual choices. Because of this
conviction, we have commissioned chapters for this volume that focus on environmental policies and the
government institutions and political processes that affect them. Our goal is to illuminate that role and to
suggest needed changes and strategies.

Government plays a preeminent role in this policy arena primarily because environmental threats, such as
urban air pollution and climate change, pose risks to the public’s health and well-being that cannot be resolved
satisfactorily through private actions alone. That said, there is no question that individuals and
nongovernmental organizations, such as environmental groups and scientific research institutes, can do much
to protect environmental quality and promote public health. There is also no doubt that business and industry
can do much to promote environmental quality and foster the pursuit of national energy goals, such as
improved energy efficiency and increased reliance on renewable energy sources. We see evidence of extensive
and often creative individual, nonprofit, and corporate actions of this kind regularly, for example, in
sustainable community efforts and sustainable business practices, as discussed in Chapters 12 and 13.

Yet such actions often fall short of national needs without the backing of public policy, without, for example,
laws mandating control of toxic chemicals that are supported by the authority of government or standards for
drinking water quality and urban air quality that are developed and enforced by the EPA, the states, and local
governments. The justification for government intervention lies partly in the inherent limitations of the free
market system and the nature of human behavior. Self-interested individuals and a relatively unfettered
economic marketplace guided mainly by a concern for short-term profits tend to create spillover effects, or
externalities; pollution and other kinds of environmental degradation are examples. As economists have long
recognized, collective action is needed to correct such market failures (see Chapter 10). In addition, the scope
and urgency of environmental problems typically exceed the capacity of private markets and individual efforts
to deal with them quickly and effectively. For these reasons, among others, the United States and other
nations have relied on government policies—at local, state, national, and international levels—to address
environmental and resource challenges.

Adopting public policies does not imply, of course, that the voluntary and cooperative actions by citizens in
their communities or the various environmental initiatives by businesses cannot be the primary vehicle of
change in many instances. Nor does it suggest that governments should not consider a full range of policy

24
approaches—including market-based incentives, new forms of collaborative decision making, and information
provision strategies—to supplement conventional regulatory policies where needed. Public policy intervention
should be guided by the simple idea that we ought to use those policy approaches that offer the greatest
promise of working to resolve the problem at hand. Sometimes that will mean governments setting and
enforcing public health or environmental standards (regulation), and sometimes it will mean relying on
market incentives or information disclosure. More often than not, today, governmental agencies will employ a
combination of policy tools to reach agreed-upon objectives: improving environmental quality, minimizing
health and ecological risks, and helping to integrate and balance environmental and economic goals.

25
Political Institutions and Public Policy
Public policy is a course of government action or inaction in response to social problems. It is expressed in
goals articulated by political leaders; in formal statutes, rules, and regulations; and in the practices of
administrative agencies and courts charged with implementing or overseeing programs. Policy states the intent
to achieve certain goals and objectives through a conscious choice of means, usually within a specified period
of time. In a constitutional democracy like the United States, policymaking is distinctive in several respects: It
must take place through constitutional processes, it requires the sanction of law, and it is binding on all
members of society.

The constitutional requirements for policymaking were established well over two hundred years ago, and they
remain much the same today. The U.S. political system is based on a division of authority among three
branches of government and between the federal government and the states. Originally intended to limit
government power and to protect individual liberty, this division of power translates today into a requirement
that one build an often elusive political consensus among members of Congress, the president, and key
interest groups for any significant national policymaking to take place. That is, fragmented authority may
impede the ability of government to adopt timely and coherent environmental policy, as has been evident for
some of the most challenging of modern environmental problems. Weak national climate change policy is
something of a poster child for such governmental gridlock, which can be defined as an inability to act on
problems because of divided authority and prevailing political conflict (see Chapter 5). Dedication to
principles of federalism means that environmental policy responsibilities are distributed among the federal
government, the fifty states, and tens of thousands of local governments. Here, too, strong adherence to those
principles may result in no agreement on national policy action. Yet a federal structure also means that states
often are free to adopt environmental and energy policies as they see fit, as has been the case for natural gas
“fracking” where no major national policies have been in force. At least some of the states have a track record
of favoring strong environmental policies that go well beyond what is possible politically in Washington, DC.
California’s adoption of a strong climate change policy and Minnesota’s successful encouragement of
renewable energy sources are two notable illustrations of the considerable power that states have in the U.S.
political system (see Chapter 2).13 The flip side of that coin is that some states will choose to do far less than
others in the absence of national requirements.

Responsibility for the environment is divided within the branches of the federal government as well, most
notably in the U.S. Congress, with power shared between the House and Senate and jurisdiction over
environmental policies scattered among dozens of committees and subcommittees (see Table 1-1). For
example, approximately twenty Senate and twenty-eight House committees have some jurisdiction over EPA
activities.14 The executive branch is also institutionally fragmented, with at least some responsibility for the
environment and natural resources located in twelve cabinet departments and in the EPA, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and other agencies (see Figure 1-1). Most environmental policies are concentrated in
the EPA and in the Interior and Agriculture Departments; yet the Departments of Energy, Defense,
Transportation, and State are increasingly important actors as well. Finally, the more than one hundred

26
federal trial and appellate courts play key roles in interpreting environmental legislation and adjudicating
disputes over administrative and regulatory actions (see Chapter 6).

Table 1-1 Major Congressional Committees with Environmental Responsibilitiesa

Committee Environmental Policy Jurisdiction

HOUSE

Agriculture generally; forestry in general and private forest reserves; agricultural and
industrial chemistry; pesticides; soil conservation; food safety and human nutrition;
Agriculture
rural development; water conservation related to activities of the Department of
Agriculture

Appropriationsb Appropriations for all programs

Measures related to the exploration, production, storage, marketing, pricing, and

regulation of energy sources, including all fossil fuels, solar, and renewable energy;
energy conservation and information; measures related to general management of
Energy and the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Commerce regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry; research and development of
nuclear power and nuclear waste; air pollution; safe drinking water; pesticide
control; Superfund and hazardous waste disposal; toxic substances control; health
and the environment

Public lands and natural resources in general; irrigation and reclamation; water and
power; mineral resources on public lands and mining; grazing; national parks,
Natural
forests, and wilderness areas; fisheries and wildlife, including research, restoration,
Resources
refuges, and conservation; marine affairs and oceanography, international fishing
agreements, and coastal zone management; U.S. Geological Survey

Environmental research and development; marine research; energy research and

Science, Space, development in all federally owned nonmilitary energy laboratories; research in
and Technology national laboratories; NASA, National Weather Service, and National Science
Foundation

