After talking with my cousin Eric from Cincinnati over dinner at Mother Bears and moved to complete this assignment. I asked him what he thought the biggest problem with the Environment was in order to get an idea of his ideas and issues that were important to him. He brought up Metropolitan pollution.
He believes that is impossible to get rid of pollution. He says that the alternative is far too expensive and impractical for companies to produce products without by-products of waste. Even trying to remove, he believes that the money spent on solving the problem could go toward solving for the future. There is a need for a restriction on pollution and a company’s ability to pollute. A cap enforced by the EPA that is specific to the each product. This is to say X amount of pollution per product produced and poundage of coal and other fossil fuels burned. This would prevent over production and in turn over consumption is what he urges. He brought up the Clayton and Sherman act, which prevent monopolies among other things. But without the capacity to produce as much as they could afford because of their pollution cap, a company would be forced to accept competition based on environmentally friendliness—which a long-term benefit for everyone.
He also sees the need for a much strong EPA. One that can come in and destroy a company until it complies. HE says that without the entire support of the federal government, things will not happen.
\
I personally feel as though Eric is a little unrealistic. Presently companies are limited to how much they can produce through fines placed on them by the government, however, there are a plethora of ways companies can get around them, or they are not strict enough to be worth following. I do believe that something needs to happen with a monetary incentive for companies to not pollute. Overwhelming fines, when companies begin to lose true, real money that makes a difference, prove to be the game changer when it comes to reducing pollution.
I know Eric is well intentioned, but companies do not respond well to government intervention. It is against the entire basis of a company working hard for everything they have and spending their money in the ways they want, even it means producing more to make more, in turn polluting more. In this way I strongly disagree that a stronger EPA is anymore successful than what is in place now. The government making demands and big business being expected to follow to them is similar to expecting a conviction grand theft auto felon to watch your car for a week if you give him the keys. They will rebuke all governmental controls.
Lastly, I want to propose a solution to level the playing field between big business and small business and the government. If there were cards that allowed for X amount of pollution and cost a certain amount of money determined by supply and demand of them, and they were sold to first come first serve highest bidders, there would be a substantial lower amount of pollution. If these card limits—set by the government, enforced by the government—were violated, EPA would impose fines that progressively doubled based on the amount over they polluted. The EPA needs to make it monetarily the most painstaking thing ever to afford, even unaffordable until the company has to go bankrupt or stop polluting all together.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Research Paper--How do you turn that into a clever title?
For my personal research paper, I plan on exploring how marketing affects a consumer’s willingness to buy “go-green” products. I want to explore the ways in which companies are working toward combining profitability and sustainability.
Many businesses today are working toward going “green,” and ensuring that all businesses practices are environmentally-considerate. Since this issue is so trendy, are companies simply jumping on the back wagon to keep up with competition and continue to profit off of this trend? In order to practice this form of conservation, it requires that the company takes a small hit, since it requires more money to ‘save the world.’ Companies are able to get consumers to pay this premium and continue to spend greater amounts of money on these “go green” products. The marketing departments of these companies alike trying to go green, may be a major deciding factor on how quickly we get to saving the planet. The marketing campaigns behind these products are a driving force in whether or not consumers—and the public at large—begin to invest in interest in this cause.
THESIS: Data pending—but something along the lines of price
Hypothesis: My personal expectations of my findings are that cost will play the biggest role in determining in what people will buy followed by how “attractive” the packaging/ label is. I believe that no matter how eco-minded people are, there is a simple line which divides the cost from benefit. Will paying $2.00 extra actually improve the world a minimum of at least two dollars?
Research:
I have created a survey which will test this.
TAKE THE SURVEY HERE!
The survey contains a test of three products all multi-surface bathroom disinfectant sprays. My control product is that of original name brand Clorox bathroom disinfectant. I am testing it with Clorox’s side brand, Green Works Bathroom disinfectant, and an independent firm—Ecover Bathroom disinfectant cleaner spray. The survey goes through different hypotheticals and demographic questions. The first scenario has all three products (all that contain 30 fluid ounces throughout the whole survey) set at the same price—$3.89—a to determine their inclinations about the environment. The second scenario has the Green Works and Ecover price set one dollar higher at $4.89. The last has the Ecover raised to $6.89 to test how much money people are willing to spend for perhaps the greenest, non-name brand product. I also included a question of how environmentally friendly the person would consider themselves and which product they felt was most physically appealing. This will control anyone from just checking the green products because it isn’t real money and thus expresses their ideologies without real-world applicable data.
Many businesses today are working toward going “green,” and ensuring that all businesses practices are environmentally-considerate. Since this issue is so trendy, are companies simply jumping on the back wagon to keep up with competition and continue to profit off of this trend? In order to practice this form of conservation, it requires that the company takes a small hit, since it requires more money to ‘save the world.’ Companies are able to get consumers to pay this premium and continue to spend greater amounts of money on these “go green” products. The marketing departments of these companies alike trying to go green, may be a major deciding factor on how quickly we get to saving the planet. The marketing campaigns behind these products are a driving force in whether or not consumers—and the public at large—begin to invest in interest in this cause.
