​I’d love to write something about how science will fare in the Trump administration. I’d love to look forward to some semblance of equilibrium between the far-right ideology that got Trump elected and the mandate for innovation and progress in the sciences. I’d love to simply be able to say that science will survive the Trump administration.
 
But so far there’s no science to speak of in the administration at all.
 
There are 46 science and technology positions for which the President must send nominations to the Senate for confirmation. These range from commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the director of the Census Bureau, comprising many scientific different disciplines and levels of bureaucracy. All of these positions are meant to advise the administration — sometimes the President directly, as in the case of the empty chair of the Council on Environmental Quality — on the most important science-related issues facing the nation and the world today.

A week before the 2016 general election, I posted a piece on the then-upcoming referendum on Amendment 1 in the Sunshine State. The amendment failed to pass, but solar’s future in Florida remains uncertain. The governor and the Republican-led legislature are not eager backers of renewable energy, and the powerful investor-owned utilities (IOUs) will now turn their attention to lobbying the legislature and Public Service Commission on policies that will keep them in the driver’s seat.
 
Amendment 1 received 51% of the vote on November 8th, falling well short of the 60% required to pass constitutional amendments in the state. The vote, however, has not triggered any substantive changes in the way that solar is generated and distributed. Net-metering laws in the state still prohibit individuals and businesses who generate solar power from selling excess to directly to neighbors; they are required to sell back to the utilities. While Consumers for Smart Solar failed to encode this arrangement into the state constitution via Amendment 1, those net-metering statutes are still on the books.
 
It is unclear when this status quo might be upended. As I discussed in my  previous post, the Floridians for Solar Choice coalition attempted to get a competing amendment on the 2016 ballot that would have opened up third-party solar sales in the state. While they failed to garner enough signatures to put the amendment before voters, they have vowed to try again on the 2018 ballot, and the defeat of Amendment 1 has boosted their morale and optimism. It may seem strange that a constitutional amendment is the preferred method of overturning statute on something like solar energy, but such is politics in Florida. Attempts to get the Republican-led legislature and Governor Scott—who benefited from millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the IOUs—to change the statute via conventional means is a non-starter. If anything, the IOUs may try to use their influence to pressure the legislature and the Public Service Commission to weaken existing net-metering laws and to cripple tax abatements for solar. If they are successful in doing so, then even if Floridians for Solar Choice’s amendment makes the ballot and passes, many of the incentives for residents and businesses to invest in solar may be gone by 2018.
 
In addition to those possible roadblocks to an open and competitive solar market that the IOUs may set down before a 2018 referendum, solar advocates must contend with the reality that the Clean Power Plan is as good as dead in states like Florida where the governor and attorney general oppose it; Donald Trump’s assumption of power has all but guaranteed that. As a result, the urgency of investments in renewable energy has dissipated. Even if a Democrat wins the governorship in 2018—and that’s a big “if”—the near-inevitable continued dominance of conservatives in Tallahassee means there is little chance of renewable portfolio standards being passed.
 
So, while pro-solar forces were heartened by Amendment 1’s defeat, the battle is far from over. Preventing the IOUs from enshrining their monopoly in the state constitution was a necessary but insufficient step in expanding solar’s reach in Florida. Now, Floridians for Solar Choice and its allies must turn their attention to fighting the IOUs in the legislature and Public Service Commission, guarding against attempts to decrease net-metering compensation or dilute tax credits for renewables. Moreover, to lay the groundwork for more progress down the road, environmentalists must gear up now to elect pro-clean energy candidates from both parties to the state legislature and Florida’s congressional delegation in 2018. The degree to which the coalition has the political will, organization, and resources to accomplish even some of this agenda remains to be seen.

Dr. Dana R Fisher, PSE Director and Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland College Park, recently wrote on the Contexts blog about the Women's March and its significance, both within today's political climate and within the social movements literature on repertoires of contention.

Read the full post at Contexts: ​https://contexts.org/blog/the-womens-march-was-only-the-beginning/

The impact of humans on the natural environment is one of the most pressing issues of the Twenty-First Century. Key topics of concern include mounting natural resource pressures, accelerating environmental degradation, and the rising frequency and intensity of disasters. Governmental and non-governmental actors have responded to these challenges through increasing environmental action and advocacy, expanding the scope of environmental policy and governance, and encouraging the development of the so-called “green economy.” This book series encompasses a range of social science research, aiming to unify perspectives and advance scholarship. Books in the series focus on cutting-edge global issues at the nexus of society and the environment.

The series is being edited by Dana R. Fisher (University of Maryland), Lori Peek (University of Colorado), and Evan Schofer (UC-Irvine).

If you are interested in submitting a book for the Series, please send a proposal containing a brief description of the content and focus of the book, a table of contents or chapter outline, literature review and market analysis, and professional information about the author, including previous publications to society.environment@columbiauniversitypress.com  For more information, please refer to CUP’s manuscript submission guidelines at http://cup.columbia.edu/manuscript-submissions

Happy 2017!

