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.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Where's the Change?
Another day, another blog post... *sigh*
Anyways, like most progressive and independent Americans, I was transfixed (not impaled, mind you, but held motionless) by Barack Obama, the young candidate from Illinois who preached on a platform of hope and change. He held the potential of being a dynamic player on the world stage who could return America to its former status as a nation to be taken seriously. After eight agonizing years of watching George W. Bush do more harm than good by enacting policies such as No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, it was refreshing to see a candidate who was intelligent and articulate. So, we went out and campaigned for him. We donated money and we of course voted for him.
Like most progressive and independent Americans, I have been let down by the Obama administration. The gay rights movement is disappointed that the discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and "Defense of Marriage" acts have yet to be repealed. Many liberal Americans are disappointed that the health care reform bill that was signed into law was watered down. And of course, the green movement is disappointed that there has been very little impetus towards new environmental regulation that would reduce American oil consumption and reduce carbon emissions, as was promised in the Democratic platform released in 2008. So we all sit here wondering, where's the change? We were promised effectual, meaty policy-making and instead got a bunch of fluff.
I believe Obama was sincere during his campaign when he promised America hope and change. So where did the administration go wrong in regards to environmental policy, and why did the lofty promises of reform turn into "politics as usual?"
While our system of government has a great number of strengths, there are several weaknesses that can severely hinder the ability of a policy-maker to draft and/or enact influential, hearty rules.
Our system is fast-paced and it is constantly evolving. Term limits force policy-makers to enact quick legislation that is salient to the public in order to get re-elected. For example, thanks to the conservative media, the health care reform bill endorsed by the Obama administration was incredibly unpopular. President Obama had to do something to raise his dismal approval rating. Instead of tackling environmental regulation reform the administration turned to financial policy reform, a more salient issue at the time. It was probably a wise political decision because it will help the President win back the approval of some moderate Americans, but it will also tarnish his reputation as a legitimate policy-maker for more liberal Americans.
Special interest groups, lobbyists, and corporate funding can sometimes add a negative element to the American political system. For instance, why would President Obama punish British Petroleum after it donated tens of thousands to the Obama campaign? This situation creates a conflict of interest that prevents good policy from being enacted. The same can be said for special interest groups and lobbyists. I believe they should have access to politicians who can address their needs and concerns, but campaign funding can oftentimes create a conflict of interest in which a politician is more concerned with the donors than his constituents. How can President Obama create effective environmental policy when dirty energy and industry donated to his campaign?
Another unfortunate aspect of the American system of government is that it is highly reactionary. I don't think Congress will pass an effective climate change bill until the oceans rise and flood the east and west coasts. Millions will have to die or be displaced before Congress will be spurred to action, and by that point it will be too late. However, I don't think the administration can really be blamed for trying to survive into a second term. These are just symptoms of our style of government, and to ignore them would be politically unwise.
I believe the executive branch does have the power to create environmental policy. It is the duty of the president to decide the agenda for Congress. So if environmental legislation is important to the president, he can exert his political will in order to get it on the agenda. The president is also in charge of implementing/executing policy. He sends out the directives and guidelines describing how a law will go into effect. More importantly, the president receives his power from his constituents. If they are unhappy with his agenda, then he is voted out of office. Unfortunately for advocates of stricter environmental policy, "green" issues are rarely salient issues. The American public pays little attention to the environment besides in a time of crisis e.g. Deepwater Horizon and Hurricane Katrina.
Let me go ahead and say that I am satisfied with the work the Obama Administration has accomplished concerning environmental policy. I am most pleased that he included funding for high speed rail and other alternative methods of transportation in the stimulus package. (On that note, if you haven't heard of it, you should check out the Indianapolis Cultural Trail. Very cool, groundbreaking stuff. Click here to go to the official website.) Compared to past presidents and especially the previous one, President Obama has done a lot to push the sustainability issue. I think by the end of the President's first term, the majority of properly informed Americans will be pleased with the Obama's environmental record. If that is the case, then he did the job right.