THESIS: Data pending—but something along the lines of price
Hypothesis: My personal expectations of my findings are that cost will play the biggest role in determining in what people will buy followed by how “attractive” the packaging/ label is. I believe that no matter how eco-minded people are, there is a simple line which divides the cost from benefit. Will paying $2.00 extra actually improve the world a minimum of at least two dollars?
Research:
I have created a survey which will test this.
TAKE THE SURVEY HERE!
The survey contains a test of three products all multi-surface bathroom disinfectant sprays. My control product is that of original name brand Clorox bathroom disinfectant. I am testing it with Clorox’s side brand, Green Works Bathroom disinfectant, and an independent firm—Ecover Bathroom disinfectant cleaner spray. The survey goes through different hypotheticals and demographic questions. The first scenario has all three products (all that contain 30 fluid ounces throughout the whole survey) set at the same price—$3.89—a to determine their inclinations about the environment. The second scenario has the Green Works and Ecover price set one dollar higher at $4.89. The last has the Ecover raised to $6.89 to test how much money people are willing to spend for perhaps the greenest, non-name brand product. I also included a question of how environmentally friendly the person would consider themselves and which product they felt was most physically appealing. This will control anyone from just checking the green products because it isn’t real money and thus expresses their ideologies without real-world applicable data.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Let's Get High on the Gift of the Trees
Why is it that when an amoeba splits in half, the two have no desire to keep it touch or “roll” together? They’re entirely apathetic to eachother’s success. Yes, ridiculous and obvious why not—but, an important point about humans is raised through this. Think about it. A mother gives birth to a child and nurtures it usually until it reaches 18ish years of maturation and that child will keep contact for the rest of its life. We as humans tend to measure our success as a species (as a civilization etc…) by how well we are caring for our fellow humans. Again, very obviously, when people are dying at the mercy of war, starvation, disease, etc… we are not succeeding as a race.
However, [note: brace for this absurd conundrum] we ultimately we cannot even hope to succeed as the human race if we do not survive. This turns survival into our principal goal, and puts our needs above those of everyone else. So as much we want to help everyone else to be a great species, we CAN'T because we’re too busy focusing on ourselves and securing our own survival. Objectivism.
Founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, wrote “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.” SOURCE
I must be honest, I do not want to rigidly defend Ayn Rand as her points go too far for my likes (Man is so independent that not even God is necessary—things like that [arrogance] piss me off).
In any regard, I believe that people always act in their own best interest. Whenever they do something, they are subconsciously and consciously discerning how their decision will benefit themselves, doing countless cost/benefit analysis. This starts with biology and the innate desire to survive and live as long as possible. However, this moves forward into our material lives and monetary benefit. In whatever facet, we most often do not act unless we will benefit directly or indirectly.
[[Comment with a situation where someone would NOT act out personal benefit in some way]]
In a utopian world, this would most certainly not be the case. The aforementioned is my analysis of us as humans, and not necessarily me condoning the inherent philosophy of humans. People would act for the good of the world, in order that most people possible could benefit. Everyone would act in this fashion, so that everyone receives the same help they gave. One social example is revamping the medical and education industries in order that it is not profit driven, but rather propelled by a demand for service by those who only have so much money.
What then is a healthy way to approach progress as civilization as a whole? Utopia suggests that nothing can be flawed. In that case we are going to need some New World Order shit to take the world population way down because this bus is too damn crowded to prosper further. I digress, people ought to be concerned with maximizing benefit from less use of the natural world. I believe that this is a huge step toward a sustainable life. If we can make less of our resources go farther or reap more benefit from the resource without increasing amount used, we are succeeding.
I also believe in a small governing body over these resources. I think that they need a strong legal presence and a bad-ass reputation like Navy Seals or Army Special-ops (people you would never mess with). I would hope in a Utopian society, people trying to cheat the system wouldn’t happen, but it might. People, with fear as an incentive, would have to respect the natural world that gives us so much. Back to Objectivism, people would respect the laws because if they didn’t, they would be seriously adversely affected in a way unwanted to them. They don’t desire that, so they would comply.
In addition, I feel like people need to take on a more horizontal relationship with earth as opposed to the vertical one we maintain here and now. We dominate nature and this world as though we are rightful “landlord;” however, we thought of ourselves as just more trees, plants, flowers, birds, etc… we may be more inclined to maintain it all—after all, we are dependent on the “gift of the trees” (Xavier Rudd—awesome Australian aboriginal rights advocate & musician).
However, [note: brace for this absurd conundrum] we ultimately we cannot even hope to succeed as the human race if we do not survive. This turns survival into our principal goal, and puts our needs above those of everyone else. So as much we want to help everyone else to be a great species, we CAN'T because we’re too busy focusing on ourselves and securing our own survival. Objectivism.
Founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, wrote “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.” SOURCE
I must be honest, I do not want to rigidly defend Ayn Rand as her points go too far for my likes (Man is so independent that not even God is necessary—things like that [arrogance] piss me off).
In any regard, I believe that people always act in their own best interest. Whenever they do something, they are subconsciously and consciously discerning how their decision will benefit themselves, doing countless cost/benefit analysis. This starts with biology and the innate desire to survive and live as long as possible. However, this moves forward into our material lives and monetary benefit. In whatever facet, we most often do not act unless we will benefit directly or indirectly.
