Hey, EANET bloggers!
I thought you all did a great job outlining the program's history, mission, framework and overall progress. I like how you explained what, exactly, acid rain is and why it is such a crucial environmental problem. Knowing its ability to cross over several boundaries and stretch across broad distances really emphasizes the importance of every country and regions involvement and efforts in the program.
While you show a map of the participating countries in the program, I do wish you had listed them out somewhere and maybe showed what each country has been doing to help curve acid rain deposition. Because this program appears to be voluntary and non-binding, it would be interesting to see which countries are taking the issue of acid rain the most seriously. Are the countries that are producing the most pollution the ones who are showing the highest involvement? You also note that North Korea has yet to join the organization; what attempts are being made to persuade them? What are their reasons for not joining? I found the interview with the South Korean ambassador under your "Setting" link particularly disturbing, as well. Is South Korea a member of EANET? I hope not, because they seem to have no intention of cutting acid rain deposition and pollution in their area. I even got the feeling that they were proud of their increasing pollution levels€¦
Overall, I thought the goals of the program were good, but just from my knowledge of other organizations, I think without any incentives or set numbers and specific goals (like carbon caps, etc), it may be hard to see significant progress. Are there incentives to joining EANET, other than long-term health and environmental conservation? I can see how it is difficult to try and combine a group of countries that have been in conflict among each other in the recent past, but hopefully they can see the benefits of combing their efforts for a healthier both environmental and social future.
Hey Guys
I thought the blog did an excellent job in highlighting What ENAET was and how has it been working towards this issue. The blog is very informative and as a person who has very limited knowledge about the issue I gained a lot of insight. One thing I found interesting was the maps and use of different tabs. The map left a good impression on me as I was able to visualize the countries that were involved in program. However, sometimes it got distracting having to click on different links to go to different places. I thought the part when you all talk about the disputes between the countries in the region was interesting but I would have liked to see more on how has the disputes impacted (positive or negative) the running of the program. How are other countries (USA, countries in Europe) reacting to this program? Is it gaining support among the other international countries and how has their involvement affected the program. You also mention that North Korea has yet to join the organization and like Alesc I was wondering what attempts are being made to persuade them? What are their reasons for not joining? Since North Korea is such an integral part of the region, do they possess any threat to the program?
Overall, I think the blog is impressive. I was wondering if there are any other programs or organizations dealing with the same issue in the region and if there are, including them would have provided a different dimension to the project.
The flow of information and the writing in this blog are very good. Not only is the information disseminated in a clear and concise form, but the framing of each aspect of the EA Network is very helpful in breaking down its history, structure, and purpose. In keeping with the actual organization of the blog, however, I must agree with Chote's comment that the numerous links to each information page often distracted from being able to focus on the content of the blog. In addition to this, I also found a couple other minor problems that could have helped to strengthen the blog. First, you do an excellent job of explaining the EA Network and its specific goals as a policy informing and not policy setting institution. Do you believe that this is an effective way to combat environmental conservation? Obviously, this project resides on the autonomous power of the state, however, is there any local level, grassroots opposition or support for the program? Have any subnational organizations made an impact on the policies set forth by the EA Network in response to its rather passive mission statement? Second, is the EA Network actively seeking new members? You state that there are no real set of standards for current members, but is there certain criteria involved in order to become a member? Finally, is there an effort by any group, local/national/regional/global to expand the powers of the EA Network or is its current form generally accepted? These are just some questions and dimensions of the discussion on the EA Network that I think could have helped to expand the scope of your blog.
This is definitely one of the more effective blogs in getting “the issue” across, through detailing what the problem is, how it has become a problem, and discussing the environmental and social effects. The visual media (clips and pictures) do a great job helping to portray this. Despite the magnitude of the issue, a lot of people don’t actually know what acid rain is or know about dry deposition, and so that is a big problem right there. Clearly something needs to be done to inform people about the factors creating acid rain and all the problems that come with it. If the media has dropped the ball on this, it is somewhat assuring to know that this other entity, EANET, has begun to inform people about the acid rain problem. But who is EANET’s audience? Are they trying to preach their findings to the public in order to arouse change through mass disapproval, to corporations to ask them to stop their emissions, or solely to the government (and what level of government)? I would have enjoyed reading some of your take onto whom they are projecting their findings and its effectiveness. Lastly, your blog does well to touch on all of the negative aspects of acid rain: social, economic, environmental, and cultural. I myself did not realize that rain is actually part of Japan’s cultural identity, which stresses the relevance of the issue for acid rain might not be as strongly celebrated.