-Dana R. Fisher
Director, Program for Society and the Environment

The final whitepaper from the study “Understanding the Effectiveness of the Watershed Stewards Academies in Maryland," funded by Maryland Sea Grant, is now available on the PSE website. 

“A Voice for the River, a Voice for the Stream:”
Organizational Perspectives on Environmental Stewardship
and the Maryland Watershed Stewards Academies
Authors: Dana R. Fisher,  Anya M. Galli, and William Yagatich

ABSTRACT:
This whitepaper details findings from interview data collected from partner organizations
working with three of the Watershed Stewards Academies (WSAs) of Maryland. Building on
findings presented in previous whitepapers from this study, “Understanding the Effectiveness of
the Watershed Stewards Academies in Maryland,” we discuss the types of partnerships between
local organizations and the WSAs, as well as the perspectives of partner organizations on the
settings in which the WSAs are most effective, the unique role of the WSAs, and the challenges
the WSAs face in their work to educate local communities, implement watershed restoration
projects, and advocate for watershed protection in local and state political arenas.

PSE Director Dana R. Fisher recently wrote about how the 2016 election will affect the energy transformation taking place in the United States on the Huffington Post.  The full text is available here.
​

In his recent post on the blog of the Science, Knowledge, and Technology Section of the American Sociological Association, PSE Fellow Joe McCartney Waggle writes about the presidential candidates, Congress, and the prospects for scientific research  following the 2016 election . Read it here. 

With all of the intense focus on the presidential race, it’s easy to forget that voters have a lot of important decisions to make on November 8th, beyond who will occupy the White House. In Florida, one such decision is the fate of Amendment 1, “Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice.” The title’s political genius is positively Orwellian: it all sounds good—consumer rights, solar energy, choice—but gives no indication at all of what voters are actually being asked to approve or reject. Depending on who you talk to, this constitutional amendment will either protect consumers from predatory energy providers, or shield investor-owned utilities (IOUs) from having to compete for customers in a free solar market.
 
While there is ample potential for solar energy expansion in a place like Florida, current policies do not necessarily encourage the technology. For example, Florida has no renewable portfolio standards (RPS), nor are power purchase agreements (PPAs) allowed that might open up the solar market. In the August statewide primary, voters did approve Amendment 4, a non-controversial measure that extends tax abatements for residential solar users to commercial users, as well. But barriers remain, such as high insurance premiums for those who install solar. Duke Energy, the state’s second-largest utility, requires a $1,000,000 insurance policy for private solar users generating more than 10 kilowatts. In short, the state lacks an RPS that might spur solar development; PPAs that might make it easier for consumers to afford solar are prohibited; and despite tax abatements, insurance policies for solar installers are a steep price to pay. Thus, even though the opportunity is there, Florida lags behind other states, such as Nevada, with similar solar capacity.

In our research on the Watershed Stewards Academies (WSAs), Dr. Dana R. Fisher, Anya Galli, and I have focused on how participating in environmental stewardship diversifies democracy and roots citizens to their localities in meaningful ways. Situating our work within the context of civic participation and American democracy, we highlight how groups like the WSAs represent a countertrend to declining rates of civic engagement.  That is, we see the WSAs and organizations like them as part of a national movement of groups training corps of volunteers to address environmental problems at the grassroots level. In this research, we ask how the WSAs mobilize participants to become environmentally and civically in engaged in their communities. This project is funded by Maryland Sea Grant.

Through surveys and interviews with participants of the WSAs in Maryland, we found the Master Watershed Steward program mobilizes volunteers for a number of reasons (you can find a more detailed breakdown of the demographics of the WSAs we surveyed and interviewed here in our whitepaper here). This training program enables participants to become knowledgeable about issues of watershed health and how to address those issues, as well as how to network in their own local communities to educate their friends and neighbors.  In turn, it fulfils the desire of some volunteers to take a more hands-on approach to watershed stewardship.  At the end of the initial survey, we asked, “Briefly, why did you join the Watershed Stewards Academy?” One respondent submitted an answer that paralleled most other’s where they wrote:

“I've been interested in environmental issues since high school and feel that working small scale, on a sub-watershed basis, may ultimately be more effective in reversing the decline of the Bay and its [tributaries] than all the government programs that are so slow to evolve. I love working outside with plants and was impressed with the commitment and goals of the WSA, so I decided to join so that I could work under the umbrella of that organization.”