[[Comment with a situation where someone would NOT act out personal benefit in some way]]
In a utopian world, this would most certainly not be the case. The aforementioned is my analysis of us as humans, and not necessarily me condoning the inherent philosophy of humans. People would act for the good of the world, in order that most people possible could benefit. Everyone would act in this fashion, so that everyone receives the same help they gave. One social example is revamping the medical and education industries in order that it is not profit driven, but rather propelled by a demand for service by those who only have so much money.
What then is a healthy way to approach progress as civilization as a whole? Utopia suggests that nothing can be flawed. In that case we are going to need some New World Order shit to take the world population way down because this bus is too damn crowded to prosper further. I digress, people ought to be concerned with maximizing benefit from less use of the natural world. I believe that this is a huge step toward a sustainable life. If we can make less of our resources go farther or reap more benefit from the resource without increasing amount used, we are succeeding.
I also believe in a small governing body over these resources. I think that they need a strong legal presence and a bad-ass reputation like Navy Seals or Army Special-ops (people you would never mess with). I would hope in a Utopian society, people trying to cheat the system wouldn’t happen, but it might. People, with fear as an incentive, would have to respect the natural world that gives us so much. Back to Objectivism, people would respect the laws because if they didn’t, they would be seriously adversely affected in a way unwanted to them. They don’t desire that, so they would comply.
In addition, I feel like people need to take on a more horizontal relationship with earth as opposed to the vertical one we maintain here and now. We dominate nature and this world as though we are rightful “landlord;” however, we thought of ourselves as just more trees, plants, flowers, birds, etc… we may be more inclined to maintain it all—after all, we are dependent on the “gift of the trees” (Xavier Rudd—awesome Australian aboriginal rights advocate & musician).
Monday, October 4, 2010
Pricele$$--It'$ alway$ about money
A Conservationist Manifesto.
By: Scott Russell Sanders.
Whoa.
First and foremost, this book is phenomenal and Sanders is brilliant. If there is anyone contemplating their purpose in life with regards to society, I would highly recommend this book. Actually, if there is anyone who wants to have their mind
blown or rethink their ideology—check this book out.
After reading only 35 pages, I felt as though my beliefs were shattered and I was left in a mental disarray. The writing is so prolific that I truly bought into everything he proposed. I agreed with perhaps the most left-winged author I have ever encountered. Unheard of. Nearly unacceptable. I apologize for ignorance, as your beliefs should be under constant scrutiny in order maintain that they are always what you currently believe and stand for. The language, examples, and logical connections are beautiful. It is more enjoyable, provocative that anything I have ever read. It truly challenges me and my beliefs.
I have on more than a few occasions yelled at the pages of the book on the fourth floor of the west tower in Wells Library as though Sanders is there to accept my criticisms. I wonder if he would appreciate somebody disagreeing with his points. He seems really into what he is saying—which only increases his credibility (He should probably endorse what he’s selling, so to speak). However, does he sympathize with the other side: the people out there to exploit the environment for profit and personal use? He probably straight-up condemns them to H-E-double-hockey-sticks.
Let me first summarize for you what Sanders’ objective is and what mentality he solicits to us.
Sanders begins his book with a brilliant extended metaphor connecting the biblical story of Noah’s ark and the great flood to people who today working toward the good of the environment. He calls these people ark-builders, people who live lightly and do their part to promote the interests as a member of the earth as a community. The deprecation of the environment and eventual demise of it relate to the flood that God sent to abolish the evils from the earth. God does this for the good of humanity.
Sanders denounces consumption in excess and connects the pitiful state of our environment to the attitude of reckless consumption and our insatiable need to devour left and right 24/7. This devouring—shopping, quick-paced life style, wastefulness—is an American ideal and is solely profit driven. It is the need to profit combined with human’s need to conform that results in a mindset of man over nature as opposed to man coexisting with nature:
Humanity/Nature (as a fraction) vs. Humanity <—> Nature
The difference is extremely visible. Sanders writes that the “American way of life…is bad for us and bad for the earth…we need a new vision of the good life (25).” His book in total, especially ‘Part 1’ promotes the need for an absolute altering of priorities in lifestyle and culture within our society.
He believes strongly in government intervention, but his ideas and solutions do not stop with the government; his answers trace back to the people and what they should be doing and believing in order to be successful. Scott Russell Sanders very clearly explains his belief, “Of course we need wise legislation at the local, state, and national level to protect our rivers and the rest of our common wealth. But what we need even more is a change in mindset (38).”
He is adamant on reestablishing the “common wealth.” This is to say, preventing the privatization of anything that falls under something belonging to community as a whole. “The common wealth...embraces all those natural and cultural goods that we share by virtue of membership in the human family (28).”
The best solution and protection according to Sanders “is a citizenry that clearly recognizes and fiercely defends the common wealth as the prime source of our wellbeing, and as our legacy to future generations (40).”