I believe you are correct in saying that this is definately an international problem: even if one country stops its emissions output, another can decide to continue its production as usual (as with North Korea) and the acid rain will continue. Because air travels so easily (much faster east-west than north-south) other parts of the world can be affected by what China puts into the air. It is promising to see that 14 countries have agreed to participate in EANET, from first to third world countries. I am wondering if over in our hemisphere the environmental issue is as intense, perhaps from our own sources or from winds carrying the chemicals, and if we have made any similar intergovernmental pacts or scientific research groups to investigate the effect. Many economists analogize the environment as a public good that we all benefit from, and we can see a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons occurring here as countries have grown their economies through unsustainable manufacturing processes. But if we are to sustain our human race, we need to change our ways and protect our common good. Unfortunately, as is the case with these things, there are going to be free-riders who will not participate and will reap the benefits of everyone else’s hard work. If this project is to succeed, much more work needs to be done to effectively cutback and control acid-rain-causing emissions across ALL countries. It appears Japan has taken the head leadership role in this responsibility, but will have to look past its international conflicts if EANET is to be a success.
My parents have actually been on vacation in China the past week and have said that the skies in Beijing are continuously overcast due to the pollution from the nearby coal plants. Personally, I feel Western countries should bear most of the blame due to our demand for cheap consumer products. As long as business continues as usual and factories keep producing emissions in order to manufacture products for the US, the issue of acid rain will continue to worsen.
EANET Bloggers,
I think you did a very good job of explaining the problem of acid rain in Asia and the purpose of EANET. It makes sense that this organization is trying to raise awareness and use scientific data collection to help this cause, but it seems odd that there are no specific goals set for member countries. I think if there was more of an emphasis on policy making then there would be a bigger push to make real changes in air pollution control. Of course, saying that there should be legislation is quite different than actually agreeing on and implementing these policies. As you point out in your blog, there are clearly some long-lived disputes between member countries and uneven investments in the program. With Japan being highly effected by acid rain they are more likely to want change, while North Korea, who presumably is not facing these same concerns, is not even interested enough in the cause to join EANET. A project with this large a scope has to be dealt with at the regional level, but if everyone does not contribute to the cause then the whole program is weakened.
Hello EANET-ers!
Your stance on the effectiveness of EANET as an international environmental action organization is evident in your analysis: EANET is not a very successful. I found your use of Dicken's literature to be very helpful in your analysis; it is very interesting how the patterns of international interaction have carried over into even an issue so obviously as global as acid rain.
I am curious as to whether or not you, as the authors, believe that an organization such as EANET can function and what it would take for it to function. A segment of suggestions for improvement of the organization would have made your analysis even better. It is clear that past conflicts have given EANET members little incentive to share information or cooperate. Would it be more effective to work at the local level, seeing as the members will not cooperate enough for international implementation, and the economic and technologic polarization in the region makes projects at the national level an impossibility for some nations? Could EANET ever become an organization implementing policy instead of merely enhancing awareness?
I was really interested in the way you distinguished EANET as a policy informing institution rather than a policy setting organization. However I do wish there were some more citations in your work, because I would have been curious to see what sources similarly view EANET as strictly policy informing. I think a discussion of the benefits of policy informing vs policy setting in the Asian case would have been useful in framing your blog. Is it possible that regional litigation of environmental agendas is impractical in a world wrought with complex influential power struggles. Perhaps best contributions environmental advocates can make is through advocacy itself, in the form of policy informing agendas. However, there has to be hope that environmental priorities can be emphasized by effective policy setting regional environmental groups. Dickens, Kernohan, and De Cian view this effectiveness through economic terms. Through regional integration agreements (RIAs) and inter-block agreements, it seems that the only way to fix the problem is to play the economic game along side the capitalist giants.
Overall I thought your blog was well done, with a nice balance of facts and analysis. I liked how you tied in politics and international disputes as they are most certainly an important factor. While you mention Japan's technological superiority and the effects that has had on EANET, what of China's growing economic prowess? Much has been made of China's disregard for environmental conservation, how has that affected the program? You mention the establishment of a number of data collection sites as a major accomplishment for the program but outside of analysis, what could this data be used for? To what extent is regionalism on display? Are the states themselves collecting data from their sites and coming together to combine their findings or does to program itself work at the sites? Overall I thought the blog was well done but found it somewhat disconnected and difficult to navigate.
