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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)