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?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
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.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
it's kind of important to know what you think.
As not only an American but a member of the entire human race, I feel the pervasive tension between America’s Cornucopian mentality and the world wide push for Environmentalism. It is quite unfortunate predicament that we cannot somehow balance our need to conserve/ preserve the natural world in order that the economy can continue to exist and function for longer. However, since I must side, I find myself largely supportive of economy and being concerned with the here and now. Albeit selfish and short-sighted, I believe that the natural world will function and continue on an appropriate cycle—so long as business remains ethical and controlled. I would identify as a cornucopian because I do not support the complete denunciation of all government regulation. I recognize the government as an institution as something to merely protect the people (as much as I want to say “and their best interests,” I will refrain because it is only the individual who knows best for themselves). One major player in this equation is the government overseeing business to some extent. It cannot be a laissez faire market. Corporations and big business have the power and the extreme potential to cause serious ruckuses in the environmental world which will undoubtedly jeopardize humanity in some instance. If a spectrum did exist--
Cornucopian……….. …………… me …………………………………………Environmentalist
I do, however, really like the idea of technology being able to act as a feasible alternative to hardcore sustainability. The types of technology that we use every single day were discovered, enhanced, and perfected to serve a purpose. Why? It was done simply because businesses recognized the market would use it and chiefly pay for it. With that kind of dedication and focus it seems probable or reasonable to expect that technology will soon be able to produce energy and make our use of the natural world more efficient. In theory it sounds wonderful. Nut I really believe that with monetary incentive and the need for it—it will happen that easily.
I find it incredibly frustrating whenever anyone asks me to pin point my political affiliation. To be honest, I’m not sure I have everything figured out. In spite of not having a specific answer to the overall ideology, I do believe I am prepared enough to answer the question: “what do you think should be done about _________________?” (fill in the blank). Fortunately, in this instance we have the environment to base my thinking off of.
Economically, I stand as a firm conservative minded individual who believes strongly in working for what you want. It is second nature to me to work harder for more and if you forfeit working, rightfully so, should your income. I am a firm proponent of most redistribution. There are a few minor exceptions such as social security (FICA tax). The population surge of the baby boomers is targeted as the cause for the lack of social security available for future generations. As this is true, it is not the reason people will not get their money back. The government has been borrowing and “stealing” money from this idle pot of cash. The theory of the system should play out to reality as every person who is to collect has already paid their fair share. This clearly exemplifies my struggle to understand why someone would want to pay more taxes to pay for others to benefit when you worked very hard for your dollar. When it comes to the market, it should remain relatively free with miniscule governmental intervention. If a business has the ability and the resources to monopolize and industry, so long as the citizens are not harmed, I would not object.
However, I’m not a stringent social conservative. To reemphasize, I believe the Government exists to protect people from horribly outlandish business and any other threats posed—war, natural disasters, etc…things that lie outside of the typical American’s control. Poverty is not a threat to an American’s wellbeing that the government is responsible. I do have a huge issue with turning the educational and healthcare systems into profit-driven industries. These two industries are public services that every person is entitled to. I do believe that private options—not better, simply private (important distinction to be made)—ought to remain available for those who choose to invest their capital in that manner. In no way am I suggesting that a public option is the best answer. The public school system in this country, as it is now—funded by the property taxes of the area—must cease. It is incredibly unfair to everyone who does not have the control or ability to pick where they live. Also, with regards to healthcare, it is wrong that better care is available to people with more money and are willing to pay for it. I’m not sure I know the answer; but, I do know that both of the current systems need to be shattered and rebuilt from the lowest level bureaucrats up to the top administrators. In general, I advocate minimal governmental intervention in day to day life. Services ought be prioritized and paid for by individual.