Hey Bloggers,
I was very intrigued by the "Analysis" section of your blog and its further implications concerning Japan. Nevertheless, I am confused about a couple of points made in the "Accomplishments" section of the blog. In the second paragraph, there is a mentioning of the "level of scientific uniformity" on a national and sub national scale. However, the last paragraph presents Japan as scientific expert and knowledge disseminator, creating an imbalance of power and perhaps scientific hegemony. Although you address the same issue in your "Success" link, you do not provide any hard evidence on which you base your analysis. Although learning about Japan’s cultural fascination with rain was very interesting, additional information about its leading efforts in the area would make the blog more informative.
Given that "EANET is not a policy setting international institution, but rather a policy informing international institution" (taken from your Mission link), there should be more elaboration on the ways in which Japan is creating an imbalance of power. Since it is clear (from the yearly reports, conferences, etc) that member states agree on and are involved in EANET’s objectives, I believe that connecting Sletto’s ideas about "management and control" (in the context of ‘environmental degradation’ constructed by Northern policy-makers) and Japan’s role in the EANET initiative is a bit of a stretch.
In the "Framework" section of your blog you point out that there are two EANET supranational permanent institutions – The Network Center and The Secretariat. You use the location of the Network Center in Japan as evidence of the imbalance of power, however you do not mention the location of The Secretariat – Bangkok, Thailand . As someone else pointed out, when discussing the regional impact of EANET it would be helpful to give a little bit of detail about the other countries that are involved.
Despite having time constraints and technical difficulties, you have managed to give an excellent overview of a very important organization. I like the use of Dicken’s work in your "Analysis" section.
Based on you conclusion that "Asian information networks follow the same pattern Dickens introduces for trade agreements." I would encourage you to view David Kernohan and Enrica De Cian’s idea that "RTA negotiations can proceed faster than multilateral ones, especially on issues that have a strong regional dimension and are politically sensitive, which is the case for many environment-related questions" (5). EANET’s work is a fabulous example of the paradox, that Kernohan and De Cian outline, which states that "it might be more realistic to aim for worldwide cooperation in a sequential way rather than in a large multilateral step" (6). This could be used as strong evidence supporting Japan’s readiness to advance the project.
EANET’s website talks about the successful efforts of Europe’s Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and the need to use that organization as an example in East Asia. It might be beneficial to outline CLRTAP’s success and connect it to efforts done by EANET.
Hey, EANET bloggers!
I thought you all did a great job outlining the program's history, mission, framework and overall progress. I like how you explained what, exactly, acid rain is and why it is such a crucial environmental problem. Knowing its ability to cross over several boundaries and stretch across broad distances really emphasizes the importance of every country and regions involvement and efforts in the program.
While you show a map of the participating countries in the program, I do wish you had listed them out somewhere and maybe showed what each country has been doing to help curve acid rain deposition. Because this program appears to be voluntary and non-binding, it would be interesting to see which countries are taking the issue of acid rain the most seriously. Are the countries that are producing the most pollution the ones who are showing the highest involvement? You also note that North Korea has yet to join the organization; what attempts are being made to persuade them? What are their reasons for not joining? I found the interview with the South Korean ambassador under your "Setting" link particularly disturbing, as well. Is South Korea a member of EANET? I hope not, because they seem to have no intention of cutting acid rain deposition and pollution in their area. I even got the feeling that they were proud of their increasing pollution levels€¦
Overall, I thought the goals of the program were good, but just from my knowledge of other organizations, I think without any incentives or set numbers and specific goals (like carbon caps, etc), it may be hard to see significant progress. Are there incentives to joining EANET, other than long-term health and environmental conservation? I can see how it is difficult to try and combine a group of countries that have been in conflict among each other in the recent past, but hopefully they can see the benefits of combing their efforts for a healthier both environmental and social future.
Hey Guys
I thought the blog did an excellent job in highlighting What ENAET was and how has it been working towards this issue. The blog is very informative and as a person who has very limited knowledge about the issue I gained a lot of insight. One thing I found interesting was the maps and use of different tabs. The map left a good impression on me as I was able to visualize the countries that were involved in program. However, sometimes it got distracting having to click on different links to go to different places. I thought the part when you all talk about the disputes between the countries in the region was interesting but I would have liked to see more on how has the disputes impacted (positive or negative) the running of the program. How are other countries (USA, countries in Europe) reacting to this program? Is it gaining support among the other international countries and how has their involvement affected the program. You also mention that North Korea has yet to join the organization and like Alesc I was wondering what attempts are being made to persuade them? What are their reasons for not joining? Since North Korea is such an integral part of the region, do they possess any threat to the program?