Sanders supports the earth because we coexist with it. It is our duty to do what we can to help it so it can help us. As world leaders, Americans ought to embody this principal certainly better than we do now, and better than most of the world as we are all about setting precedents. Quite frankly, thus far as Americans, we have relied on money and technology to bail us out of trouble as though when the problems ensues, the solution also makes its way conveniently out of the woodwork. "No amount of money can insulate us from a degraded society of devastated landscape (48)."
Flat out, I have some serious respect for Professor Sanders.
Despite this seemingly overwhelming infatuation I have with this man. His book is not 100% happy go-lucky fun fun with me. In fact, I struggle to really see eye to eye with him in limiting economic growth and the suppressing human desire to profit and not share. I—refer to My ideology that is only 7/10th’s correct—believe pretty strongly in working hard for your personal success, and if you work harder than the next person and earn more capital, that you should be able to spend your money however—even if that means living in a higher fashion. Sanders points out that work for community is essential and that groups such as the Iroquois and Amish are chiefly concerned with how any of their actions will affect their community and their future generations (49). If they conclude that either will result negatively, that idea is denounced. He connects equality to the practice of cooperation and states that in a true democracy, we do not look to a distant government to meet a community needs; but rather people “roll up their sleeves, join in their neighbors, and set to work (42).” I propose that people word hard for their personal benefit, consciously or subconsciously. If individuals do not join, they will be shamed by society for not doing their part. Since that individual does not pull their weight, they are useless to that community and will be ostracized. When eliminated from society, they will struggle to survive and die quickly. Individuals, as a mode of personal survival, contribute to the community as a whole.
I have a few other issues with Sanders…
The slippery slope fallacy creeps into his claims and writing more often than I think necessary, and as a reader—especially a reader with an opposing ideology—I do not feel fairly represented in his book. I must credit him for including the other side; but, he makes us (people with an ideology that aligns with conservatives more so then his) sound like it is our intention to “devour as much stuff as possible (17).” Seriously, whose aim is it to piss as much money away as possible and screw over the earth best they can...? I’m not on board with being grouped with whoever may embody that. I would personally kick someone in the teeth who thinks like that—Chad “Ocho-Cinco” Johnson. On that same page his language suggests that people buy tickets to the latest craze in place of taking walks and talking with loved ones. He too clearly draws lines that start with interests and end with party affiliation. There are far too many externalities to be starting a fight by calling another side out.
Lastly, Sanders creates a conflict by establishing an “unfettered marketplace” and a “beautiful, harmonious community that draws energy from wind and sun, [and] meets many of its own needs from local sources” as competing opposites. Please. They are so no enemies, nor even fighting. These two do not replace one another, but must balance one another out, so that we have a healthy and functional world to live in.
Quite frankly, I love the book for what it is, a book. I have a tremendous amount
of respect for Professor Sanders, his brilliance, and eloquence. His logic and points are cohesive and make so much sense. I quite simply, do not buy into them 100% because I question the practicality. I’m not sure a fundamental change—especially in American minds and hearts—is happening anytime soon. As sobering as the results are, baby steps appear to be the best solution at this point. I’m extremely excited to continue reading. It’s a damn interesting read regardless…
NOTE: At this point, I’m fully prepared to give this book as a gift many times over this holiday season, so as to evoke thought from relatives and friends I know will absolutely buy into everything he says and others who will want to punch Sanders in the face and completely denounce him.
By: Scott Russell Sanders.
Whoa.
First and foremost, this book is phenomenal and Sanders is brilliant. If there is anyone contemplating their purpose in life with regards to society, I would highly recommend this book. Actually, if there is anyone who wants to have their mind
blown or rethink their ideology—check this book out.
After reading only 35 pages, I felt as though my beliefs were shattered and I was left in a mental disarray. The writing is so prolific that I truly bought into everything he proposed. I agreed with perhaps the most left-winged author I have ever encountered. Unheard of. Nearly unacceptable. I apologize for ignorance, as your beliefs should be under constant scrutiny in order maintain that they are always what you currently believe and stand for. The language, examples, and logical connections are beautiful. It is more enjoyable, provocative that anything I have ever read. It truly challenges me and my beliefs.
I have on more than a few occasions yelled at the pages of the book on the fourth floor of the west tower in Wells Library as though Sanders is there to accept my criticisms. I wonder if he would appreciate somebody disagreeing with his points. He seems really into what he is saying—which only increases his credibility (He should probably endorse what he’s selling, so to speak). However, does he sympathize with the other side: the people out there to exploit the environment for profit and personal use? He probably straight-up condemns them to H-E-double-hockey-sticks.
Let me first summarize for you what Sanders’ objective is and what mentality he solicits to us.
Sanders begins his book with a brilliant extended metaphor connecting the biblical story of Noah’s ark and the great flood to people who today working toward the good of the environment. He calls these people ark-builders, people who live lightly and do their part to promote the interests as a member of the earth as a community. The deprecation of the environment and eventual demise of it relate to the flood that God sent to abolish the evils from the earth. God does this for the good of humanity.
