Facebook is being a little shit, so I'm going to blog instead.
I have very ambiguous emotions after finishing the class. I learned a LOT throughout the course, there is no doubt. I don't think my views changed, but I did learn how to defend my ideologies. I really enjoyed blogging. It was a good way to relate my opinions in a more relaxed way. The subject matter towards the end of the class was really interesting and practical.
The instructor was a great guy. If I were a Poly Sci major, I would definitely take another course taught by him. I'm sure he'll go on to achieve great things. Or maybe he'll end up living in a cardboard box. Who can say? Certainly not I.
All that being said, the actual logistics of the course were freakishly irritating. The syllabus changed way too many times. Everything was due towards the end of the course. I think expectations were a little too high for a 200 level class. That might be why about half the people originally enrolled dropped the course at some point, but I don't know. However, I think it's great that the instructor wanted to teach a more dynamic class. Y200 was definitely one of the most involved classes I've taken so far at IU.
I don't know if I'm going to keep up blogging. I think it'd be a good opportunity to work on mah writing skills. We'll see. I have no motivation to write. good bye for now bloggy!
Bryce
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Cap and Trade Redux
I think I can safely say that my dad and I are pretty much on opposite sides on the political ideology fence. We attune our starkly contrasting world views by the media we watch and the people whom we choose to surround us.
I watch Rachel Maddow ("that caustic lesbian" ~ Dad) on MSNBC.
He watches Sean Hannity on Fox News.
I read Hot, Flat, and Crowded.
He reads A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity.
I follow Huffington Post.
He follows Drudge Report.
Needless to say, when I come home for holidays, things are often quite contentious between my family and I. They claim that I am a liberal, gay elitist that has been brainwashed by the academic institution. I claim that they are closed minded puppets of church leadership. Neither are entirely untrue. That being said, I am really thankful for my dad. We can debate a subject on which we have entirely different viewpoints and end the discussion on amicable terms. There's no name calling and no rash, broad generalizing. It's refreshing to be able to actually agree to disagree after a debate and not leave the room fuming with anger, and I think it's something that does not happen enough in America. We might be able to talk about things so well because we're related, but I'm not really sure.
Anyways, after reading this assignment, I called my dad and told him that we needed to get into an argument about environmental policy. A few minutes passed as we tried to think of something we could start a disagreement about. After about five minutes, I told him to think long and hard about something that would start a fight between us. He emailed me a few days later about the inefficiencies that would occur in the Kentucky market due to Cap and Trade. Thing is, I also think Cap and Trade is not the most ideal form of regulation policymakers can implement in order to control greenhouse gases and other pollutants. I was a bit dismayed until I read the article. In my opinion, the author is fairly misguided and leaves lots of holes in his argument.
The article refers to the defeated Climate Security Act proposed by Lieberman and the new (and also defeated, I believe) plan proposed by the Obama Administration in the 2010 budget proposal. Both pieces of legislation would have implemented Cap and Trade regulation that would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions significantly by 2050. The author agrees that the intentions behind the policy were sound, but the consequences of putting the policies into action would have been detrimental to local and national economies.
The author cited a report by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) that studied the possible outcomes of Cap and Trade implementation for the state of Kentucky, specifically. The conclusion was that both the public and private sector of Kentucky would suffer massive economic losses if Cap and Trade was put into place:
I watch Rachel Maddow ("that caustic lesbian" ~ Dad) on MSNBC.
He watches Sean Hannity on Fox News.
I read Hot, Flat, and Crowded.
He reads A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity.
I follow Huffington Post.
He follows Drudge Report.
Needless to say, when I come home for holidays, things are often quite contentious between my family and I. They claim that I am a liberal, gay elitist that has been brainwashed by the academic institution. I claim that they are closed minded puppets of church leadership. Neither are entirely untrue. That being said, I am really thankful for my dad. We can debate a subject on which we have entirely different viewpoints and end the discussion on amicable terms. There's no name calling and no rash, broad generalizing. It's refreshing to be able to actually agree to disagree after a debate and not leave the room fuming with anger, and I think it's something that does not happen enough in America. We might be able to talk about things so well because we're related, but I'm not really sure.
