Yesterday, John Podesta, CEO of the Center for American Progress, wrote about how we're arguing about the wrong things in the climate debate. It doesn't matter whether we go with a carbon tax or cap and trade, or how we allocate permits. These are merely tools. What we need to focus on is what the solution looks like: renewable energy.
By heavily investing in renewable energy and funding incentive programs (like net metering), we can reinvigorate our economy and breathe some life back into the crippled middle class. But what happens if we don't?
China has pledge $440 to $660 billion dollars over the next ten years to renewable energy. South Korea is ready to invest billions more to gain a competitive edge. Germany is already the biggest player on the market. If we don't make a seriously large investment in renewable energy soon, we could lose our chance to become a major contender in the industry. We'll continue to import our energy, from China instead of Saudi Arabia, and the economy will continue to suffer as more jobs are lost and tax revenue shrinks. Indeed, this could be the turning point for an American manufacturing industry already in decline: will we salvage it, and rebuild our country with a clean energy economy, or are we content to let the decline continue and let fossil fuel execs profit until there's nothing left?
I'll end with a quote from the only TV show I seriously consider worth watching, The Wire. "You know what the problem is? In this country, we used to make stuff. Now we all have our hands in the next guy's pocket."
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
A Hazardous Situation
Margaret Mead said it best: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Certainly this is true of the various examples of popular epidemiology that we have seen: several concerned citizens, aware at some basic level of an ongoing problem, join together to find answers to their questions and seek justice for those wronged. Deborah Stone (The Policy Paradox, 2001) would call these groups concentrated interests, people closely connected to an issue and heavily invested in achieving their desired outcome, which in most cases consisted of restitution to those who suffered, reparation of damage done to the environment, and better preventive measures by corporations and regulatory agencies.
While the emotionally-charged stories they told were successful in obtaining compensation for victims and cleanup funds not only for their specific sites but for future incidents (i.e. the 1986 Superfund reauthorization), it is doubtful that citizen suits have done much to enhance preventative steps taken except those that stem from a corporation's self-interest in not facing lawsuits of potentially millions of dollars. Not much has changed with the EPA either: a lack of funding and time plus regulations that place the burden on the EPA to show the hazardous nature of new chemicals results in hundreds of untested, potentially unsafe chemicals in the marketplace.
Despite the interest of what could easily be millions of people, whether they be victims or past participants of popular epidemiological studies, environmentalists, or people concerned with their health and the health of their children, these rules are not likely to change anytime soon because of the billions of dollars it would mean for a handful of corporations. According to Stone's logic, the concentrated interest overpowers the dispersed one, and so this is the system our society has chosen: a system that completely disregards the precautionary principle and exposes each of us to thousands of potential risks each day (contrast that with Europe, where rigorous testing is required before a new chemical can be introduced). Yet no one complains forcefully; that is, until another new chemical wreaks havoc and the public cries in outrage against corporate greed and indifference and bureaucratic timidness. But who among us will really stand up for the precautionary principle?
While the emotionally-charged stories they told were successful in obtaining compensation for victims and cleanup funds not only for their specific sites but for future incidents (i.e. the 1986 Superfund reauthorization), it is doubtful that citizen suits have done much to enhance preventative steps taken except those that stem from a corporation's self-interest in not facing lawsuits of potentially millions of dollars. Not much has changed with the EPA either: a lack of funding and time plus regulations that place the burden on the EPA to show the hazardous nature of new chemicals results in hundreds of untested, potentially unsafe chemicals in the marketplace.
Despite the interest of what could easily be millions of people, whether they be victims or past participants of popular epidemiological studies, environmentalists, or people concerned with their health and the health of their children, these rules are not likely to change anytime soon because of the billions of dollars it would mean for a handful of corporations. According to Stone's logic, the concentrated interest overpowers the dispersed one, and so this is the system our society has chosen: a system that completely disregards the precautionary principle and exposes each of us to thousands of potential risks each day (contrast that with Europe, where rigorous testing is required before a new chemical can be introduced). Yet no one complains forcefully; that is, until another new chemical wreaks havoc and the public cries in outrage against corporate greed and indifference and bureaucratic timidness. But who among us will really stand up for the precautionary principle?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The State of Our Democracy
One of the objectives of a democratic society is to ensure that the interests of all its citizens are represented not equally but fairly. This necessarily requires that all citizens be equally able to express their concerns and have them championed by their servants in government. However, in the United States today this is not the case due to several factors, the main ones being low voter turnout, capitalism, and the two-party system.
Low voter turnout, Rousseau would argue, is a sign of bad government because it reflects a general attitude among its citizens that “the general will will not prevail” and therefore instead of being a servant, elected officials become representatives of their entire constituencies while advancing the interests of only those who put them there, i.e. the majority that elected the official and the contributors who allowed the official to run his or her campaign. And who are the underrepresented parties? Primarily young people and minorities. Young people, before they reach adulthood, are accustomed to being subverted by authority regardless of their interests and have no expectation that this pattern will change; the same can generally be said of minorities.
Capitalism has caused democracy to count votes not by citizens but by dollars. And it is no secret that in elections, especially state and local elections, the candidate with more money wins the vast majority of the time. As such, it meant for the longest time that the chief interests advanced by servants in government were those of corporations. It has been only recently, within the past 30 years or so, that citizen groups have sunk to the level of corporations and begun expensive lobbying campaigns. And when citizens would rather pay another to advocate for them than take to the streets to demand their needs, “the State is not far from its fall”.
The two-party system only serves to entrench the tyranny of the majority within our government. For example, which party is the anti-empire peace advocate supposed to support? Under both Republican and Democratic administrations have we seen our military budget steadily increase, even as our nation falls deeper into debt and recession. The ones who profit are the military contractors who our nation becomes more enslaved by as their pockets swell. Indeed, moneyed interests have captured our public servants, and the media, for the most part slaves to those same interests, serve only to maintain the illusion of representative democracy and distract the public from critical issues at hand. What can we do to reinvigorate U.S. citizens' interest in government and public service?
Low voter turnout, Rousseau would argue, is a sign of bad government because it reflects a general attitude among its citizens that “the general will will not prevail” and therefore instead of being a servant, elected officials become representatives of their entire constituencies while advancing the interests of only those who put them there, i.e. the majority that elected the official and the contributors who allowed the official to run his or her campaign. And who are the underrepresented parties? Primarily young people and minorities. Young people, before they reach adulthood, are accustomed to being subverted by authority regardless of their interests and have no expectation that this pattern will change; the same can generally be said of minorities.
Capitalism has caused democracy to count votes not by citizens but by dollars. And it is no secret that in elections, especially state and local elections, the candidate with more money wins the vast majority of the time. As such, it meant for the longest time that the chief interests advanced by servants in government were those of corporations. It has been only recently, within the past 30 years or so, that citizen groups have sunk to the level of corporations and begun expensive lobbying campaigns. And when citizens would rather pay another to advocate for them than take to the streets to demand their needs, “the State is not far from its fall”.
The two-party system only serves to entrench the tyranny of the majority within our government. For example, which party is the anti-empire peace advocate supposed to support? Under both Republican and Democratic administrations have we seen our military budget steadily increase, even as our nation falls deeper into debt and recession. The ones who profit are the military contractors who our nation becomes more enslaved by as their pockets swell. Indeed, moneyed interests have captured our public servants, and the media, for the most part slaves to those same interests, serve only to maintain the illusion of representative democracy and distract the public from critical issues at hand. What can we do to reinvigorate U.S. citizens' interest in government and public service?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