Anyways, like most progressive and independent Americans, I was transfixed (not impaled, mind you, but held motionless) by Barack Obama, the young candidate from Illinois who preached on a platform of hope and change. He held the potential of being a dynamic player on the world stage who could return America to its former status as a nation to be taken seriously. After eight agonizing years of watching George W. Bush do more harm than good by enacting policies such as No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, it was refreshing to see a candidate who was intelligent and articulate. So, we went out and campaigned for him. We donated money and we of course voted for him.
Like most progressive and independent Americans, I have been let down by the Obama administration. The gay rights movement is disappointed that the discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and "Defense of Marriage" acts have yet to be repealed. Many liberal Americans are disappointed that the health care reform bill that was signed into law was watered down. And of course, the green movement is disappointed that there has been very little impetus towards new environmental regulation that would reduce American oil consumption and reduce carbon emissions, as was promised in the Democratic platform released in 2008. So we all sit here wondering, where's the change? We were promised effectual, meaty policy-making and instead got a bunch of fluff.
I believe Obama was sincere during his campaign when he promised America hope and change. So where did the administration go wrong in regards to environmental policy, and why did the lofty promises of reform turn into "politics as usual?"
While our system of government has a great number of strengths, there are several weaknesses that can severely hinder the ability of a policy-maker to draft and/or enact influential, hearty rules.
Our system is fast-paced and it is constantly evolving. Term limits force policy-makers to enact quick legislation that is salient to the public in order to get re-elected. For example, thanks to the conservative media, the health care reform bill endorsed by the Obama administration was incredibly unpopular. President Obama had to do something to raise his dismal approval rating. Instead of tackling environmental regulation reform the administration turned to financial policy reform, a more salient issue at the time. It was probably a wise political decision because it will help the President win back the approval of some moderate Americans, but it will also tarnish his reputation as a legitimate policy-maker for more liberal Americans.
Special interest groups, lobbyists, and corporate funding can sometimes add a negative element to the American political system. For instance, why would President Obama punish British Petroleum after it donated tens of thousands to the Obama campaign? This situation creates a conflict of interest that prevents good policy from being enacted. The same can be said for special interest groups and lobbyists. I believe they should have access to politicians who can address their needs and concerns, but campaign funding can oftentimes create a conflict of interest in which a politician is more concerned with the donors than his constituents. How can President Obama create effective environmental policy when dirty energy and industry donated to his campaign?
Another unfortunate aspect of the American system of government is that it is highly reactionary. I don't think Congress will pass an effective climate change bill until the oceans rise and flood the east and west coasts. Millions will have to die or be displaced before Congress will be spurred to action, and by that point it will be too late. However, I don't think the administration can really be blamed for trying to survive into a second term. These are just symptoms of our style of government, and to ignore them would be politically unwise.
I believe the executive branch does have the power to create environmental policy. It is the duty of the president to decide the agenda for Congress. So if environmental legislation is important to the president, he can exert his political will in order to get it on the agenda. The president is also in charge of implementing/executing policy. He sends out the directives and guidelines describing how a law will go into effect. More importantly, the president receives his power from his constituents. If they are unhappy with his agenda, then he is voted out of office. Unfortunately for advocates of stricter environmental policy, "green" issues are rarely salient issues. The American public pays little attention to the environment besides in a time of crisis e.g. Deepwater Horizon and Hurricane Katrina.
Let me go ahead and say that I am satisfied with the work the Obama Administration has accomplished concerning environmental policy. I am most pleased that he included funding for high speed rail and other alternative methods of transportation in the stimulus package. (On that note, if you haven't heard of it, you should check out the Indianapolis Cultural Trail. Very cool, groundbreaking stuff. Click here to go to the official website.) Compared to past presidents and especially the previous one, President Obama has done a lot to push the sustainability issue. I think by the end of the President's first term, the majority of properly informed Americans will be pleased with the Obama's environmental record. If that is the case, then he did the job right.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Regulate, regulate, regulate
Thoreau got it all wrong. Instead of "simplify, simplify, simplify" he should have said "regulate, regulate, regulate." You're right, cliche and tired Thoreau quotations don't really relate to modern day environmental regulation, but I'm feeling chipper and facetious and that was the first quote that came to mind. Anyways, I do believe the government should step in and try to reduce the amount of pollution entering the environment. There are, of course, circumstances in which the government should not be given full power. I'm going to break it down and hopefully all my thoughts will be clear by the end of this post. To be honest, I'm not very comfortable with the knowledge I have right now. I feel like I need to know more about this topic before delving in and trying to ideologically define some pretty complicated stuff. I'm going to give it my best shot, though.