Transportation, including civil aviation, railroads, water transportation, and

Transportation transportation infrastructure; Coast Guard and marine transportation; federal
and management of emergencies and natural disasters; flood control and improvement
Infrastructure of waterways; water resources and the environment; pollution of navigable waters;
bridges and dams

27
 SENATE

Agriculture, Agriculture in general; food from fresh waters; soil conservation and groundwater;
Nutrition, and forestry in general; human nutrition; rural development and watersheds; pests and
Forestry pesticides; food inspection and safety

Committee Environmental Policy Jurisdiction

Appropriationsb Appropriations for all programs

Interstate commerce and transportation generally; coastal zone management; inland

Commerce,
waterways; marine fisheries; oceans, weather, and atmospheric activities;
Science, and
transportation and commerce aspects of outer continental shelf lands; science,
Transportation
engineering, and technology research and development; surface transportation

Energy policy, regulation, conservation, research and development; coal; oil and gas
Energy and production and distribution; civilian nuclear energy; solar energy systems; mines,
Natural mining, and minerals; irrigation and reclamation; water and power; national parks
Resources and recreation areas; wilderness areas; wild and scenic rivers; public lands and
forests; historic sites

Environmental policy, research, and development; air, water, and noise pollution;
climate change; construction and maintenance of highways; safe drinking water;
Environment environmental aspects of outer continental shelf lands and ocean dumping;
and Public environmental effects of toxic substances other than pesticides; fisheries and wildlife;
Works Superfund and hazardous wastes; solid waste disposal and recycling; nonmilitary
environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy; water resources, flood
control, and improvements of rivers and harbors; public works, bridges, and dams
Sources: Compiled from descriptions of committee jurisdictions reported in Rebecca Kimitch, “CQ Guide to the Committees: Democrats
Opt to Spread the Power,” CQ Weekly Online (April 16, 2007): 1080–83, http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/weeklyreport110-
000002489956, and from current House and Senate committee websites.

a. In addition to the standing committees listed here, select or special committees may be created for a
limited time. Each committee also operates with subcommittees (generally five or six) to permit further
specialization. Committee webpages offer extensive information about jurisdiction, issues, membership,
and pending actions, and include both majority and minority views on the issues. See
www.house.gov/committees/ and
www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_three_sections_with_teasers/committees_home.htm.

b. Both the House and Senate appropriations committees have interior and environment subcommittees
that handle all Interior Department agencies as well as the Forest Service and the EPA. The Energy
Department, Army Corps of Engineers, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission fall under the jurisdiction

28
 of the subcommittees on energy and water development. Tax policy affects many environmental, energy,
and natural resource policies and is governed by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and
Means Committee.

Figure 1-1 Executive Branch Agencies with Environmental Responsibilities

Sources: Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: Sixteenth Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office, 1987); and The
United States Government Manual 2017, available at www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/.

The implications of this constitutional arrangement for policymaking were evident in the early 1980s as
Congress and the courts checked and balanced the Reagan administration’s efforts to reverse environmental
policies of the previous decade. They were equally clear during the 1990s when the Clinton administration
vigorously opposed actions in Congress to weaken environmental programs. They could be seen again in the
presidency of George W. Bush, when Congress challenged the president’s proposed national energy policy
and many other environmental initiatives, particularly when the Democrats regained both houses of Congress
following the 2006 election. They were just as evident in Barack Obama’s presidency when the Republican
House of Representatives frequently took strong exception to the president’s budget recommendations and
proposals for new rules and regulations in the agencies, especially the EPA’s efforts to reduce toxic pollution
from coal-fired power plants and to restrict release of greenhouse gases linked to climate change. Even at the
beginning of the Trump administration in 2017, members of the president’s own party voiced objections to
the severity of his proposed budget cuts for environmental programs and scientific research.15

During the last two decades, the conflict between the two major parties on environmental issues had one
striking effect. It shifted attention to the role of the states in environmental policy. As Barry G. Rabe
discusses in Chapter 2, the states often have been at the center of the most innovative actions on
environmental and energy policy, including climate change, when the federal government remained mired in
partisan disputes. By 2017, for example, over half of the states had adopted some form of climate change
policy, particularly to favor use of renewable energy sources, whereas Congress and the White House could

29
reach no agreement on what to do.16

Generally, after broad consultation and agreement among diverse interests, both within and outside of
government, divided authority typically produces slow and incremental alterations in public policy. Such
political interaction and accommodation of interests enhance the overall legitimacy of the resulting public
policies. Over time, however, the cumulative effect often results in disjointed policies that fall short of the
ecological or holistic principles of policy design so often touted by environmental scientists, planners, and
activists.

Nonetheless, when issues are highly visible or salient, the public is supportive, and political leaders act
cohesively, the U.S. political system has proved flexible enough to permit substantial policy advancement.17
As we shall see, this was the case in the early to mid-1970s, when Congress enacted major changes in U.S.
environmental policy, and in the mid-1980s, when Congress overrode objections of the Reagan
administration and greatly strengthened policies on hazardous waste and water quality, among others. Passage
of the monumental Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is an example of the same alignment of forces. With
bipartisan support, Congress adopted the act by a margin of 401 to 25 in the House and 89 to 10 in the
Senate. Comparable bipartisanship during the mid-1990s produced major changes in the Safe Drinking
Water Act and in regulation of pesticide residues in food. In 2005 and 2007, the same kind of bipartisan
cooperation allowed Congress to approve new national energy policies and significantly expand protection of
wilderness areas, and in 2016, it led to approval of major changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (see
Chapter 5).

30
Policy Processes: Agendas, Streams, and Cycles
Students of public policy have proposed several models for analyzing how issues get on the political agenda,
how they are defined or framed, and how they move through the policy processes of government. These
theoretical frameworks help us to understand both long-term policy trends and short-term cycles of
progressive action and political reaction. One set of essential questions concerns agenda setting: How do new
problems emerge as political issues that demand the government’s attention, if they do achieve such
recognition, and how are they defined in the public mind? For example, why did the federal government
initiate controls on industrial pollution in the 1960s and early 1970s but do little about national energy issues
until well into the 1970s, and even then only to a limited extent? Why was it so difficult for climate change to
gain the attention of policymakers over the years, and why did various policy actors frame the issue in such
different ways and interpret climate science in such disparate ways? Climate change’s rise on the political
agenda was quite slow, and then it became a significant issue by the 2008 presidential election campaign, only
to fade again in prominence as the nation’s attention was fixed on the economy and persistently high
unemployment. In the 2016 elections, it returned as a prominent issue and was given a central role in the
Trump administration as it sought to overturn the core elements in Barack Obama’s climate policy (see
Chapters 3 and 15).