Sanders denounces consumption in excess and connects the pitiful state of our environment to the attitude of reckless consumption and our insatiable need to devour left and right 24/7. This devouring—shopping, quick-paced life style, wastefulness—is an American ideal and is solely profit driven. It is the need to profit combined with human’s need to conform that results in a mindset of man over nature as opposed to man coexisting with nature:
Humanity/Nature (as a fraction) vs. Humanity <—> Nature
The difference is extremely visible. Sanders writes that the “American way of life…is bad for us and bad for the earth…we need a new vision of the good life (25).” His book in total, especially ‘Part 1’ promotes the need for an absolute altering of priorities in lifestyle and culture within our society.
He believes strongly in government intervention, but his ideas and solutions do not stop with the government; his answers trace back to the people and what they should be doing and believing in order to be successful. Scott Russell Sanders very clearly explains his belief, “Of course we need wise legislation at the local, state, and national level to protect our rivers and the rest of our common wealth. But what we need even more is a change in mindset (38).”
He is adamant on reestablishing the “common wealth.” This is to say, preventing the privatization of anything that falls under something belonging to community as a whole. “The common wealth...embraces all those natural and cultural goods that we share by virtue of membership in the human family (28).”
The best solution and protection according to Sanders “is a citizenry that clearly recognizes and fiercely defends the common wealth as the prime source of our wellbeing, and as our legacy to future generations (40).”
Sanders supports the earth because we coexist with it. It is our duty to do what we can to help it so it can help us. As world leaders, Americans ought to embody this principal certainly better than we do now, and better than most of the world as we are all about setting precedents. Quite frankly, thus far as Americans, we have relied on money and technology to bail us out of trouble as though when the problems ensues, the solution also makes its way conveniently out of the woodwork. "No amount of money can insulate us from a degraded society of devastated landscape (48)."
Flat out, I have some serious respect for Professor Sanders.
Despite this seemingly overwhelming infatuation I have with this man. His book is not 100% happy go-lucky fun fun with me. In fact, I struggle to really see eye to eye with him in limiting economic growth and the suppressing human desire to profit and not share. I—refer to My ideology that is only 7/10th’s correct—believe pretty strongly in working hard for your personal success, and if you work harder than the next person and earn more capital, that you should be able to spend your money however—even if that means living in a higher fashion. Sanders points out that work for community is essential and that groups such as the Iroquois and Amish are chiefly concerned with how any of their actions will affect their community and their future generations (49). If they conclude that either will result negatively, that idea is denounced. He connects equality to the practice of cooperation and states that in a true democracy, we do not look to a distant government to meet a community needs; but rather people “roll up their sleeves, join in their neighbors, and set to work (42).” I propose that people word hard for their personal benefit, consciously or subconsciously. If individuals do not join, they will be shamed by society for not doing their part. Since that individual does not pull their weight, they are useless to that community and will be ostracized. When eliminated from society, they will struggle to survive and die quickly. Individuals, as a mode of personal survival, contribute to the community as a whole.
I have a few other issues with Sanders…
The slippery slope fallacy creeps into his claims and writing more often than I think necessary, and as a reader—especially a reader with an opposing ideology—I do not feel fairly represented in his book. I must credit him for including the other side; but, he makes us (people with an ideology that aligns with conservatives more so then his) sound like it is our intention to “devour as much stuff as possible (17).” Seriously, whose aim is it to piss as much money away as possible and screw over the earth best they can...? I’m not on board with being grouped with whoever may embody that. I would personally kick someone in the teeth who thinks like that—Chad “Ocho-Cinco” Johnson. On that same page his language suggests that people buy tickets to the latest craze in place of taking walks and talking with loved ones. He too clearly draws lines that start with interests and end with party affiliation. There are far too many externalities to be starting a fight by calling another side out.
Lastly, Sanders creates a conflict by establishing an “unfettered marketplace” and a “beautiful, harmonious community that draws energy from wind and sun, [and] meets many of its own needs from local sources” as competing opposites. Please. They are so no enemies, nor even fighting. These two do not replace one another, but must balance one another out, so that we have a healthy and functional world to live in.
Quite frankly, I love the book for what it is, a book. I have a tremendous amount
of respect for Professor Sanders, his brilliance, and eloquence. His logic and points are cohesive and make so much sense. I quite simply, do not buy into them 100% because I question the practicality. I’m not sure a fundamental change—especially in American minds and hearts—is happening anytime soon. As sobering as the results are, baby steps appear to be the best solution at this point. I’m extremely excited to continue reading. It’s a damn interesting read regardless…
NOTE: At this point, I’m fully prepared to give this book as a gift many times over this holiday season, so as to evoke thought from relatives and friends I know will absolutely buy into everything he says and others who will want to punch Sanders in the face and completely denounce him.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Questions for the Expert--
Does the science of global warming (not to insult your field of study and expertise) if, in the end, the media dictates public opinion, which dictates who is elected, which dictates how the problem is solved?
What is more important starting from here on out: being proactive in fixing the mistake or being proactive in not further contributing to the mistake?
What is more important starting from here on out: being proactive in fixing the mistake or being proactive in not further contributing to the mistake?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Nomenclature≠Political Success, Results do.
