Christopher Mcgrory Klyza – författare

How US federal and state environmental agencies have developed, and how the intersection of these agencies impacts policymaking today.In this history of the development of US federal and state environmental agencies, this book shows how past laws and agencies and federal-state differences create roadblocks to building effective environmental policy today. Examining the role of states in environmental management from the late 1700s through 2000, Christopher McGrory Klyza focuses on the interplay of federal-state leadership in green state building and analyzes the patterns of this state building among states, regions, policy areas, and time periods. Throughout, he pays special attention to intercurrence—conflict that arises between governing orders from different times and between the states and federal government.The book places the green state among other topics central to American political development studies, such as the military, welfare state, and discrimination. He discusses US federal and state institutions that deal with natural resources management, pollution control, and other areas related to the environment, such as energy. Congressional gridlock on issues like climate, he says, has not meant no climate policy; instead, as in the past, much of the policy has moved to states like California, New York, and Washington. He shows how the conflict among governing orders that results from the deep, layered nature of the green state complicates current policy-making on biodiversity, climate, and environmental justice.

In this historical and comparative study, Christopher McGrory Klyza explores why land-management policies in mining, forestry, and grazing have followed different paths and explains why public-lands policy in general has remained virtually static over time. According to Klyza, understanding the different philosophies that gave rise to each policy regime is crucial to reforming public-lands policy in the future. Klyza begins by delineating how prevailing policy philosophies over the course of the last century have shaped each of the three land-use patterns he discusses. In mining, the model was economic liberalism, which mandated privatization of public lands; in forestry, it was technocratic utilitarianism, which called for government ownership and management of land; and in grazing, it was interest-group liberalism, in which private interests determined government policy. Each of these philosophies held sway in the years during which policy for that particular resource was formed, says Klyza, and continues to animate it even today. |With the arrival of European settlers during the seventeenth century, Native American ways of life and the environment itself underwent radical alterations as human relationships to the land and ways of thinking about nature all changed. This colonial ecological revolution lasted until the nineteenth century, when New England's industrial production brought on a capitalist revolution that again remade the ecology, economy, and conceptions of nature in the region. In a preface to the second edition, Merchant introduces new ideas about narrating environmental change based on gender and the dialectics of transformation, while the revised epilogue situates New England in the context of twenty-first-century globalization and climate change.

In this historical and comparative study, Christopher McGrory Klyza explores why land-management policies in mining, forestry, and grazing have followed different paths and explains why public-lands policy in general has remained virtually static over time. According to Klyza, understanding the different philosophies that gave rise to each policy regime is crucial to reforming public-lands policy in the future. Klyza begins by delineating how prevailing policy philosophies over the course of the last century have shaped each of the three land-use patterns he discusses. In mining, the model was economic liberalism, which mandated privatization of public lands; in forestry, it was technocratic utilitarianism, which called for government ownership and management of land; and in grazing, it was interest-group liberalism, in which private interests determined government policy. Each of these philosophies held sway in the years during which policy for that particular resource was formed, says Klyza, and continues to animate it even today.