Anyways, after reading this assignment, I called my dad and told him that we needed to get into an argument about environmental policy. A few minutes passed as we tried to think of something we could start a disagreement about. After about five minutes, I told him to think long and hard about something that would start a fight between us. He emailed me a few days later about the inefficiencies that would occur in the Kentucky market due to Cap and Trade. Thing is, I also think Cap and Trade is not the most ideal form of regulation policymakers can implement in order to control greenhouse gases and other pollutants. I was a bit dismayed until I read the article. In my opinion, the author is fairly misguided and leaves lots of holes in his argument.
The article refers to the defeated Climate Security Act proposed by Lieberman and the new (and also defeated, I believe) plan proposed by the Obama Administration in the 2010 budget proposal. Both pieces of legislation would have implemented Cap and Trade regulation that would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions significantly by 2050. The author agrees that the intentions behind the policy were sound, but the consequences of putting the policies into action would have been detrimental to local and national economies.
The author cited a report by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) that studied the possible outcomes of Cap and Trade implementation for the state of Kentucky, specifically. The conclusion was that both the public and private sector of Kentucky would suffer massive economic losses if Cap and Trade was put into place:
- "Kentucky would lose as many as 23,000 jobs in 2020 and nearly 50,000 jobs in 2030."
- "Disposable household income would be reduced by as much as $2,500 per year in 2020 and up to $6,000 by 2030."
- "The price of gasoline in Kentucky would increase between 74 percent and 144 percent in 2030. Electricity prices would increase by between 122 percent and 159 percent. Kentucky residents would pay between 99 percent and 142 percent more for their natural gas by 2030."
- "Kentucky's 1,865 schools and universities and 134 hospitals will likely experience an increase of up to 35 percent in expenditures by 2020 and as much as 123 percent by 2030."
Sounds rather drastic, doesn't it? Maybe it is my distaste for lobbyist groups, but I can't help but question the neutrality of the ACCF and the NAM. The sole fact that these trade organizations commissioned the study was enough to discredit the article, at least in my eyes (I admit that I may be misguided in my contempt). However, the study does not take into account other factors that would cause destabilization in the Kentucky market, such as depleted petroleum reserves and the global civil unrest that would accompany decreased supply. More importantly, the report also does not account for what happens to our world if we don't begin to regulate our heaviest polluters and change the way we live.
So yes, the report is flawed. But so is Cap and Trade. I have published a post in the past about Cap and Trade, so I'll just highlight my reasons for opposing it.
Cap and Trade, as well as other tools that allow a market to self regulate, often appeal to many Americans because these tools allow an industry to make choices and innovate in order to lower pollution emissions. Companies can either pay for polluting by buying carbon permits or they can develop new technologies that will reduce pollution and therefore reduce the number of carbon permits needed. The market has a set number of permits, and even private citizens can make transactions.
These tools have several serious and subversive impacts on the reduction of pollution, however. For instance, they don't allow for the greatest reduction in pollution because the government sets pollution limits too high, which in turn allows polluters to continue polluting at a relatively comfortable level. In effect, pollution is reduced, but only minimally. While a country may reduce the total amount of pollution it pumps into the air, individual industries within that nation may continue to pollute at a high rate due to access to large monetary reserves that can be used to buy carbon credits. In effect, many smaller firms are left to suffer due to the inequities of the artificial carbon permit market.
I think at the most basic level, my dad and I disagree about Cap and Trade. He thinks that industries should have to suffer no regulation. I, on the other hand, am a big proponent of regulation. I think our world is about to enter a very critical and trying period, and we must do everything in our power to stymie the effects of climate change. Regulation seems like the most practical and least dynamic way to reduce pollution, and until there is a catastrophe that causes Americans to be dynamic, it is the most sensible approach to take.
Okay reader(s). It's almost 3 in the morning! Time for me to rest my weary little head.