Democrats. Republicans. Matthew. Charlie. These are simply identifying nouns—names. Nothing special. For someone to say you’re not a true Democrat or a true Matt is just silly. After all, these titles alike are relative. To a staunch republican, a moderate may be viewed a ‘communist.’ The opposite is true, some out there left wingers may look at a moderate, conservatively lenient and think they are true fascists. So, can we actually coin someone a bad republican or bad democrat? No. However, we can assess what a political figurehead says they are going to do versus what they actually do. In other words, what people elect them to do (because of the promises made) and their actual political effect on the issue.
President Barack Obama had some pretty heavy, promising language in his campaign toward the presidency. I have personally heard that people are somewhat dissatisfied with how non-liberal Obama has been. I sympathize for the man. What a hard fricking job. In addition, every single citizen wants him to focus on the issues they care about—that’s a lot of issues and a lot of different points to focus on.
Anyways, here’s what he wanted to do…
Starting all the way back with the democratic and presidential debates we see the classic responses out of Obama. “Create millions of jobs,” “green technologies,” and pollution control. His websites says that
“[Obama] will work for tougher regulations on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to prevent air & water pollution.” SOURCE He was also discussing nuclear waste in his early debates and proposed “I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure people that they’re going to be safe.”SOURCE Furthermore in his second state of the union address on January 27, 2010 he said that "We can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow," Obama said. "There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products SOURCE
Let’s see how well Obama has followed through:
Obama’s budget proposal this year included $10 billion for the EPA. SOURCE This is an increase from G. W. Bush’s $7.3 billion allocated funds. Obama put high stress on some key environmental issues in his campaigning, at least it is good to see he is financially supporting his goals thus far. Obama, upon his immediate swearing in, halted all pending regulations of Bush’s administration for his own assessment. SOURCE He also repealed a rule from the Bush administration that diminished the protection of endangered species such as the gray wolf and the polar bear. That rule also allowed mining to take place 100 feet from flowing water, which had the serious potential to negatively impact the environment. MSNBC reports “The new President ordered the Department of Transportation, now led by Republican Ray LaHood, to bring the nation's auto fleet fuel efficiency in line with a 2007 Congressional mandate of achieving 35 miles per gallon by 2020 or sooner. These new efficiency standards will start with cars released in 2011.” SOURCE. SOURCE
Obama is definitely accountable for his campaign promises. As a near democracy, or a representative republic, it is imperative our leaders do what they were elected to do—the will of the people. People voted for them because they liked what the candidate stood for. However, at one point, a president or any leader must prioritize his policy agenda. If the environment is a lower item of importance, I can see why nothing extremely dramatic has happened. I’m not sure that that is entirely excusable; but, there are things that can hinder this. The threat of terrorism is an issue that overwhelms our government. While we are jacking up airport security, we are completely ignoring the undeniable effects of carbon emissions heating up the atmosphere.
The Constitution of the United States is the source of power for our government. However, very little reference is ever made to the regulation of the environment. This absolutely blows my mind. Not only with regards to the environment, but everything else. Think about it… How can the government do anything it does (that is not an enumerated power)? Interpretation, my friends. Through court cases and ambiguous clauses in the constitution, the United Government runs our shit. And we got a boat load of stuff to run. Every single person’s paper work, personal documents, post office, the entire executive bureaucracy etc… It’s outrageous. Most importantly the Necessary and proper clause—that which allows government to do anything necessary and proper for stable government—gives way to the government regulating the government in order to protect the people’s health, economic interests, and overall well-being.
I think that is really the only time the government ought to be interpreting the letter of the law to this extent. Any further and it becomes mildly dictatorial. The spirit of the law extends only so far. I am concerned that the environment problem will grow bad enough that it will merit an extreme solution; It could go so far as to allow the government to break its constitutionality to fix the problem. That’s not chill.
I think Obama, considering the huge range of problems and concerns facing his administration, is doing the best he can with regards to the environment. People have a right to be unhappy. However, they should not be unhappy with his strides of progress (or lack thereof—depending on your personal opinion) but rather, they ought to be unhappy with their high, unreasonable expectations. I believe with the aforementioned legislation, he has definitely shown commitment to the environment. Quite simply, his performance has been nowhere close to what he promised throughout his campaign. I did not vote for him (because I was unable to vote); but, he has been surprisingly bi-partisan. Potentially, so much so, he isn’t accomplishing all he and/or his dems want…Mr. Obama: Get it together and make something happen or stop dealing with it at all. (Note: Am I the only one who finds it ridiculous that only the NYTimes can call him Mr. Obama and every other network has to say President Obama? )
President Barack Obama had some pretty heavy, promising language in his campaign toward the presidency. I have personally heard that people are somewhat dissatisfied with how non-liberal Obama has been. I sympathize for the man. What a hard fricking job. In addition, every single citizen wants him to focus on the issues they care about—that’s a lot of issues and a lot of different points to focus on.
