Thursday, February 14, 2008
Michael Maniates calls for more drastic action. In his opinion, we are not doing enough to combat environmental problems. Instead, we are allowing our politicians to spoon-feed us simple "easy" steps to follow. He mentions our consumerist ways and highlights that even our attempts to help the environment must be stylish, fashionable, and easy to sell. No one wants to do more than this. However, it is exactly this point that I feel he is missing throughout his article. It is great to have such wonderful holistic views of humans and their ability to change so easily, but it is unfortunately not reality. This article presented yet another wonderful idea Michael criticizes. It is nothing but a wonderful idea, as Americans will do nothing in place of the simple small steps. If Americans are not willing to hold their politicians responsible for global environmental problems, but are willing to take small actions, that could in another generation stimulate larger ideas and a stronger passion for change, they will not wish to do anything further than simple everyday actions. Just as in the revolutions he mentions, Americans did not follow them easily. Either we must have another revolution, that is complete and successful, or we continue the small easy steps. If we do not, and the revolution does not capture the hearts and minds of all Americans, we may take two steps backwards. The campaign will show Americans that what they are doing now is not good enough. This may lead to a sense of hopelessness, and the steps being taken, although small, will be stopped. Nothing will happen. Which is worse not enough action or inaction? I agree with Michael that much more drastic steps need to be taken. However, I am not sure Americans are ready for it. Once they see the effects their small steps are making and feel empowered, then we can talk about larger steps, but if we start too soon, we may end up worse off.
Reviving People Power
Michael Maniates argues that the government and those working on environmental problems at the top are underestimating what people are willing to do to contribute to saving the environment. The opportunities and information being given to people at this point is very small and easy things that can be done without making too much effort, but that also will not contribute much to the eventual solution because the do not address the underlying problems. The solutions being put out there are only those which are both economics friendly and eco-friendly. This is occurring because those at the top are still driven by the growth model and still are not seeing the long-term consequences. This is causing information to not reach the people and so many are not aware of the extent of the problem.
I believe that he is right and that if people knew all of the information and what will be most effective in solving it they will want to help. Most people want their children and grandchildren to lead good lives and would not want to knowingly and willingly partake in activities that threaten future generations to survive. Today though it is hard to be totally green because of the way society has been set up to revolve around cars and consumption, so although people need to push and be the drivers of change the government will be needed since infrastructure and regulation will have to play a big role in any change. The drivers of social change are that people want better lives for themselves and their children, and up until now it has been commonly accepted that growth will make our lives and future generation's lives better. If information was disseminated properly and people found out the truth, that it is endanger in the future generation's ability to live then this could cause a period of change as we move from a growth driven model to a more ecologically and socially friendly model. Globalization and current growth models have not made most people better off, as wages get driven down, health care benefits dry up, retirement packages go down the drain, and work hours increase, all while the top 1% reap the benefits of the continued growth. The average American has not seen a gain in lifestyle and have only been supporting their habits by being in debt. While some growth is required, the current model does not even benefit the average person, but instead benefits those in power both economically and within the government. Since those in power are benefiting in the short term they do not want things to change and so are keeping information and are preventing information from getting out there.
It helps us look at effective political action because while people today pat themselves on the back for using LCD lightbulbs, and they do have some benefit, it prevents people from thinking that they have done their part if they stop there. Although the small things should be done, we also need to see the true implications of our actions and be able to trace the footprint of a good on its path across the world. People today don't think about this because it is not a part of education, mainstream though, government education programs, etc. Everyone has a stake in this because we cannot survive without a healthy earth, and the implications on their own lives or children's, since global environmental problems are coming faster than previously expected like air pollution, global warming, biodiversity loss, fisheries collapse, etc. Without these fundamental processes and lives we cannot live.
This is a useful way of looking at things and of driving political action because it puts the power in the people, and Americans throughout history have stepped up to the plate and gone to bat for policies that are not easy, but are necessary. For example the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, etc. Those moments had people who cared enough to move past doing what is easy to do what is right. Consumption has gotten out of control, and has major transportation implications. Although are current lifestyles will not be possible much longer that is okay, because we may be able to go back and find out what makes us truly happy and end our nation's reliance on Prozac and other medications.