In our findings about mobilization in the WSAs, which are based in data collected through the interviews with participants, we find these sentiments to be echoed again and again: respondents felt they needed the training in order to learn exactly what threatens the health of their watersheds and what they could do about it. For some, their motivation was very personal, and they felt that the training would give them the ability to address a problem they saw in their own backyard. Speaking of her own community, specifically of a problem with high levels of bacteria in recreational waterways, a participant from the Anne Arundel county WSA said, “…Initially I wanted to understand what was happening and if there was any way that I could help.  I doubted if I could do anything or contribute anything valuable, so my goal was to learn and then to put any of what I learned to use.” During the training and after, participants would go to their communities and apply what they learned.
​
During their training and after receiving their certifications, participants apply what they learn by engaging with members of their communities projects to address storm water runoff (installing rain barrels, rain gardens, etc.) and by doing educational outreach projects. As one respondent detailed, what Master Watershed Stewards did and where they did it mattered: doing the projects was not enough, but rather it was just as important to engage and encourage members of their community to follow their example. For instance, this respondent decided to install rain gardens on his own property because many of his neighbors walked by his property. While he was working with other volunteers installing the rain garden, he had the opportunity to talk to members of his community about what he was doing and encourage them to follow suit. According to another respondent of the Anne Arundel county WSA, the result of the program is that stewards:

“…[H]ave a lot of people that really, really care. And they’re in the middle of communities, and they’re talking and really having a conversation, and no other organization does that.  No one’s had that kind of impact that they can motivate people.”

All of this works to address an issue that many respondents reported as their primary motivation to join the WSAs in the first place: the opportunity to take a hands-on approach to addressing environmental issues. This is an important point, as it encourages a grassroots approach to environmental stewardship and affords participants a means of civic and political participation beyond donating to an organization. Continuing the conversation above, this respondent lamented that when it comes to other local environmental groups, donating money did not lead to meaningful engagement. While describing donating to another watershed group, he said that the leader of the group:

“[G]ets a bunch of donations and he’ll do a project or two and pay himself a salary and pay a couple of staff people and helpers, but all you are is a donor with that organization and you don’t get any leverage when your organization is just the people that are working as part of the organization. And in our watershed we’re dying a death by a thousand cuts, it’s no good to have a little organization bandaging up cut by cut.  You need a thousand people working at the same time.”

Beyond simply understanding what threatens the health of the watershed and the steps one can take to improve its health, the act of organizing, engaging, networking, and working is what appeals to volunteer stewards in the WSAs. The WSAs provide volunteers with the sense of making a difference and the tools to lead their communities in making a difference.  The opportunity to learn, to network, and to participate in a grassroots movement of environmental stewardship are the reasons the WSAs are successful in mobilizing participants.

William Yagatich is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Sociology and Graduate Fellow in the Program for Society and the Environment at the University of Maryland.

Environmental sociology was a popular topic this year at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in Seattle. As current graduate students in the Department of Sociology and Fellows at the Program for Society and the Environment at the University of Maryland, we were thrilled to see the wide range of environmental topics covered on panels and in sessions this year. The offerings included (but were by no means limited to) a presidential panel on climate change and social movements, a thematic session on reimagining the environmental and climate justice movements, a session on environmental policy, three separate sessions on environmental sociology, a series of three sessions on current research taking place in the Environment and Technology Section from micro to macro levels of analysis, and a lively Environment and Technology roundtable session with 14 different tables.
 
Of particular interest was a Saturday morning session on environmental policy, with papers on disclosure conflicts surrounding crude oil trains and frack chemicals, scientific and public knowledge about the dangers of non-stick chemicals, and the relationship between World Bank structural adjustment policies and forest loss. Given our work on US climate and energy policy for the Climate Constituencies Project, we were especially interested in a paper by Joshua Basseches of Northwestern University entitled “Rethinking the Legislative Process: ‘Buffering Opportunities’ as Limits of Social Movement Influence in Environmental Policymaking.” In it, Basseches describes the ways in which certain gatekeepers have the ability to limit social movement influence over policy-making. He finds that legislators in privileged positions keep discussions of policy matters private, thereby limiting the ability of social movement organizations to strategize and influence legislation. Overall, each of the papers in this session provided unique vantage points into highly relevant environmental policy debates.
 
The Environment and Technology session series on advances in micro, meso, and macro level research were also popular, with standing room only crowds of environmental sociologists in attendance. Each session included strong research across a range of methods and units of analysis. William Ryan Wishart’s presentation, “The Coal Coalition and Energy Policy Planning Network in 2009: Class Capacities and Climate Politics,” raised interesting questions about the influence of the coal industry on policy-making on the meso-level panel. John Aloysius Zinda also presented interesting work on vegetation gain in China and the effects of community officials’ strategies on local economic and environmental change.  On the micro-level panel, PSE Director Dana R. Fisher presented work (with PSE Fellows William Yagatich and Anya M. Galli) on volunteer stewardship and the Maryland Watershed Stewards academies. Keep an eye on the PSE Blog for an upcoming post about this project.
 
The popularity of these sessions indicates three things about the ASA Section on Environment and Technology: we have a robust membership, we have generated a substantial amount of interest in environmental research, and the section organizers might want consider booking bigger rooms for its sessions next year! It is exciting to see so many scholars finding innovative ways to understand environmental problems, and to have the opportunity to discuss such interesting work in person. The Section on Environment and Technology has grown substantially and we look forward to seeing even more great environmental research at the ASA 2017 Annual Meeting in Montreal!
 
 
Anya Galli is a PhD Candidate and Amanda Dewey is a second-year graduate student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Maryland. Both are Fellows at the PSE and research assistants on the Climate Constituencies Project.