Before we can even begin to talk about different policy instruments of regulating pollution, we must first determine if "The Government" has the right to do so. I personally believe the government does have the right to regulate pollution legally and as a matter of convenience and congruence.
I believe that most of the burden should fall on the shoulders of the federal government because pollution is a trans-boundary problem. Ordinarily, the federal government invokes the Commerce Clause of the Constitution when it wishes to regulate the goings-on of the states. **Interesting side note: According to Reuters, Texas is suing the federal government for attempting to regulate greenhouse gasses. This court case could radically impact federal environmental regulation.** This portion of the Constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate commerce between states. Over the years, the courts have expanded the Commerce Clause to include regulation of pollution.
If environmental regulation is left to the federal government, then all states will be treated equally. If the states have different and unequal policies concerning pollution, an unfair economic advantage may be created in one state. Also, many states could possibly free ride on the states that take pollution problems seriously. If the federal government enacts legislation to control pollution, then all the states must comply. I do believe, however, that the States should be responsible for regulating point-source pollution. Point-source (the source of a contaminant can be traced back to a single location) pollution is less of a trans-boundary problem and should therefore be left to the individual states to regulate.
Okay, so over the years policymakers have formulated several different approaches to the problem of industrial, energy, and transportation pollution (to name a few). We can choose just rote government regulation or Market Based Instruments (MBIs). Of course, there is much contention as to which method of reducing and controlling pollution is more effective. Obviously neither one is ideal, but they are the best solutions policymakers have devised in our imperfect world at this time.
Before we can even begin to talk about different policy instruments of regulating pollution, we must first determine if "The Government" has the right to do so. I personally believe the government does have the right to regulate pollution legally and as a matter of convenience and congruence.
I believe that most of the burden should fall on the shoulders of the federal government because pollution is a trans-boundary problem. Ordinarily, the federal government invokes the Commerce Clause of the Constitution when it wishes to regulate the goings-on of the states. **Interesting side note: According to Reuters, Texas is suing the federal government for attempting to regulate greenhouse gasses. This court case could radically impact federal environmental regulation.** This portion of the Constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate commerce between states. Over the years, the courts have expanded the Commerce Clause to include regulation of pollution.
If environmental regulation is left to the federal government, then all states will be treated equally. If the states have different and unequal policies concerning pollution, an unfair economic advantage may be created in one state. Also, many states could possibly free ride on the states that take pollution problems seriously. If the federal government enacts legislation to control pollution, then all the states must comply. I do believe, however, that the States should be responsible for regulating point-source pollution. Point-source (the source of a contaminant can be traced back to a single location) pollution is less of a trans-boundary problem and should therefore be left to the individual states to regulate.
Regulation has its benefits and its drawbacks. On one hand, regulation is theoretically easy to enforce. Ideally, there are a given set of rules and restrictions. Polluters are made aware of these rules and restrictions. If polluters do not comply with the rules and restrictions, they must suffer the consequences. Regulation is fair because all polluters must abide by the same set of rules and face the same consequences for disobeying the rules.
On the other hand, regulation is incredibly difficult to enforce. Regulators develop relationships with the companies they regulate and begin to sympathize. While the budget of EPA is in the billions of dollars, it is not nearly adequate to regulate and ensure the compliance of each industry. Many polluters continue to pollute without consequence.
Market Based Instruments, or rather those who favor them, place their faith in the markets to innovate technologies and thus reduce pollution. There are several different forms of MBIs. The two most popular are Cap and Trade and Ecotaxes. MBIs have benefits and drawbacks also. Most Americans hold a strong preference for free market solutions to potential dilemmas. We generally prefer to see our markets regulate themselves and solve problems internally. Many Americans see government intervention into industry affairs as an unnecessary hindrance to market growth. Therefore, MBIs have appeal to the general public because they appear to be a free-market solution to pollution.