Anyways, here’s what he wanted to do…
Starting all the way back with the democratic and presidential debates we see the classic responses out of Obama. “Create millions of jobs,” “green technologies,” and pollution control. His websites says that
“[Obama] will work for tougher regulations on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to prevent air & water pollution.” SOURCE He was also discussing nuclear waste in his early debates and proposed “I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure people that they’re going to be safe.”SOURCE Furthermore in his second state of the union address on January 27, 2010 he said that "We can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow," Obama said. "There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products SOURCE
Let’s see how well Obama has followed through:
Obama’s budget proposal this year included $10 billion for the EPA. SOURCE This is an increase from G. W. Bush’s $7.3 billion allocated funds. Obama put high stress on some key environmental issues in his campaigning, at least it is good to see he is financially supporting his goals thus far. Obama, upon his immediate swearing in, halted all pending regulations of Bush’s administration for his own assessment. SOURCE He also repealed a rule from the Bush administration that diminished the protection of endangered species such as the gray wolf and the polar bear. That rule also allowed mining to take place 100 feet from flowing water, which had the serious potential to negatively impact the environment. MSNBC reports “The new President ordered the Department of Transportation, now led by Republican Ray LaHood, to bring the nation's auto fleet fuel efficiency in line with a 2007 Congressional mandate of achieving 35 miles per gallon by 2020 or sooner. These new efficiency standards will start with cars released in 2011.” SOURCE. SOURCE
Obama is definitely accountable for his campaign promises. As a near democracy, or a representative republic, it is imperative our leaders do what they were elected to do—the will of the people. People voted for them because they liked what the candidate stood for. However, at one point, a president or any leader must prioritize his policy agenda. If the environment is a lower item of importance, I can see why nothing extremely dramatic has happened. I’m not sure that that is entirely excusable; but, there are things that can hinder this. The threat of terrorism is an issue that overwhelms our government. While we are jacking up airport security, we are completely ignoring the undeniable effects of carbon emissions heating up the atmosphere.
The Constitution of the United States is the source of power for our government. However, very little reference is ever made to the regulation of the environment. This absolutely blows my mind. Not only with regards to the environment, but everything else. Think about it… How can the government do anything it does (that is not an enumerated power)? Interpretation, my friends. Through court cases and ambiguous clauses in the constitution, the United Government runs our shit. And we got a boat load of stuff to run. Every single person’s paper work, personal documents, post office, the entire executive bureaucracy etc… It’s outrageous. Most importantly the Necessary and proper clause—that which allows government to do anything necessary and proper for stable government—gives way to the government regulating the government in order to protect the people’s health, economic interests, and overall well-being.
I think that is really the only time the government ought to be interpreting the letter of the law to this extent. Any further and it becomes mildly dictatorial. The spirit of the law extends only so far. I am concerned that the environment problem will grow bad enough that it will merit an extreme solution; It could go so far as to allow the government to break its constitutionality to fix the problem. That’s not chill.
I think Obama, considering the huge range of problems and concerns facing his administration, is doing the best he can with regards to the environment. People have a right to be unhappy. However, they should not be unhappy with his strides of progress (or lack thereof—depending on your personal opinion) but rather, they ought to be unhappy with their high, unreasonable expectations. I believe with the aforementioned legislation, he has definitely shown commitment to the environment. Quite simply, his performance has been nowhere close to what he promised throughout his campaign. I did not vote for him (because I was unable to vote); but, he has been surprisingly bi-partisan. Potentially, so much so, he isn’t accomplishing all he and/or his dems want…Mr. Obama: Get it together and make something happen or stop dealing with it at all. (Note: Am I the only one who finds it ridiculous that only the NYTimes can call him Mr. Obama and every other network has to say President Obama? )
whisper words of wisdom, let it be [until it sucks for us]
I truly hate the people who claim that they oppose all this government regulation, simply because they do not like the idea of the government telling them what to do. That is seriously garbage. Let’s take a step back quickly, shall we. The United States has stacks upon stacks of paper dictating what the American public can and cannot do—laws. For example, every time you get into a car, the government tells you to put your seat belt on and to drive at a speed lower than or equal the denoted limit. Whether you like it or not, the government tells us what to do for most things in our day to day life.
The government absolutely has the right to regulate business in order to protect the citizens of the US from a contaminated environment. I’m somewhat hesitant to offer the government all this power as there are many tools the Federal government can use—interpretation wise—to expand their regulatory privileges. After all, that is all they are. We [the American people] want clean air, water, food, etc…and the big businesses are the major factors that could jeopardize our ideal desires. We trust the government as a neutral party, to keep us safe and reasonably keep businesses from infringing on our desires. How should they do it, in order that they are most successful and we are satisfied with the results on our well-being?
If we are truly seeking to “fix” the environment and preserve mother earth for the longest possible time, government regulation proves to be the most successful. My father—a very pro-business man—has reminded me on a number of occasions of importance of rarely reacting. This is because, as he would justify, you should be able to plan ahead and anticipate. In other words, fix the problems before they happen. This is exactly what regulation and legislation of businesses must transform into. Regulation translates seamlessly into environmental policy. By telling businesses what they can and cannot do, the government can mandate exactly how they want they want the environment to be affected—positively or negatively.