The source I referenced in this post can be found again riiiiight HERE
So yes, the report is flawed. But so is Cap and Trade. I have published a post in the past about Cap and Trade, so I'll just highlight my reasons for opposing it.
Cap and Trade, as well as other tools that allow a market to self regulate, often appeal to many Americans because these tools allow an industry to make choices and innovate in order to lower pollution emissions. Companies can either pay for polluting by buying carbon permits or they can develop new technologies that will reduce pollution and therefore reduce the number of carbon permits needed. The market has a set number of permits, and even private citizens can make transactions.
These tools have several serious and subversive impacts on the reduction of pollution, however. For instance, they don't allow for the greatest reduction in pollution because the government sets pollution limits too high, which in turn allows polluters to continue polluting at a relatively comfortable level. In effect, pollution is reduced, but only minimally. While a country may reduce the total amount of pollution it pumps into the air, individual industries within that nation may continue to pollute at a high rate due to access to large monetary reserves that can be used to buy carbon credits. In effect, many smaller firms are left to suffer due to the inequities of the artificial carbon permit market.
I think at the most basic level, my dad and I disagree about Cap and Trade. He thinks that industries should have to suffer no regulation. I, on the other hand, am a big proponent of regulation. I think our world is about to enter a very critical and trying period, and we must do everything in our power to stymie the effects of climate change. Regulation seems like the most practical and least dynamic way to reduce pollution, and until there is a catastrophe that causes Americans to be dynamic, it is the most sensible approach to take.
Okay reader(s). It's almost 3 in the morning! Time for me to rest my weary little head.
The source I referenced in this post can be found again riiiiight HERE
Monday, November 29, 2010
Questions for Scott Sanders
1. I really identified with you when you wrote about suburban America and its lack of a sense of "place." What can we do to achieve that sense in our current economic model in which big box retail and chain stores and restaurants dominate the suburban makeup?
2. You write beautifully, but sometimes I get frustrated when you talk about your schemes to bring America back to its local roots because many of your ideas seem impractical. I think a lot of people would paint you as a radical (I do not) and would most likely write you off without hearing your point of view. How do we get the average American to listen?
3. What can the average college student do to make their lives and towns more sustainable?
4. Localism and new urbanism are great schemes for reducing greenhouse gases and making our lives more sustainable, but they are seemingly more expensive than cheap alternatives (Walmart and McDonalds) and often work best in wealthy, homogeneous communities (Portland and Seattle). What will the less fortunate do as the era of cheap oil comes to an end?
2. You write beautifully, but sometimes I get frustrated when you talk about your schemes to bring America back to its local roots because many of your ideas seem impractical. I think a lot of people would paint you as a radical (I do not) and would most likely write you off without hearing your point of view. How do we get the average American to listen?
3. What can the average college student do to make their lives and towns more sustainable?
4. Localism and new urbanism are great schemes for reducing greenhouse gases and making our lives more sustainable, but they are seemingly more expensive than cheap alternatives (Walmart and McDonalds) and often work best in wealthy, homogeneous communities (Portland and Seattle). What will the less fortunate do as the era of cheap oil comes to an end?
Saturday, November 6, 2010
GOP Farm Rhetoric: The Dichotomy of Political Action and Speech
"Whenever someone uses a euphemism, they are either cowardly or lying."
Mark and I are authoring a joint paper concerning the differences and similarities between what politicians say to small farmers and the actions they take through legislation. There is usually a stark contrast between the two. Politicians voice support for small farms, yet large industrial farms are heavily subsidized. We want to explain this schism between rhetoric and action with our paper. Our thesis is:
While politicians claim to support small farms, they do great harm to small farms by heavily and disproportionately subsidizing industrial farming.
Question: Why do politicians blatantly mislead farmers and the general public about farming policy they support? A politician that misleads is certainly not unheard of, but why don't politicians follow through with their rhetoric? In 2008 Obama voiced his support for the Farm Bill, formally known as the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Obama, a progressive, supported this bill which dramatically increased funding for organic specialty crops from small farms. It raised subsidies from 100 million dollars to 2.8 billion dollars. However, the bill also raised subsidies for industrial farming to 290 billion. This bill, which was dressed up in a sustainable and "green" sounding name, effectually was a sellout to the industrial agriculture paradigm.