MBIs appear to be a preferable solution to pollution reduction, but there is really only prima facie evidence that suggests these tools work. MBIs have several serious and subversive impacts on the reduction of pollution. For instance, MBIs 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. Cap and Trade does very little to reduce pollution. A wealthy corporation can simply buy up a large number of carbon permits instead of investing in new technologies to reduce pollution. This tool promotes inequity in the market. Smaller businesses do not have the same purchasing power as larger businesses, and are thus put at a disadvantage when buying carbon permits.
Because the American government functions (supposedly, at least) for the people, I tend to put my faith in public officials and government systems to make the common good its number one priority. Therefore, I would much rather the government regulate polluters than allow polluters to self-regulate using MBIs. There are countless citations of businesses being ripped asunder by environmental regulation, but in all reality, at least according to Stephen M. Meyer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there is virtually no evidence of a negative effect of environmental regulation on businesses. "Focusing on a number of different industries, using a variety of economic indicators, and covering different time periods [...] studies find that neither national nor state economic performance have been significantly or systematically affected by environmental regulation." (This was a very interesting essay. It can be found in its entirety here.) I think this evidence alone is enough to make someone consider the benefits of regulation over MBIs.
Monday, September 6, 2010
What do I believe?
First of all, I know my blog name sounds really lame, but it is in reference to a Twitter battle between JoeMyGod (gay liberal blogger) and some dude from GayPatriot (homocon blogger) about James Jay Lee, the guy who held some people hostage at the Discovery Channel headquarters. GayPatriot was calling Lee "environut" even though his demands had nothing to do with the environment. I guess that doesn't really explain the name, but hey, I'm not really that creative.
Anyways.
So apparently there are a lot of different philosophies on the topic of environmentalism. I had no idea there were so many schools of thought about the relationship between Man and Mother Earth. I think it'd be really difficult to choose one specific philosophy because, at least in my opinion, its really just a difference of semantics between the closely related groups. Unfortunately, for the purpose of this assignment I have to depart from my indecisive nature and declare which train of thought with which I most closely relate.
In the broadest sense, I most closely identify with the conservationists. I believe that of all sentient creatures on this planet Man is the greatest. Therefore, he has the right to exercise his dominion over the resources of this planet in order to ensure the prosperity of current and future generations. Because of Man's sentience, he has a heavy moral obligation to protect the less cognizant creatures of the earth. Man should have a synergistic relationship with the planet in order that the quality of both improve. Man also has an obligation to not only protect, but also to respect the earth and all life on it. I believe there is an inherent beauty in natural landscapes and ecosystems. Man ought to respect them by just staying away.
I am more of an urbanist (that is the best word for it I can come up with, although I'm sure there is something more precise out there) than anything else. The autocentric and suburban society Americans have created is not sustainable. If America is to be a world leader in the 21st century, it must abandon this lifestyle. Cities should reward and promote pedestrian and public transportation and discourage automobile ridership. Developments in cities should be geared toward creating long term solutions and diverse, dynamic communities instead of auto-dependent, segregated neighborhoods.
I used to be a conservative Christian. I have a distinct memory of arguing with a fellow 8th grader on the bus about how George Bush was a great president and John Kerry was too liberal for America. I wish I could travel back in time and tell my past self how I would grow and change. I would love to see the look on my face.
The data says that I should mostly align with the ideology of my parents. I come from a very conservative family. We live in a very conservative suburb called Greenwood. Greenwood is located in the conservative state of Indiana. I'm not really sure why my ideologies developed the way they have. Maybe The National Review was just disgusting enough that it pushed me away from conservative dogma. Maybe it's because I know what its like to be different. Who knows? I think as I get older and I enter the workforce my views will probably gravitate towards the center, but I've been on both sides of the coin and I really do prefer the left.
I am now a gay, liberal (socialist, Marxist, communist, evil, blaaah blaah blaaah), college student who likes to buy organic and local food. I have a positive world view and I tend to expect the best of people. I believe the human race is capable of a great many things, and through the use of logic and reason we can make the world a better place and improve the quality of life for everyone. Governments should be fierce advocates for their citizens; they are obligated to ensure that every citizen is treated with equal due process. I believe every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to health care, an education, and clean air and water.