As the case of climate change illustrates, hurdles almost always must be overcome for an issue to rise to
prominence. The issue must first gain societal recognition as a problem, often in response to demographic,
technological, or other social changes. It must be defined or framed as a particular kind of problem, which in
turn affects the way possible solutions are developed and appraised.18 Then it must get on the docket of
government institutions, usually through the exercise of organized interest group pressure. Finally, it must
receive enough attention by government policymakers to reach the stage of decisional or policy action. An
issue is not likely to reach this latter stage unless conditions are ripe—for example, a triggering event that
focuses public opinion sharply, as occurred with the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 and again with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.19 One model by political scientist John Kingdon
analyzes agenda setting according to the convergence of three streams that can be said to flow through the
political system at any time: (1) evidence of the existence of problems, (2) available policies to deal with them,
and (3) the political climate or willingness to act. Although largely independent of one another, these
problem, policy, and political streams can be brought together at critical times when policy entrepreneurs (key
activists and policymakers) are able to take advantage of the moment and make the case for policy action.20

Once an issue is on the agenda, it must pass through several more stages in the policy process. These stages
are often referred to as the policy cycle. Although terminology varies, most students of public policy delineate at
least five stages of policy development beyond agenda setting. These are (1) policy formulation (designing and
drafting policy goals and strategies for achieving them, which may involve extensive use of environmental
science, economics, and policy analysis), (2) policy legitimation (mobilizing political support and formal
enactment by law or other means), (3) policy implementation (putting programs into effect through provision of
institutional resources and administrative decisions), (4) policy evaluation (measuring results in relation to goals

31
and costs), and (5) policy change (modifying goals or means, including termination of programs).21

The policy cycle model is useful because it emphasizes all phases of policymaking. For example, how well a
law is implemented is as important as the goals and motivations of those who designed and enacted the
legislation. The model also suggests the continuous nature of the policy process. No policy decision or
solution is final because changing conditions, new information, and shifting opinions will require policy
reevaluation and revision. Other short-term forces and events, such as presidential or congressional elections
or environmental accidents, can profoundly affect the course of policy over its life cycle. Thus policy at any
given time is shaped by the interaction of long-term social, economic, technological, and political forces and
short-term fluctuations in the political climate. All of these factors are manifest in the development of
environmental policy.

32
The Development of Environmental Policy from the 1970s to the Twenty-
First Century
As implied in the policy cycle model, the history of environmental policy in the United States is not one of
steady improvement in human relations with the natural environment. Rather, it has been highly uneven, with
significant discontinuities, particularly since the late 1960s. The pace and nature of policy change, as is true
for most areas of public policy, reflect the dominant social values at any given time, the saliency of the issues,
and the prevailing economic and political conditions.

Sometimes, as was the case in the 1970s, the combination facilitates major advances in environmental policy,
and at other times, such as during the early 1980s and 2000s, we have periods of reaction and retrenchment. A
third possibility, evident in the 2010s during President Obama’s second term, is that no political consensus
exists on what to do and consequently no major legislative actions take place. Yet, even in times like this, we
see governments responding to changing environmental challenges through executive authority, rulemaking in
administrative agencies, and court decisions. These responses were evident both in the Obama administration
and in the first few months of the Trump administration. As noted earlier in the chapter, Trump sought to
reverse many Obama initiatives through executive orders and through deep cuts in agency budgets (see
Chapters 4 and 5). That is, policy change need not come only through the adoption of new legislation; it can
be accomplished through administrative actions as well, and that route to policy change may be preferred
when a presidential administration seeks rapid change with minimal public visibility.22 Despite these
variations in political conditions and policy responses, it is fair to say that since the late 1960s, we have seen
substantial public support for environmental protection and expanding government authority to act.23 We
focus here on the major changes from that time through the middle of the second decade of the twenty-first
century, and we discuss the future challenges for environmental politics and policy in the concluding chapter
of the book.

33
Policy Actions Prior to 1970
Until about 1970, the federal government played a sharply limited role in environmental policymaking—
public land management being a major exception to this pattern. For nearly a century, Congress had set aside
portions of the public domain for preservation as national parks, forests, grazing lands, recreation areas, and
wildlife refuges. The multiple use and sustained yield doctrines that grew out of the conservation movement at
the beginning of the twentieth century, strongly supported by President Theodore Roosevelt, ensured that
this national trust would contribute to economic growth under the stewardship of the Interior and Agriculture
Departments.

Steady progress was also made, however, in managing the lands in the public interest and protecting them
from development.24 After several years of debate, Congress passed the Wilderness Act of 1964 to preserve
some of the remaining forestlands in pristine condition, “untrammeled by man’s presence.” At the same time,
it approved the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to fund federal purchases of land for
conservation purposes and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 to protect selected rivers with
“outstandingly remarkable features,” including biological, scenic, and cultural value.25

During the mid-1960s, the United States also began a major effort to reduce world population growth in
developing nations through financial aid for foreign population programs, chiefly voluntary family planning
and population research. President Lyndon B. Johnson and congressional sponsors of the programs tied them
explicitly to a concern for “growing scarcity in world resources.”26

Despite this longtime concern for resource conservation and land management, and the new interest in
population and development issues, federal environmental policy was only slowly extended to the control of
industrial pollution and human waste. Air and water pollution were long considered to be strictly local or state
matters, and they were not high on the national agenda until around 1970. In a very early federal action, the
Refuse Act of 1899 required individuals who wanted to dump refuse into navigable waters to obtain a permit
from the Army Corps of Engineers; however, the agency largely ignored the pollution aspects of the act.27
After World War II, policies to control the most obvious forms of pollution were gradually developed at the
local, state, and federal levels, although some of the earliest local actions to control urban air pollution date
back to the 1880s and the first limited state actions to the 1890s.

By the late 1940s and 1950s, we see the forerunners of contemporary air and water pollution laws. For
example, the federal government began assisting local authorities in building sewage treatment plants and
initiated a limited program for air pollution research. Following the Clean Air Act of 1963 and amendments
to the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, Washington began prodding the states to set pollution
abatement standards and to formulate implementation plans based on federal guidelines.28

34
Agenda Setting for the 1970s
The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. Nationwide “teach-ins” about environmental problems demonstrated
the environment’s new place on the nation’s social and political agendas. With an increasingly affluent and
well-educated society placing new emphasis on the quality of life, concern for environmental protection grew
apace and was evident across the population, if not necessarily to the same degree among all groups.29 The
effect was a broadly based public demand for more vigorous and comprehensive federal action to prevent
environmental degradation. In an almost unprecedented fashion, a new environmental policy agenda rapidly
emerged. Policymakers viewed the newly salient environmental issues as politically attractive, and they eagerly
supported tough new measures, even when the full impacts and costs were unknown. As a result, laws were
quickly enacted and implemented throughout the 1970s but with a growing concern over their costs and
effects on the economy and an increasing realization that administrative agencies at all levels of government
often lacked the capacity to assume their new responsibilities.

