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movement is disappointed that the discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and "Defense of Marriage" acts have yet to be repealed.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.

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.

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.

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.