Overall, I think the blog is impressive. I was wondering if there are any other programs or organizations dealing with the same issue in the region and if there are, including them would have provided a different dimension to the project.
The flow of information and the writing in this blog are very good. Not only is the information disseminated in a clear and concise form, but the framing of each aspect of the EA Network is very helpful in breaking down its history, structure, and purpose. In keeping with the actual organization of the blog, however, I must agree with Chote's comment that the numerous links to each information page often distracted from being able to focus on the content of the blog. In addition to this, I also found a couple other minor problems that could have helped to strengthen the blog. First, you do an excellent job of explaining the EA Network and its specific goals as a policy informing and not policy setting institution. Do you believe that this is an effective way to combat environmental conservation? Obviously, this project resides on the autonomous power of the state, however, is there any local level, grassroots opposition or support for the program? Have any subnational organizations made an impact on the policies set forth by the EA Network in response to its rather passive mission statement? Second, is the EA Network actively seeking new members? You state that there are no real set of standards for current members, but is there certain criteria involved in order to become a member? Finally, is there an effort by any group, local/national/regional/global to expand the powers of the EA Network or is its current form generally accepted? These are just some questions and dimensions of the discussion on the EA Network that I think could have helped to expand the scope of your blog.
This is definitely one of the more effective blogs in getting “the issue” across, through detailing what the problem is, how it has become a problem, and discussing the environmental and social effects. The visual media (clips and pictures) do a great job helping to portray this. Despite the magnitude of the issue, a lot of people don’t actually know what acid rain is or know about dry deposition, and so that is a big problem right there. Clearly something needs to be done to inform people about the factors creating acid rain and all the problems that come with it. If the media has dropped the ball on this, it is somewhat assuring to know that this other entity, EANET, has begun to inform people about the acid rain problem. But who is EANET’s audience? Are they trying to preach their findings to the public in order to arouse change through mass disapproval, to corporations to ask them to stop their emissions, or solely to the government (and what level of government)? I would have enjoyed reading some of your take onto whom they are projecting their findings and its effectiveness. Lastly, your blog does well to touch on all of the negative aspects of acid rain: social, economic, environmental, and cultural. I myself did not realize that rain is actually part of Japan’s cultural identity, which stresses the relevance of the issue for acid rain might not be as strongly celebrated.
I believe you are correct in saying that this is definately an international problem: even if one country stops its emissions output, another can decide to continue its production as usual (as with North Korea) and the acid rain will continue. Because air travels so easily (much faster east-west than north-south) other parts of the world can be affected by what China puts into the air. It is promising to see that 14 countries have agreed to participate in EANET, from first to third world countries. I am wondering if over in our hemisphere the environmental issue is as intense, perhaps from our own sources or from winds carrying the chemicals, and if we have made any similar intergovernmental pacts or scientific research groups to investigate the effect. Many economists analogize the environment as a public good that we all benefit from, and we can see a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons occurring here as countries have grown their economies through unsustainable manufacturing processes. But if we are to sustain our human race, we need to change our ways and protect our common good. Unfortunately, as is the case with these things, there are going to be free-riders who will not participate and will reap the benefits of everyone else’s hard work. If this project is to succeed, much more work needs to be done to effectively cutback and control acid-rain-causing emissions across ALL countries. It appears Japan has taken the head leadership role in this responsibility, but will have to look past its international conflicts if EANET is to be a success.
My parents have actually been on vacation in China the past week and have said that the skies in Beijing are continuously overcast due to the pollution from the nearby coal plants. Personally, I feel Western countries should bear most of the blame due to our demand for cheap consumer products. As long as business continues as usual and factories keep producing emissions in order to manufacture products for the US, the issue of acid rain will continue to worsen.
EANET Bloggers,
I think you did a very good job of explaining the problem of acid rain in Asia and the purpose of EANET. It makes sense that this organization is trying to raise awareness and use scientific data collection to help this cause, but it seems odd that there are no specific goals set for member countries. I think if there was more of an emphasis on policy making then there would be a bigger push to make real changes in air pollution control. Of course, saying that there should be legislation is quite different than actually agreeing on and implementing these policies. As you point out in your blog, there are clearly some long-lived disputes between member countries and uneven investments in the program. With Japan being highly effected by acid rain they are more likely to want change, while North Korea, who presumably is not facing these same concerns, is not even interested enough in the cause to join EANET. A project with this large a scope has to be dealt with at the regional level, but if everyone does not contribute to the cause then the whole program is weakened.
Hello EANET-ers!