Congress set the stage for the spurt in policy innovation at the end of 1969 when it passed the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The act declared that

it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local
governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and
measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote
the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future
generations of Americans.30

The law required detailed environmental impact statements for nearly all major federal actions and established
the Council on Environmental Quality to advise the president and Congress on environmental issues.
President Richard Nixon then seized the initiative by signing NEPA as his first official act of 1970 and
proclaiming the 1970s as the “environmental decade.” In February 1970, he sent a special message to
Congress calling for a new law to control air pollution. The race was on as the White House and
congressional leaders vied for environmentalists’ support.

35
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 DANCE ON STILTS AT THE GIRLS’ UNYAGO, NIUCHI

Newala, too, suffers from the distance of its water-supply—at least

the Newala of to-day does; there was once another Newala in a lovely
valley at the foot of the plateau. I visited it and found scarcely a trace
of houses, only a Christian cemetery, with the graves of several
missionaries and their converts, remaining as a monument of its
former glories. But the surroundings are wonderfully beautiful. A
thick grove of splendid mango-trees closes in the weather-worn
crosses and headstones; behind them, combining the useful and the
agreeable, is a whole plantation of lemon-trees covered with ripe
fruit; not the small African kind, but a much larger and also juicier
imported variety, which drops into the hands of the passing traveller,
without calling for any exertion on his part. Old Newala is now under
the jurisdiction of the native pastor, Daudi, at Chingulungulu, who,
as I am on very friendly terms with him, allows me, as a matter of
course, the use of this lemon-grove during my stay at Newala.
 FEET MUTILATED BY THE RAVAGES OF THE “JIGGER”
(Sarcopsylla penetrans)