This is but a sampling of the dichotomy between speech and action concerning agricultural policy. If progressives are actively backing legislation that harms small farms, imagine the impetus that drives conservatives, who are often staunch allies of industry and large corporations. Mark and I plan on giving several similar examples to this in our paper from politicians across the scale.
We will attempt to explain this dichotomy by exploring several factors that influence policymaking, including campaign contributions from special interests, the differences in political will and power between the industrial farm lobby and small farms, and political party ideology concerning farm subsidies.
We plan on using the internet to explore these factors by using the internet and other resources. We also want to visit a local organic farm and talk to the owners about what they have heard from politicians and the policies these politicians have instituted or supported.
Outline:
I. Introduction
Mark and I are authoring a joint paper concerning the differences and similarities between what politicians say to small farmers and the actions they take through legislation. There is usually a stark contrast between the two. Politicians voice support for small farms, yet large industrial farms are heavily subsidized. We want to explain this schism between rhetoric and action with our paper. Our thesis is:
While politicians claim to support small farms, they do great harm to small farms by heavily and disproportionately subsidizing industrial farming.
Question: Why do politicians blatantly mislead farmers and the general public about farming policy they support? A politician that misleads is certainly not unheard of, but why don't politicians follow through with their rhetoric? In 2008 Obama voiced his support for the Farm Bill, formally known as the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Obama, a progressive, supported this bill which dramatically increased funding for organic specialty crops from small farms. It raised subsidies from 100 million dollars to 2.8 billion dollars. However, the bill also raised subsidies for industrial farming to 290 billion. This bill, which was dressed up in a sustainable and "green" sounding name, effectually was a sellout to the industrial agriculture paradigm.
This is but a sampling of the dichotomy between speech and action concerning agricultural policy. If progressives are actively backing legislation that harms small farms, imagine the impetus that drives conservatives, who are often staunch allies of industry and large corporations. Mark and I plan on giving several similar examples to this in our paper from politicians across the scale.
We will attempt to explain this dichotomy by exploring several factors that influence policymaking, including campaign contributions from special interests, the differences in political will and power between the industrial farm lobby and small farms, and political party ideology concerning farm subsidies.
We plan on using the internet to explore these factors by using the internet and other resources. We also want to visit a local organic farm and talk to the owners about what they have heard from politicians and the policies these politicians have instituted or supported.
Outline:
I. Introduction
- Thesis: While politicians claim to support small farms, they do great harm to small farms by heavily and disproportionately subsidizing industrial farming.
- Explanation of subsidy from economic theory
- Effects on supply and demand
- Deadweight loss
II. Historical Preface of agricultural subsidy
- Nixon and farm subsidies
- Regan and farm subsidies
III. Current state of agricultural policy
- Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
- Rhetoric of the 2008 and 2010 elections
IV. Explanation of the policy schism
- Pressure from special interest
- Campaign donations
- Political power play
- Subsidizing the "American Dream" via industrial agricultural subsidy
- Increased demand leads to a shift in the supply curve
- Policy implications for local organic farming
V. Conclusion
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Sustainability Questions
Jacqui Bauer:
- What can be done on a local level to further a sustainable agenda?
- What effect do local communities that push a sustainability agenda have on state and federal policy?
- How does Bloomington compare to the rest of the state in terms of environmentally-friendly policy formulation and implementation?
Emilie Rex:
- What benefits are earned by universities that pursue and implement sustainable policy?
- What is your opinion on the sustainability report cards and rating systems such as the College Sustainability Report Card? Are they objective and constructive?
- What can students do to make IU a greener campus?