I don't really have any economic ideologies other that my belief in equality. I think that raw capitalism and the "American Dream" are inherently evil because they sell a lie of economic prosperity (spend spend spend!) and the only people who truly walk away with economic security are the CEOs and presidents of the Fortune 500 companies. Look at the "Great Recession" as an example. Millions of average people just trying to follow the "American Dream" ended up jobless and without long term financial security while the select few at the top of the pyramid ran off with huge golden parachutes.
I think capitalism and suburbanism are wrong because they promote waste and mass exploitation of natural resources, so I s'pose my economic views concord with my environmental views, but
I'm not really sure how my social ideology would conflict or concord with my environmental ideology.
I apologize for the crappy writing. I haven't written anything all summer, and I certainly didn't do anything mentally engaging. It's tough transitioning from grunting when I want something to extrapolating on my philosophy of life.
Anyways.
So apparently there are a lot of different philosophies on the topic of environmentalism. I had no idea there were so many schools of thought about the relationship between Man and Mother Earth. I think it'd be really difficult to choose one specific philosophy because, at least in my opinion, its really just a difference of semantics between the closely related groups. Unfortunately, for the purpose of this assignment I have to depart from my indecisive nature and declare which train of thought with which I most closely relate.
In the broadest sense, I most closely identify with the conservationists. I believe that of all sentient creatures on this planet Man is the greatest. Therefore, he has the right to exercise his dominion over the resources of this planet in order to ensure the prosperity of current and future generations. Because of Man's sentience, he has a heavy moral obligation to protect the less cognizant creatures of the earth. Man should have a synergistic relationship with the planet in order that the quality of both improve. Man also has an obligation to not only protect, but also to respect the earth and all life on it. I believe there is an inherent beauty in natural landscapes and ecosystems. Man ought to respect them by just staying away.
I am more of an urbanist (that is the best word for it I can come up with, although I'm sure there is something more precise out there) than anything else. The autocentric and suburban society Americans have created is not sustainable. If America is to be a world leader in the 21st century, it must abandon this lifestyle. Cities should reward and promote pedestrian and public transportation and discourage automobile ridership. Developments in cities should be geared toward creating long term solutions and diverse, dynamic communities instead of auto-dependent, segregated neighborhoods.
I used to be a conservative Christian. I have a distinct memory of arguing with a fellow 8th grader on the bus about how George Bush was a great president and John Kerry was too liberal for America. I wish I could travel back in time and tell my past self how I would grow and change. I would love to see the look on my face.
The data says that I should mostly align with the ideology of my parents. I come from a very conservative family. We live in a very conservative suburb called Greenwood. Greenwood is located in the conservative state of Indiana. I'm not really sure why my ideologies developed the way they have. Maybe The National Review was just disgusting enough that it pushed me away from conservative dogma. Maybe it's because I know what its like to be different. Who knows? I think as I get older and I enter the workforce my views will probably gravitate towards the center, but I've been on both sides of the coin and I really do prefer the left.
I am now a gay, liberal (socialist, Marxist, communist, evil, blaaah blaah blaaah), college student who likes to buy organic and local food. I have a positive world view and I tend to expect the best of people. I believe the human race is capable of a great many things, and through the use of logic and reason we can make the world a better place and improve the quality of life for everyone. Governments should be fierce advocates for their citizens; they are obligated to ensure that every citizen is treated with equal due process. I believe every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to health care, an education, and clean air and water.
I don't really have any economic ideologies other that my belief in equality. I think that raw capitalism and the "American Dream" are inherently evil because they sell a lie of economic prosperity (spend spend spend!) and the only people who truly walk away with economic security are the CEOs and presidents of the Fortune 500 companies. Look at the "Great Recession" as an example. Millions of average people just trying to follow the "American Dream" ended up jobless and without long term financial security while the select few at the top of the pyramid ran off with huge golden parachutes.
I think capitalism and suburbanism are wrong because they promote waste and mass exploitation of natural resources, so I s'pose my economic views concord with my environmental views, but
I'm not really sure how my social ideology would conflict or concord with my environmental ideology.
I apologize for the crappy writing. I haven't written anything all summer, and I certainly didn't do anything mentally engaging. It's tough transitioning from grunting when I want something to extrapolating on my philosophy of life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)