The water-supply of New Newala is in the bottom of the valley,

some 1,600 feet lower down. The way is not only long and fatiguing,
but the water, when we get it, is thoroughly bad. We are suffering not
only from this, but from the fact that the arrangements at Newala are
nothing short of luxurious. We have a separate kitchen—a hut built
against the boma palisade on the right of the baraza, the interior of
which is not visible from our usual position. Our two cooks were not
long in finding this out, and they consequently do—or rather neglect
to do—what they please. In any case they do not seem to be very
particular about the boiling of our drinking-water—at least I can
attribute to no other cause certain attacks of a dysenteric nature,
from which both Knudsen and I have suffered for some time. If a
man like Omari has to be left unwatched for a moment, he is capable
of anything. Besides this complaint, we are inconvenienced by the
state of our nails, which have become as hard as glass, and crack on
the slightest provocation, and I have the additional infliction of
pimples all over me. As if all this were not enough, we have also, for
the last week been waging war against the jigger, who has found his
Eldorado in the hot sand of the Makonde plateau. Our men are seen
all day long—whenever their chronic colds and the dysentery likewise
raging among them permit—occupied in removing this scourge of
Africa from their feet and trying to prevent the disastrous
consequences of its presence. It is quite common to see natives of
this place with one or two toes missing; many have lost all their toes,
or even the whole front part of the foot, so that a well-formed leg
ends in a shapeless stump. These ravages are caused by the female of
Sarcopsylla penetrans, which bores its way under the skin and there
develops an egg-sac the size of a pea. In all books on the subject, it is
stated that one’s attention is called to the presence of this parasite by
an intolerable itching. This agrees very well with my experience, so
far as the softer parts of the sole, the spaces between and under the
toes, and the side of the foot are concerned, but if the creature
penetrates through the harder parts of the heel or ball of the foot, it
may escape even the most careful search till it has reached maturity.
Then there is no time to be lost, if the horrible ulceration, of which
we see cases by the dozen every day, is to be prevented. It is much
easier, by the way, to discover the insect on the white skin of a
European than on that of a native, on which the dark speck scarcely
shows. The four or five jiggers which, in spite of the fact that I
constantly wore high laced boots, chose my feet to settle in, were
taken out for me by the all-accomplished Knudsen, after which I
thought it advisable to wash out the cavities with corrosive
sublimate. The natives have a different sort of disinfectant—they fill
the hole with scraped roots. In a tiny Makua village on the slope of
the plateau south of Newala, we saw an old woman who had filled all
the spaces under her toe-nails with powdered roots by way of
prophylactic treatment. What will be the result, if any, who can say?
The rest of the many trifling ills which trouble our existence are
really more comic than serious. In the absence of anything else to
smoke, Knudsen and I at last opened a box of cigars procured from
the Indian store-keeper at Lindi, and tried them, with the most
distressing results. Whether they contain opium or some other
narcotic, neither of us can say, but after the tenth puff we were both
“off,” three-quarters stupefied and unspeakably wretched. Slowly we
recovered—and what happened next? Half-an-hour later we were
once more smoking these poisonous concoctions—so insatiable is the
craving for tobacco in the tropics.
Even my present attacks of fever scarcely deserve to be taken
seriously. I have had no less than three here at Newala, all of which
have run their course in an incredibly short time. In the early
afternoon, I am busy with my old natives, asking questions and
making notes. The strong midday coffee has stimulated my spirits to
an extraordinary degree, the brain is active and vigorous, and work
progresses rapidly, while a pleasant warmth pervades the whole
body. Suddenly this gives place to a violent chill, forcing me to put on
my overcoat, though it is only half-past three and the afternoon sun
is at its hottest. Now the brain no longer works with such acuteness
and logical precision; more especially does it fail me in trying to
establish the syntax of the difficult Makua language on which I have
ventured, as if I had not enough to do without it. Under the
circumstances it seems advisable to take my temperature, and I do
so, to save trouble, without leaving my seat, and while going on with
my work. On examination, I find it to be 101·48°. My tutors are
abruptly dismissed and my bed set up in the baraza; a few minutes
later I am in it and treating myself internally with hot water and
lemon-juice.
Three hours later, the thermometer marks nearly 104°, and I make
them carry me back into the tent, bed and all, as I am now perspiring
heavily, and exposure to the cold wind just beginning to blow might
mean a fatal chill. I lie still for a little while, and then find, to my
great relief, that the temperature is not rising, but rather falling. This
is about 7.30 p.m. At 8 p.m. I find, to my unbounded astonishment,
that it has fallen below 98·6°, and I feel perfectly well. I read for an
hour or two, and could very well enjoy a smoke, if I had the
wherewithal—Indian cigars being out of the question.
Having no medical training, I am at a loss to account for this state
of things. It is impossible that these transitory attacks of high fever
should be malarial; it seems more probable that they are due to a
kind of sunstroke. On consulting my note-book, I become more and
more inclined to think this is the case, for these attacks regularly
follow extreme fatigue and long exposure to strong sunshine. They at
least have the advantage of being only short interruptions to my
work, as on the following morning I am always quite fresh and fit.
My treasure of a cook is suffering from an enormous hydrocele which
makes it difficult for him to get up, and Moritz is obliged to keep in
the dark on account of his inflamed eyes. Knudsen’s cook, a raw boy
from somewhere in the bush, knows still less of cooking than Omari;
consequently Nils Knudsen himself has been promoted to the vacant
post. Finding that we had come to the end of our supplies, he began
by sending to Chingulungulu for the four sucking-pigs which we had
bought from Matola and temporarily left in his charge; and when
they came up, neatly packed in a large crate, he callously slaughtered
the biggest of them. The first joint we were thoughtless enough to
entrust for roasting to Knudsen’s mshenzi cook, and it was
consequently uneatable; but we made the rest of the animal into a
jelly which we ate with great relish after weeks of underfeeding,
consuming incredible helpings of it at both midday and evening
meals. The only drawback is a certain want of variety in the tinned
vegetables. Dr. Jäger, to whom the Geographical Commission
entrusted the provisioning of the expeditions—mine as well as his
own—because he had more time on his hands than the rest of us,
seems to have laid in a huge stock of Teltow turnips,[46] an article of
food which is all very well for occasional use, but which quickly palls
when set before one every day; and we seem to have no other tins
left. There is no help for it—we must put up with the turnips; but I
am certain that, once I am home again, I shall not touch them for ten
years to come.
Amid all these minor evils, which, after all, go to make up the
genuine flavour of Africa, there is at least one cheering touch:
Knudsen has, with the dexterity of a skilled mechanic, repaired my 9
× 12 cm. camera, at least so far that I can use it with a little care.
How, in the absence of finger-nails, he was able to accomplish such a
ticklish piece of work, having no tool but a clumsy screw-driver for
taking to pieces and putting together again the complicated
mechanism of the instantaneous shutter, is still a mystery to me; but
he did it successfully. The loss of his finger-nails shows him in a light
contrasting curiously enough with the intelligence evinced by the
above operation; though, after all, it is scarcely surprising after his
ten years’ residence in the bush. One day, at Lindi, he had occasion
to wash a dog, which must have been in need of very thorough
cleansing, for the bottle handed to our friend for the purpose had an
extremely strong smell. Having performed his task in the most
conscientious manner, he perceived with some surprise that the dog
did not appear much the better for it, and was further surprised by
finding his own nails ulcerating away in the course of the next few
days. “How was I to know that carbolic acid has to be diluted?” he
mutters indignantly, from time to time, with a troubled gaze at his
mutilated finger-tips.
 Since we came to Newala we have been making excursions in all
directions through the surrounding country, in accordance with old
habit, and also because the akida Sefu did not get together the tribal
elders from whom I wanted information so speedily as he had
promised. There is, however, no harm done, as, even if seen only
from the outside, the country and people are interesting enough.
The Makonde plateau is like a large rectangular table rounded off
at the corners. Measured from the Indian Ocean to Newala, it is
about seventy-five miles long, and between the Rovuma and the
Lukuledi it averages fifty miles in breadth, so that its superficial area
is about two-thirds of that of the kingdom of Saxony. The surface,
however, is not level, but uniformly inclined from its south-western
edge to the ocean. From the upper edge, on which Newala lies, the
eye ranges for many miles east and north-east, without encountering
any obstacle, over the Makonde bush. It is a green sea, from which
here and there thick clouds of smoke rise, to show that it, too, is
inhabited by men who carry on their tillage like so many other
primitive peoples, by cutting down and burning the bush, and
manuring with the ashes. Even in the radiant light of a tropical day
such a fire is a grand sight.
Much less effective is the impression produced just now by the
great western plain as seen from the edge of the plateau. As often as
time permits, I stroll along this edge, sometimes in one direction,
sometimes in another, in the hope of finding the air clear enough to
let me enjoy the view; but I have always been disappointed.
Wherever one looks, clouds of smoke rise from the burning bush,
and the air is full of smoke and vapour. It is a pity, for under more
favourable circumstances the panorama of the whole country up to
the distant Majeje hills must be truly magnificent. It is of little use
taking photographs now, and an outline sketch gives a very poor idea
of the scenery. In one of these excursions I went out of my way to
make a personal attempt on the Makonde bush. The present edge of
the plateau is the result of a far-reaching process of destruction
through erosion and denudation. The Makonde strata are
everywhere cut into by ravines, which, though short, are hundreds of
yards in depth. In consequence of the loose stratification of these
beds, not only are the walls of these ravines nearly vertical, but their
upper end is closed by an equally steep escarpment, so that the
western edge of the Makonde plateau is hemmed in by a series of
deep, basin-like valleys. In order to get from one side of such a ravine
to the other, I cut my way through the bush with a dozen of my men.
It was a very open part, with more grass than scrub, but even so the
short stretch of less than two hundred yards was very hard work; at
the end of it the men’s calicoes were in rags and they themselves
bleeding from hundreds of scratches, while even our strong khaki
suits had not escaped scatheless.

NATIVE PATH THROUGH THE MAKONDE BUSH, NEAR

MAHUTA

I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
 The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.