Your stance on the effectiveness of EANET as an international environmental action organization is evident in your analysis: EANET is not a very successful. I found your use of Dicken's literature to be very helpful in your analysis; it is very interesting how the patterns of international interaction have carried over into even an issue so obviously as global as acid rain.
I am curious as to whether or not you, as the authors, believe that an organization such as EANET can function and what it would take for it to function. A segment of suggestions for improvement of the organization would have made your analysis even better. It is clear that past conflicts have given EANET members little incentive to share information or cooperate. Would it be more effective to work at the local level, seeing as the members will not cooperate enough for international implementation, and the economic and technologic polarization in the region makes projects at the national level an impossibility for some nations? Could EANET ever become an organization implementing policy instead of merely enhancing awareness?
I was really interested in the way you distinguished EANET as a policy informing institution rather than a policy setting organization. However I do wish there were some more citations in your work, because I would have been curious to see what sources similarly view EANET as strictly policy informing. I think a discussion of the benefits of policy informing vs policy setting in the Asian case would have been useful in framing your blog. Is it possible that regional litigation of environmental agendas is impractical in a world wrought with complex influential power struggles. Perhaps best contributions environmental advocates can make is through advocacy itself, in the form of policy informing agendas. However, there has to be hope that environmental priorities can be emphasized by effective policy setting regional environmental groups. Dickens, Kernohan, and De Cian view this effectiveness through economic terms. Through regional integration agreements (RIAs) and inter-block agreements, it seems that the only way to fix the problem is to play the economic game along side the capitalist giants.
Overall I thought your blog was well done, with a nice balance of facts and analysis. I liked how you tied in politics and international disputes as they are most certainly an important factor. While you mention Japan's technological superiority and the effects that has had on EANET, what of China's growing economic prowess? Much has been made of China's disregard for environmental conservation, how has that affected the program? You mention the establishment of a number of data collection sites as a major accomplishment for the program but outside of analysis, what could this data be used for? To what extent is regionalism on display? Are the states themselves collecting data from their sites and coming together to combine their findings or does to program itself work at the sites? Overall I thought the blog was well done but found it somewhat disconnected and difficult to navigate.
Hey Bloggers,
I was very intrigued by the "Analysis" section of your blog and its further implications concerning Japan. Nevertheless, I am confused about a couple of points made in the "Accomplishments" section of the blog. In the second paragraph, there is a mentioning of the "level of scientific uniformity" on a national and sub national scale. However, the last paragraph presents Japan as scientific expert and knowledge disseminator, creating an imbalance of power and perhaps scientific hegemony. Although you address the same issue in your "Success" link, you do not provide any hard evidence on which you base your analysis. Although learning about Japan’s cultural fascination with rain was very interesting, additional information about its leading efforts in the area would make the blog more informative.
Given that "EANET is not a policy setting international institution, but rather a policy informing international institution" (taken from your Mission link), there should be more elaboration on the ways in which Japan is creating an imbalance of power. Since it is clear (from the yearly reports, conferences, etc) that member states agree on and are involved in EANET’s objectives, I believe that connecting Sletto’s ideas about "management and control" (in the context of ‘environmental degradation’ constructed by Northern policy-makers) and Japan’s role in the EANET initiative is a bit of a stretch.
In the "Framework" section of your blog you point out that there are two EANET supranational permanent institutions – The Network Center and The Secretariat. You use the location of the Network Center in Japan as evidence of the imbalance of power, however you do not mention the location of The Secretariat – Bangkok, Thailand . As someone else pointed out, when discussing the regional impact of EANET it would be helpful to give a little bit of detail about the other countries that are involved.
Despite having time constraints and technical difficulties, you have managed to give an excellent overview of a very important organization. I like the use of Dicken’s work in your "Analysis" section.
Based on you conclusion that "Asian information networks follow the same pattern Dickens introduces for trade agreements." I would encourage you to view David Kernohan and Enrica De Cian’s idea that "RTA negotiations can proceed faster than multilateral ones, especially on issues that have a strong regional dimension and are politically sensitive, which is the case for many environment-related questions" (5). EANET’s work is a fabulous example of the paradox, that Kernohan and De Cian outline, which states that "it might be more realistic to aim for worldwide cooperation in a sequential way rather than in a large multilateral step" (6). This could be used as strong evidence supporting Japan’s readiness to advance the project.
EANET’s website talks about the successful efforts of Europe’s Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and the need to use that organization as an example in East Asia. It might be beneficial to outline CLRTAP’s success and connect it to efforts done by EANET.