A true relationship with the environment is nonexistent in my world. I’m not sure I have ever been really into that stuff or motivated to be on [its] side. This may have to do with a fairly conservative background and lack of exposure with my parents having no dealings in this field. But, who knows? In the end though, I feel a small obligation to sustaining what’s here for the next people to come. I’m also very confused on what I think when it comes to whether or not the nature can suffer. It is a dictating distinction and I have no idea on what I think. I’m inclined to say, no!, of course it does not. However, when trees die or are removed and nutrients are taken from the soil as a result, other vegetation cases or minimally wanes. Biologically you are suspending life; but, do the plants feel emotionally hurt?
So as I began in tension, I end with my mind in a knot quarreling over how to make money and develop a successful economy, while respecting the natural world as another person—or race.
Cornucopian……….. …………… me …………………………………………Environmentalist
I do, however, really like the idea of technology being able to act as a feasible alternative to hardcore sustainability. The types of technology that we use every single day were discovered, enhanced, and perfected to serve a purpose. Why? It was done simply because businesses recognized the market would use it and chiefly pay for it. With that kind of dedication and focus it seems probable or reasonable to expect that technology will soon be able to produce energy and make our use of the natural world more efficient. In theory it sounds wonderful. Nut I really believe that with monetary incentive and the need for it—it will happen that easily.
I find it incredibly frustrating whenever anyone asks me to pin point my political affiliation. To be honest, I’m not sure I have everything figured out. In spite of not having a specific answer to the overall ideology, I do believe I am prepared enough to answer the question: “what do you think should be done about _________________?” (fill in the blank). Fortunately, in this instance we have the environment to base my thinking off of.
Economically, I stand as a firm conservative minded individual who believes strongly in working for what you want. It is second nature to me to work harder for more and if you forfeit working, rightfully so, should your income. I am a firm proponent of most redistribution. There are a few minor exceptions such as social security (FICA tax). The population surge of the baby boomers is targeted as the cause for the lack of social security available for future generations. As this is true, it is not the reason people will not get their money back. The government has been borrowing and “stealing” money from this idle pot of cash. The theory of the system should play out to reality as every person who is to collect has already paid their fair share. This clearly exemplifies my struggle to understand why someone would want to pay more taxes to pay for others to benefit when you worked very hard for your dollar. When it comes to the market, it should remain relatively free with miniscule governmental intervention. If a business has the ability and the resources to monopolize and industry, so long as the citizens are not harmed, I would not object.
However, I’m not a stringent social conservative. To reemphasize, I believe the Government exists to protect people from horribly outlandish business and any other threats posed—war, natural disasters, etc…things that lie outside of the typical American’s control. Poverty is not a threat to an American’s wellbeing that the government is responsible. I do have a huge issue with turning the educational and healthcare systems into profit-driven industries. These two industries are public services that every person is entitled to. I do believe that private options—not better, simply private (important distinction to be made)—ought to remain available for those who choose to invest their capital in that manner. In no way am I suggesting that a public option is the best answer. The public school system in this country, as it is now—funded by the property taxes of the area—must cease. It is incredibly unfair to everyone who does not have the control or ability to pick where they live. Also, with regards to healthcare, it is wrong that better care is available to people with more money and are willing to pay for it. I’m not sure I know the answer; but, I do know that both of the current systems need to be shattered and rebuilt from the lowest level bureaucrats up to the top administrators. In general, I advocate minimal governmental intervention in day to day life. Services ought be prioritized and paid for by individual.
A true relationship with the environment is nonexistent in my world. I’m not sure I have ever been really into that stuff or motivated to be on [its] side. This may have to do with a fairly conservative background and lack of exposure with my parents having no dealings in this field. But, who knows? In the end though, I feel a small obligation to sustaining what’s here for the next people to come. I’m also very confused on what I think when it comes to whether or not the nature can suffer. It is a dictating distinction and I have no idea on what I think. I’m inclined to say, no!, of course it does not. However, when trees die or are removed and nutrients are taken from the soil as a result, other vegetation cases or minimally wanes. Biologically you are suspending life; but, do the plants feel emotionally hurt?
So as I began in tension, I end with my mind in a knot quarreling over how to make money and develop a successful economy, while respecting the natural world as another person—or race.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)