MAKONDE LOCK AND KEY AT JUMBE CHAURO

 This is the general way of closing a house. The Makonde at Jumbe
Chauro, however, have a much more complicated, solid and original
one. Here, too, the door is as already described, except that there is
only one post on the inside, standing by itself about six inches from
one side of the doorway. Opposite this post is a hole in the wall just
large enough to admit a man’s arm. The door is closed inside by a
large wooden bolt passing through a hole in this post and pressing
with its free end against the door. The other end has three holes into
which fit three pegs running in vertical grooves inside the post. The
door is opened with a wooden key about a foot long, somewhat
curved and sloped off at the butt; the other end has three pegs
corresponding to the holes, in the bolt, so that, when it is thrust
through the hole in the wall and inserted into the rectangular
opening in the post, the pegs can be lifted and the bolt drawn out.[50]

MODE OF INSERTING THE KEY

With no small pride first one householder and then a second

showed me on the spot the action of this greatest invention of the
Makonde Highlands. To both with an admiring exclamation of
“Vizuri sana!” (“Very fine!”). I expressed the wish to take back these
marvels with me to Ulaya, to show the Wazungu what clever fellows
the Makonde are. Scarcely five minutes after my return to camp at
Newala, the two men came up sweating under the weight of two
heavy logs which they laid down at my feet, handing over at the same
time the keys of the fallen fortress. Arguing, logically enough, that if
the key was wanted, the lock would be wanted with it, they had taken
their axes and chopped down the posts—as it never occurred to them
to dig them out of the ground and so bring them intact. Thus I have
two badly damaged specimens, and the owners, instead of praise,
come in for a blowing-up.
The Makua huts in the environs of Newala are especially
miserable; their more than slovenly construction reminds one of the
temporary erections of the Makua at Hatia’s, though the people here
have not been concerned in a war. It must therefore be due to
congenital idleness, or else to the absence of a powerful chief. Even
the baraza at Mlipa’s, a short hour’s walk south-east of Newala,
shares in this general neglect. While public buildings in this country
are usually looked after more or less carefully, this is in evident
danger of being blown over by the first strong easterly gale. The only
attractive object in this whole district is the grave of the late chief
Mlipa. I visited it in the morning, while the sun was still trying with
partial success to break through the rolling mists, and the circular
grove of tall euphorbias, which, with a broken pot, is all that marks
the old king’s resting-place, impressed one with a touch of pathos.
Even my very materially-minded carriers seemed to feel something
of the sort, for instead of their usual ribald songs, they chanted
solemnly, as we marched on through the dense green of the Makonde
bush:—
 “We shall arrive with the great master; we stand in a row and have
no fear about getting our food and our money from the Serkali (the
Government). We are not afraid; we are going along with the great
master, the lion; we are going down to the coast and back.”
With regard to the characteristic features of the various tribes here
on the western edge of the plateau, I can arrive at no other
conclusion than the one already come to in the plain, viz., that it is
impossible for anyone but a trained anthropologist to assign any
given individual at once to his proper tribe. In fact, I think that even
an anthropological specialist, after the most careful examination,
might find it a difficult task to decide. The whole congeries of peoples
collected in the region bounded on the west by the great Central
African rift, Tanganyika and Nyasa, and on the east by the Indian
Ocean, are closely related to each other—some of their languages are
only distinguished from one another as dialects of the same speech,
and no doubt all the tribes present the same shape of skull and
structure of skeleton. Thus, surely, there can be no very striking
differences in outward appearance.
 Even did such exist, I should have no time
to concern myself with them, for day after day,
I have to see or hear, as the case may be—in
any case to grasp and record—an
extraordinary number of ethnographic
phenomena. I am almost disposed to think it
fortunate that some departments of inquiry, at
least, are barred by external circumstances.
Chief among these is the subject of iron-
working. We are apt to think of Africa as a
country where iron ore is everywhere, so to
speak, to be picked up by the roadside, and
where it would be quite surprising if the
inhabitants had not learnt to smelt the
material ready to their hand. In fact, the
knowledge of this art ranges all over the
continent, from the Kabyles in the north to the
Kafirs in the south. Here between the Rovuma
and the Lukuledi the conditions are not so
favourable. According to the statements of the
Makonde, neither ironstone nor any other
form of iron ore is known to them. They have
not therefore advanced to the art of smelting
the metal, but have hitherto bought all their
THE ANCESTRESS OF
THE MAKONDE
iron implements from neighbouring tribes.
Even in the plain the inhabitants are not much
better off. Only one man now living is said to
understand the art of smelting iron. This old fundi lives close to
Huwe, that isolated, steep-sided block of granite which rises out of
the green solitude between Masasi and Chingulungulu, and whose
jagged and splintered top meets the traveller’s eye everywhere. While
still at Masasi I wished to see this man at work, but was told that,
frightened by the rising, he had retired across the Rovuma, though
he would soon return. All subsequent inquiries as to whether the
fundi had come back met with the genuine African answer, “Bado”
(“Not yet”).
 BRAZIER

Some consolation was afforded me by a brassfounder, whom I

came across in the bush near Akundonde’s. This man is the favourite
of women, and therefore no doubt of the gods; he welds the glittering
brass rods purchased at the coast into those massive, heavy rings
which, on the wrists and ankles of the local fair ones, continually give
me fresh food for admiration. Like every decent master-craftsman he
had all his tools with him, consisting of a pair of bellows, three
crucibles and a hammer—nothing more, apparently. He was quite
willing to show his skill, and in a twinkling had fixed his bellows on
the ground. They are simply two goat-skins, taken off whole, the four
legs being closed by knots, while the upper opening, intended to
admit the air, is kept stretched by two pieces of wood. At the lower
end of the skin a smaller opening is left into which a wooden tube is
stuck. The fundi has quickly borrowed a heap of wood-embers from
the nearest hut; he then fixes the free ends of the two tubes into an
earthen pipe, and clamps them to the ground by means of a bent
piece of wood. Now he fills one of his small clay crucibles, the dross
on which shows that they have been long in use, with the yellow
material, places it in the midst of the embers, which, at present are
only faintly glimmering, and begins his work. In quick alternation
the smith’s two hands move up and down with the open ends of the
bellows; as he raises his hand he holds the slit wide open, so as to let
the air enter the skin bag unhindered. In pressing it down he closes
the bag, and the air puffs through the bamboo tube and clay pipe into
the fire, which quickly burns up. The smith, however, does not keep
on with this work, but beckons to another man, who relieves him at
the bellows, while he takes some more tools out of a large skin pouch
carried on his back. I look on in wonder as, with a smooth round
stick about the thickness of a finger, he bores a few vertical holes into
the clean sand of the soil. This should not be difficult, yet the man
seems to be taking great pains over it. Then he fastens down to the
ground, with a couple of wooden clamps, a neat little trough made by
splitting a joint of bamboo in half, so that the ends are closed by the
two knots. At last the yellow metal has attained the right consistency,
and the fundi lifts the crucible from the fire by means of two sticks
split at the end to serve as tongs. A short swift turn to the left—a
tilting of the crucible—and the molten brass, hissing and giving forth
clouds of smoke, flows first into the bamboo mould and then into the
holes in the ground.
The technique of this backwoods craftsman may not be very far
advanced, but it cannot be denied that he knows how to obtain an
adequate result by the simplest means. The ladies of highest rank in
this country—that is to say, those who can afford it, wear two kinds
of these massive brass rings, one cylindrical, the other semicircular
in section. The latter are cast in the most ingenious way in the
bamboo mould, the former in the circular hole in the sand. It is quite
a simple matter for the fundi to fit these bars to the limbs of his fair
customers; with a few light strokes of his hammer he bends the
pliable brass round arm or ankle without further inconvenience to
the wearer.
SHAPING THE POT