Monday, October 25, 2010
Bryce-topia
This week's blog post is supposed to be about what my Utopia would look like. I've thought about this a LOT. This question is hard. Frustratingly hard. I don't really even know where to begin. How do you even begin to approach it? The word "utopia" means no-place in Greek, and it's for a good reason. I think there are so many things wrong with our current situation that a "perfect" world is unimaginable and beyond the consciousness of the average person, which I guess would include me.
The most important factor in determining my Utopia is determining what is wrong with our current world. I won't go to far into detail for the sake of time (and my sanity).
I think our biggest problem is the lack of equality in every facet of society. All over the world, the "little guy" is being taken advantage of by powerful entities, such as corporations and authoritarian governments. People are being disenfranchised and their rights are being taken away all the time (no I can't substantiate it, but we all know it's true). I guess that's what I would change if I became the supreme overlord of the world. I think hte best society would be a pluralistic one in which everyone would be equal.
What does that really mean? I couldn't begin to tell you.
There would be none of the complicated systems tying separate countries together. Communities would be tightly knit, and people would buy, sell, and barter locally. Most people today don't care very much for their fellow human beings. How could a corporation in the United States be able to make decisions that destroy the lives of people in distant lands? It's unconscionable. In my utopia, they couldn't drain the resources of a small, impoverished South American nation because A) those international ties would no longer exist and
B) the average citizen would be outraged and demand action.
People would respect each other and they would respect their environment. In the past, indigenous cultures revered Mother Earth. I think it's a concept worth reviving.
The only theme that is concurrent throughout this post is uncertainty. I have no idea what my perfect society would be like. I'm way to idealistic to propose a practical system, anyways.
The most important factor in determining my Utopia is determining what is wrong with our current world. I won't go to far into detail for the sake of time (and my sanity).
I think our biggest problem is the lack of equality in every facet of society. All over the world, the "little guy" is being taken advantage of by powerful entities, such as corporations and authoritarian governments. People are being disenfranchised and their rights are being taken away all the time (no I can't substantiate it, but we all know it's true). I guess that's what I would change if I became the supreme overlord of the world. I think hte best society would be a pluralistic one in which everyone would be equal.
What does that really mean? I couldn't begin to tell you.
There would be none of the complicated systems tying separate countries together. Communities would be tightly knit, and people would buy, sell, and barter locally. Most people today don't care very much for their fellow human beings. How could a corporation in the United States be able to make decisions that destroy the lives of people in distant lands? It's unconscionable. In my utopia, they couldn't drain the resources of a small, impoverished South American nation because A) those international ties would no longer exist and
B) the average citizen would be outraged and demand action.
People would respect each other and they would respect their environment. In the past, indigenous cultures revered Mother Earth. I think it's a concept worth reviving.
The only theme that is concurrent throughout this post is uncertainty. I have no idea what my perfect society would be like. I'm way to idealistic to propose a practical system, anyways.
Monday, October 4, 2010
A Conservationist's Manifesto
Scott Russell Sanders titled his novel A Conservationist Manifesto. I am a conservationist, and I must emphatically insist no claim to this book.
Sanders opens the novel by divulging the current state of affairs. He tells us that the planet is heating up, the population is exploding, and we are expending increasing amounts of non-renewable resources. After painting a fairly grim picture, the author tells a story about either local or global communities that are trying to do good for the earth. He then relates his own personal anecdote about his home in Southern Indiana. You can repeat this cycle ad nauseam until you are either A) passed out on the couch with a light dusting of potato chip crumbs down your front, or B) passed out on the couch in only your underwear with a potent glass of whiskey in your hand. This book is unique in that it is not only boring, but is also frustrating.
Sanders has (mostly) all the right ideas, but his writing style is contrived and irritating. The language is incredibly flowery. He goes on for pages talking about Mother Nature in all of her bare, incredible majesty. That's right, someone's got the hots for Momma Nature. There are lists upon lists upon lists upon lists... I could go on, but I think for the sake of my own sanity, I won't. Yes, these lists are tiring to read. After finishing reading these sixty some pages, I can't help but wonder, "If I'M annoyed by this guy and I'M a conservationist who agrees with most of this guy's ideas, what are average Americans who don't really care for the environment going to think?"