Regulation as a way to influence protection of the environment is predominately so successful because of the instituter's ability to promote market growth, without putting profit above the environmental goal. A plethora of economic benefits can stem from regulation that are not necessarily results of Market-based-instruments.MBI's
For example, if the government tells a firm that a certain business that its practice is no longer acceptable, that firm will be forced to change its ways to continue to profit. California mandated in the 90’s that by 2003 at least 10% of their vehicles produced and sold must be zero emission vehicles (Carter). This forced the influx of new technology research especially in the electric auto industry market. Furthermore the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) passed in 1976 allows the EPA to monitor industrial chemicals used or imported. It also gives the EPA the authority to ban any chemical from use or import that is found to pose significant risk to public health. SOURCE
The TSCA had tremendous effects on many industries. I would like to bring up metal working. There are certain chemicals and bases needed to produce a desired strength and quality of steel. One such chemical was banned under the TSCA and thusly made metal working a nuisance. However, new chemicals were discovered and healthier metals were constructed (SOURCE).(SOURCE)
In a sense then, the difference between Government regulations of businesses to protect the environment achieves a similar goal as Market Based Instruments—where the government offers incentives to businesses to self-regulate and protect the environment willingly. The ways and means differ slightly, but the end ought to be consistent. The Government regulations tend to produce results faster, so long as the goals are realistic. No one can mess with the government. They will strong arm that firm and, if they wanted to, end its life completely. (Despite being highly unlikely, the Government could easily take over a company if they chose to do so and simply buy them out—GM DUH!).
I think the biggest problem with regulation or starting the “healing process” of the environment is that no one will allow the solution to begin. It has become a hugely politicized issue and it makes it extremely to accomplish anything if no one will begin to talk about it.
This must sound flat ridiculous coming from the guy who just posted about little government intervention and letting a market dictate a country’s success. However, since that last post, the extremity of the problem with our environment has come to light. We really do need a solution to this problem. I am willing to suspend big business and its profits as soon as it begins to infringe on the health of the greater human population using the environment as its weapon. I’m not really sure how this is all working out from a third-person perspective, but in my head it makes complete sense to let a business function independent of the government until they screw up and damage us more than we benefit. Then that business is a profiting off of our losses. That’s not chill.
The government absolutely has the right to regulate business in order to protect the citizens of the US from a contaminated environment. I’m somewhat hesitant to offer the government all this power as there are many tools the Federal government can use—interpretation wise—to expand their regulatory privileges. After all, that is all they are. We [the American people] want clean air, water, food, etc…and the big businesses are the major factors that could jeopardize our ideal desires. We trust the government as a neutral party, to keep us safe and reasonably keep businesses from infringing on our desires. How should they do it, in order that they are most successful and we are satisfied with the results on our well-being?
If we are truly seeking to “fix” the environment and preserve mother earth for the longest possible time, government regulation proves to be the most successful. My father—a very pro-business man—has reminded me on a number of occasions of importance of rarely reacting. This is because, as he would justify, you should be able to plan ahead and anticipate. In other words, fix the problems before they happen. This is exactly what regulation and legislation of businesses must transform into. Regulation translates seamlessly into environmental policy. By telling businesses what they can and cannot do, the government can mandate exactly how they want they want the environment to be affected—positively or negatively.
Regulation as a way to influence protection of the environment is predominately so successful because of the instituter's ability to promote market growth, without putting profit above the environmental goal. A plethora of economic benefits can stem from regulation that are not necessarily results of Market-based-instruments.MBI's
For example, if the government tells a firm that a certain business that its practice is no longer acceptable, that firm will be forced to change its ways to continue to profit. California mandated in the 90’s that by 2003 at least 10% of their vehicles produced and sold must be zero emission vehicles (Carter). This forced the influx of new technology research especially in the electric auto industry market. Furthermore the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) passed in 1976 allows the EPA to monitor industrial chemicals used or imported. It also gives the EPA the authority to ban any chemical from use or import that is found to pose significant risk to public health. SOURCE
The TSCA had tremendous effects on many industries. I would like to bring up metal working. There are certain chemicals and bases needed to produce a desired strength and quality of steel. One such chemical was banned under the TSCA and thusly made metal working a nuisance. However, new chemicals were discovered and healthier metals were constructed (SOURCE).(SOURCE)
In a sense then, the difference between Government regulations of businesses to protect the environment achieves a similar goal as Market Based Instruments—where the government offers incentives to businesses to self-regulate and protect the environment willingly. The ways and means differ slightly, but the end ought to be consistent. The Government regulations tend to produce results faster, so long as the goals are realistic. No one can mess with the government. They will strong arm that firm and, if they wanted to, end its life completely. (Despite being highly unlikely, the Government could easily take over a company if they chose to do so and simply buy them out—GM DUH!).
I think the biggest problem with regulation or starting the “healing process” of the environment is that no one will allow the solution to begin. It has become a hugely politicized issue and it makes it extremely to accomplish anything if no one will begin to talk about it.
This must sound flat ridiculous coming from the guy who just posted about little government intervention and letting a market dictate a country’s success. However, since that last post, the extremity of the problem with our environment has come to light. We really do need a solution to this problem. I am willing to suspend big business and its profits as soon as it begins to infringe on the health of the greater human population using the environment as its weapon. I’m not really sure how this is all working out from a third-person perspective, but in my head it makes complete sense to let a business function independent of the government until they screw up and damage us more than we benefit. Then that business is a profiting off of our losses. That’s not chill.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)