SMOOTHING WITH MAIZE-COB

CUTTING THE EDGE

 FINISHING THE BOTTOM

LAST SMOOTHING BEFORE

BURNING

FIRING THE BRUSH-PILE

 LIGHTING THE FARTHER SIDE OF
THE PILE

TURNING THE RED-HOT VESSEL

NYASA WOMAN MAKING POTS AT MASASI

Pottery is an art which must always and everywhere excite the
interest of the student, just because it is so intimately connected with
the development of human culture, and because its relics are one of
the principal factors in the reconstruction of our own condition in
prehistoric times. I shall always remember with pleasure the two or
three afternoons at Masasi when Salim Matola’s mother, a slightly-
built, graceful, pleasant-looking woman, explained to me with
touching patience, by means of concrete illustrations, the ceramic art
of her people. The only implements for this primitive process were a
lump of clay in her left hand, and in the right a calabash containing
the following valuables: the fragment of a maize-cob stripped of all
its grains, a smooth, oval pebble, about the size of a pigeon’s egg, a
few chips of gourd-shell, a bamboo splinter about the length of one’s
hand, a small shell, and a bunch of some herb resembling spinach.
 Nothing more. The woman scraped with the
shell a round, shallow hole in the soft, fine
sand of the soil, and, when an active young
girl had filled the calabash with water for her,
she began to knead the clay. As if by magic it
gradually assumed the shape of a rough but
already well-shaped vessel, which only wanted
a little touching up with the instruments
before mentioned. I looked out with the
MAKUA WOMAN closest attention for any indication of the use
MAKING A POT. of the potter’s wheel, in however rudimentary
SHOWS THE a form, but no—hapana (there is none). The
BEGINNINGS OF THE embryo pot stood firmly in its little
POTTER’S WHEEL
depression, and the woman walked round it in
a stooping posture, whether she was removing
small stones or similar foreign bodies with the maize-cob, smoothing
the inner or outer surface with the splinter of bamboo, or later, after
letting it dry for a day, pricking in the ornamentation with a pointed
bit of gourd-shell, or working out the bottom, or cutting the edge
with a sharp bamboo knife, or giving the last touches to the finished
vessel. This occupation of the women is infinitely toilsome, but it is
without doubt an accurate reproduction of the process in use among
our ancestors of the Neolithic and Bronze ages.
There is no doubt that the invention of pottery, an item in human
progress whose importance cannot be over-estimated, is due to
women. Rough, coarse and unfeeling, the men of the horde range
over the countryside. When the united cunning of the hunters has
succeeded in killing the game; not one of them thinks of carrying
home the spoil. A bright fire, kindled by a vigorous wielding of the
drill, is crackling beside them; the animal has been cleaned and cut
up secundum artem, and, after a slight singeing, will soon disappear
under their sharp teeth; no one all this time giving a single thought
to wife or child.
To what shifts, on the other hand, the primitive wife, and still more
the primitive mother, was put! Not even prehistoric stomachs could
endure an unvarying diet of raw food. Something or other suggested
the beneficial effect of hot water on the majority of approved but
indigestible dishes. Perhaps a neighbour had tried holding the hard
roots or tubers over the fire in a calabash filled with water—or maybe
an ostrich-egg-shell, or a hastily improvised vessel of bark. They
became much softer and more palatable than they had previously
been; but, unfortunately, the vessel could not stand the fire and got
charred on the outside. That can be remedied, thought our
ancestress, and plastered a layer of wet clay round a similar vessel.
This is an improvement; the cooking utensil remains uninjured, but
the heat of the fire has shrunk it, so that it is loose in its shell. The
next step is to detach it, so, with a firm grip and a jerk, shell and
kernel are separated, and pottery is invented. Perhaps, however, the
discovery which led to an intelligent use of the burnt-clay shell, was
made in a slightly different way. Ostrich-eggs and calabashes are not
to be found in every part of the world, but everywhere mankind has
arrived at the art of making baskets out of pliant materials, such as
bark, bast, strips of palm-leaf, supple twigs, etc. Our inventor has no
water-tight vessel provided by nature. “Never mind, let us line the
basket with clay.” This answers the purpose, but alas! the basket gets
burnt over the blazing fire, the woman watches the process of
cooking with increasing uneasiness, fearing a leak, but no leak
appears. The food, done to a turn, is eaten with peculiar relish; and
the cooking-vessel is examined, half in curiosity, half in satisfaction
at the result. The plastic clay is now hard as stone, and at the same
time looks exceedingly well, for the neat plaiting of the burnt basket
is traced all over it in a pretty pattern. Thus, simultaneously with
pottery, its ornamentation was invented.
Primitive woman has another claim to respect. It was the man,
roving abroad, who invented the art of producing fire at will, but the
woman, unable to imitate him in this, has been a Vestal from the
earliest times. Nothing gives so much trouble as the keeping alight of
the smouldering brand, and, above all, when all the men are absent
from the camp. Heavy rain-clouds gather, already the first large
drops are falling, the first gusts of the storm rage over the plain. The
little flame, a greater anxiety to the woman than her own children,
flickers unsteadily in the blast. What is to be done? A sudden thought
occurs to her, and in an instant she has constructed a primitive hut
out of strips of bark, to protect the flame against rain and wind.
This, or something very like it, was the way in which the principle
of the house was discovered; and even the most hardened misogynist
cannot fairly refuse a woman the credit of it. The protection of the
hearth-fire from the weather is the germ from which the human
dwelling was evolved. Men had little, if any share, in this forward
step, and that only at a late stage. Even at the present day, the
plastering of the housewall with clay and the manufacture of pottery
are exclusively the women’s business. These are two very significant
survivals. Our European kitchen-garden, too, is originally a woman’s
invention, and the hoe, the primitive instrument of agriculture, is,
characteristically enough, still used in this department. But the
noblest achievement which we owe to the other sex is unquestionably
the art of cookery. Roasting alone—the oldest process—is one for
which men took the hint (a very obvious one) from nature. It must
have been suggested by the scorched carcase of some animal
overtaken by the destructive forest-fires. But boiling—the process of
improving organic substances by the help of water heated to boiling-
point—is a much later discovery. It is so recent that it has not even
yet penetrated to all parts of the world. The Polynesians understand
how to steam food, that is, to cook it, neatly wrapped in leaves, in a
hole in the earth between hot stones, the air being excluded, and
(sometimes) a few drops of water sprinkled on the stones; but they
do not understand boiling.
To come back from this digression, we find that the slender Nyasa
woman has, after once more carefully examining the finished pot,
put it aside in the shade to dry. On the following day she sends me
word by her son, Salim Matola, who is always on hand, that she is
going to do the burning, and, on coming out of my house, I find her
already hard at work. She has spread on the ground a layer of very
dry sticks, about as thick as one’s thumb, has laid the pot (now of a
yellowish-grey colour) on them, and is piling brushwood round it.
My faithful Pesa mbili, the mnyampara, who has been standing by,
most obligingly, with a lighted stick, now hands it to her. Both of
them, blowing steadily, light the pile on the lee side, and, when the
flame begins to catch, on the weather side also. Soon the whole is in a
blaze, but the dry fuel is quickly consumed and the fire dies down, so
that we see the red-hot vessel rising from the ashes. The woman
turns it continually with a long stick, sometimes one way and
sometimes another, so that it may be evenly heated all over. In
twenty minutes she rolls it out of the ash-heap, takes up the bundle
of spinach, which has been lying for two days in a jar of water, and
sprinkles the red-hot clay with it. The places where the drops fall are
marked by black spots on the uniform reddish-brown surface. With a
sigh of relief, and with visible satisfaction, the woman rises to an
erect position; she is standing just in a line between me and the fire,
from which a cloud of smoke is just rising: I press the ball of my
camera, the shutter clicks—the apotheosis is achieved! Like a
priestess, representative of her inventive sex, the graceful woman
stands: at her feet the hearth-fire she has given us beside her the
invention she has devised for us, in the background the home she has
built for us.
At Newala, also, I have had the manufacture of pottery carried on
in my presence. Technically the process is better than that already
described, for here we find the beginnings of the potter’s wheel,
which does not seem to exist in the plains; at least I have seen
nothing of the sort. The artist, a frightfully stupid Makua woman, did
not make a depression in the ground to receive the pot she was about
to shape, but used instead a large potsherd. Otherwise, she went to
work in much the same way as Salim’s mother, except that she saved
herself the trouble of walking round and round her work by squatting
at her ease and letting the pot and potsherd rotate round her; this is
surely the first step towards a machine. But it does not follow that
the pot was improved by the process. It is true that it was beautifully
rounded and presented a very creditable appearance when finished,
but the numerous large and small vessels which I have seen, and, in
part, collected, in the “less advanced” districts, are no less so. We
moderns imagine that instruments of precision are necessary to
produce excellent results. Go to the prehistoric collections of our
museums and look at the pots, urns and bowls of our ancestors in the
dim ages of the past, and you will at once perceive your error.
MAKING LONGITUDINAL CUT IN
BARK