I know I've been pretty abusive of Sanders thus far, but to be fair, he does have a noble agenda. He warns his readers of the increasingly dire environmental situation. He tells us we must alter our lifestyles in order to mitigate the damage already done. He gives us some not so simple solutions. For example, one could use less resources by joining a farming co-op, or perhaps take public transportation or ride a bike. Heck, if you really wanted to you could build a house out in the woods using fallen timber and make a livelihood of handcrafting little clay jars and selling them at the farmer's market. These are all solutions, but they are not practical for the average American. Sanders has a noble vision of what America should be, but will never become.
As I read this book, I can't help but think of Sanders as one of these guys:
I feel for these people. They have a higher level of consciousness, and they (REALLY REALLY) care about the earth and the trees. Unfortunately, they will only either make people laugh (as evidenced in the comments section of this video on YouTube), or they will scare people away. Neither of these outcomes is conducive to starting a Green Movement in which people begin to demand sustainable lifestyle alternatives.
Sanders does have an objective, but he will never achieve it. Americans like big cars, big houses, and Big Macs. They consume energy and resources like it's their job. If Sanders wishes to affect change in the American lifestyle, he must get on the same level as Americans. As the globe approaches peak oil production, humans and especially Americans will face extreme growing, or rather morphing, changes. Sanders really understands this. He knows that we need to act now and make some drastic changes. Hopefully in future sections of the novel he will put forth a plan that is sustainable AND practical.
Sanders opens the novel by divulging the current state of affairs. He tells us that the planet is heating up, the population is exploding, and we are expending increasing amounts of non-renewable resources. After painting a fairly grim picture, the author tells a story about either local or global communities that are trying to do good for the earth. He then relates his own personal anecdote about his home in Southern Indiana. You can repeat this cycle ad nauseam until you are either A) passed out on the couch with a light dusting of potato chip crumbs down your front, or B) passed out on the couch in only your underwear with a potent glass of whiskey in your hand. This book is unique in that it is not only boring, but is also frustrating.
Sanders has (mostly) all the right ideas, but his writing style is contrived and irritating. The language is incredibly flowery. He goes on for pages talking about Mother Nature in all of her bare, incredible majesty. That's right, someone's got the hots for Momma Nature. There are lists upon lists upon lists upon lists... I could go on, but I think for the sake of my own sanity, I won't. Yes, these lists are tiring to read. After finishing reading these sixty some pages, I can't help but wonder, "If I'M annoyed by this guy and I'M a conservationist who agrees with most of this guy's ideas, what are average Americans who don't really care for the environment going to think?"
I know I've been pretty abusive of Sanders thus far, but to be fair, he does have a noble agenda. He warns his readers of the increasingly dire environmental situation. He tells us we must alter our lifestyles in order to mitigate the damage already done. He gives us some not so simple solutions. For example, one could use less resources by joining a farming co-op, or perhaps take public transportation or ride a bike. Heck, if you really wanted to you could build a house out in the woods using fallen timber and make a livelihood of handcrafting little clay jars and selling them at the farmer's market. These are all solutions, but they are not practical for the average American. Sanders has a noble vision of what America should be, but will never become.
As I read this book, I can't help but think of Sanders as one of these guys:
I feel for these people. They have a higher level of consciousness, and they (REALLY REALLY) care about the earth and the trees. Unfortunately, they will only either make people laugh (as evidenced in the comments section of this video on YouTube), or they will scare people away. Neither of these outcomes is conducive to starting a Green Movement in which people begin to demand sustainable lifestyle alternatives.
Sanders does have an objective, but he will never achieve it. Americans like big cars, big houses, and Big Macs. They consume energy and resources like it's their job. If Sanders wishes to affect change in the American lifestyle, he must get on the same level as Americans. As the globe approaches peak oil production, humans and especially Americans will face extreme growing, or rather morphing, changes. Sanders really understands this. He knows that we need to act now and make some drastic changes. Hopefully in future sections of the novel he will put forth a plan that is sustainable AND practical.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)