DRAWING THE BARK OFF THE LOG

REMOVING THE OUTER BARK

 BEATING THE BARK

WORKING THE BARK-CLOTH AFTER BEATING, TO MAKE IT

SOFT

MANUFACTURE OF BARK-CLOTH AT NEWALA

To-day, nearly the whole population of German East Africa is
clothed in imported calico. This was not always the case; even now in
some parts of the north dressed skins are still the prevailing wear,
and in the north-western districts—east and north of Lake
Tanganyika—lies a zone where bark-cloth has not yet been
superseded. Probably not many generations have passed since such
bark fabrics and kilts of skins were the only clothing even in the
south. Even to-day, large quantities of this bright-red or drab
material are still to be found; but if we wish to see it, we must look in
the granaries and on the drying stages inside the native huts, where
it serves less ambitious uses as wrappings for those seeds and fruits
which require to be packed with special care. The salt produced at
Masasi, too, is packed for transport to a distance in large sheets of
bark-cloth. Wherever I found it in any degree possible, I studied the
process of making this cloth. The native requisitioned for the
purpose arrived, carrying a log between two and three yards long and
as thick as his thigh, and nothing else except a curiously-shaped
mallet and the usual long, sharp and pointed knife which all men and
boys wear in a belt at their backs without a sheath—horribile dictu!
[51]
Silently he squats down before me, and with two rapid cuts has
drawn a couple of circles round the log some two yards apart, and
slits the bark lengthwise between them with the point of his knife.
With evident care, he then scrapes off the outer rind all round the
log, so that in a quarter of an hour the inner red layer of the bark
shows up brightly-coloured between the two untouched ends. With
some trouble and much caution, he now loosens the bark at one end,
and opens the cylinder. He then stands up, takes hold of the free
edge with both hands, and turning it inside out, slowly but steadily
pulls it off in one piece. Now comes the troublesome work of
scraping all superfluous particles of outer bark from the outside of
the long, narrow piece of material, while the inner side is carefully
scrutinised for defective spots. At last it is ready for beating. Having
signalled to a friend, who immediately places a bowl of water beside
him, the artificer damps his sheet of bark all over, seizes his mallet,
lays one end of the stuff on the smoothest spot of the log, and
hammers away slowly but continuously. “Very simple!” I think to
myself. “Why, I could do that, too!”—but I am forced to change my
opinions a little later on; for the beating is quite an art, if the fabric is
not to be beaten to pieces. To prevent the breaking of the fibres, the
stuff is several times folded across, so as to interpose several
thicknesses between the mallet and the block. At last the required
state is reached, and the fundi seizes the sheet, still folded, by both
ends, and wrings it out, or calls an assistant to take one end while he
holds the other. The cloth produced in this way is not nearly so fine
and uniform in texture as the famous Uganda bark-cloth, but it is
quite soft, and, above all, cheap.
Now, too, I examine the mallet. My craftsman has been using the
simpler but better form of this implement, a conical block of some
hard wood, its base—the striking surface—being scored across and
across with more or less deeply-cut grooves, and the handle stuck
into a hole in the middle. The other and earlier form of mallet is
shaped in the same way, but the head is fastened by an ingenious
network of bark strips into the split bamboo serving as a handle. The
observation so often made, that ancient customs persist longest in
connection with religious ceremonies and in the life of children, here
finds confirmation. As we shall soon see, bark-cloth is still worn
during the unyago,[52] having been prepared with special solemn
ceremonies; and many a mother, if she has no other garment handy,
will still put her little one into a kilt of bark-cloth, which, after all,
looks better, besides being more in keeping with its African
surroundings, than the ridiculous bit of print from Ulaya.
MAKUA WOMEN