I believe that he is right and that if people knew all of the information and what will be most effective in solving it they will want to help. Most people want their children and grandchildren to lead good lives and would not want to knowingly and willingly partake in activities that threaten future generations to survive. Today though it is hard to be totally green because of the way society has been set up to revolve around cars and consumption, so although people need to push and be the drivers of change the government will be needed since infrastructure and regulation will have to play a big role in any change. The drivers of social change are that people want better lives for themselves and their children, and up until now it has been commonly accepted that growth will make our lives and future generation's lives better. If information was disseminated properly and people found out the truth, that it is endanger in the future generation's ability to live then this could cause a period of change as we move from a growth driven model to a more ecologically and socially friendly model. Globalization and current growth models have not made most people better off, as wages get driven down, health care benefits dry up, retirement packages go down the drain, and work hours increase, all while the top 1% reap the benefits of the continued growth. The average American has not seen a gain in lifestyle and have only been supporting their habits by being in debt. While some growth is required, the current model does not even benefit the average person, but instead benefits those in power both economically and within the government. Since those in power are benefiting in the short term they do not want things to change and so are keeping information and are preventing information from getting out there.
It helps us look at effective political action because while people today pat themselves on the back for using LCD lightbulbs, and they do have some benefit, it prevents people from thinking that they have done their part if they stop there. Although the small things should be done, we also need to see the true implications of our actions and be able to trace the footprint of a good on its path across the world. People today don't think about this because it is not a part of education, mainstream though, government education programs, etc. Everyone has a stake in this because we cannot survive without a healthy earth, and the implications on their own lives or children's, since global environmental problems are coming faster than previously expected like air pollution, global warming, biodiversity loss, fisheries collapse, etc. Without these fundamental processes and lives we cannot live.
This is a useful way of looking at things and of driving political action because it puts the power in the people, and Americans throughout history have stepped up to the plate and gone to bat for policies that are not easy, but are necessary. For example the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, etc. Those moments had people who cared enough to move past doing what is easy to do what is right. Consumption has gotten out of control, and has major transportation implications. Although are current lifestyles will not be possible much longer that is okay, because we may be able to go back and find out what makes us truly happy and end our nation's reliance on Prozac and other medications.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Go BIG or go home
I think Michael Maniates makes a terrific point, and to be quite honest, it makes me feel guilty myself. I have always emphasized the little ways in helping the environment, and while I feel very strongly that larger efforts are essential to actually make a dent in the grand problem, I've felt like it is hard to make huge changes myself if others around me aren't doing the same. So I have taken the attitude of basically, if you're not going to trash your car for a bike, at least recycle the newspaper every morning... And now I see that's a pathetic way to look at it.
It is my opinion that Americans get buy with trashing the Earth far too easily. Apparently this thing called "freedom," gives us an excuse to continue our merciless abuse of the environment. God forbid anyone should demand we change our lifestyle in order to have breathable air, to say the least. People act concerned, but should the government ever step in, suddenly we are restricted from living the way we want to live! How about we call it "helping" us out?
I completely agree with Maniates-- we must make huge, dramatic lifestyle changes. We must stop tip-toeing around the big issue which is that the Earth just WILL NOT be able to stand our consumption for too much longer. Maniates mentions that political leaders must step in, however I feel that these positions are so full of too empty rhetoric that people do not listen. And, unfortunately, politicians are too moderate on every issue. They uphold the political culture that says, don't upset anyone!
An uprising at a grassroots level is necessary. And I mean a serious uprising. One that involves everyone, not just the tree-hugging hippies environmental elites. People need to mobilize together, accepting that it won't be easy. And with this type of large-scale effort, I believe we will find that it's not as hard as we imagined. That's the best part of a free market society. If enough people commit to changing their lifestyles, markets will have to adjust to the trends. It is time for some big changes.
It is my opinion that Americans get buy with trashing the Earth far too easily. Apparently this thing called "freedom," gives us an excuse to continue our merciless abuse of the environment. God forbid anyone should demand we change our lifestyle in order to have breathable air, to say the least. People act concerned, but should the government ever step in, suddenly we are restricted from living the way we want to live! How about we call it "helping" us out?
I completely agree with Maniates-- we must make huge, dramatic lifestyle changes. We must stop tip-toeing around the big issue which is that the Earth just WILL NOT be able to stand our consumption for too much longer. Maniates mentions that political leaders must step in, however I feel that these positions are so full of too empty rhetoric that people do not listen. And, unfortunately, politicians are too moderate on every issue. They uphold the political culture that says, don't upset anyone!
An uprising at a grassroots level is necessary. And I mean a serious uprising. One that involves everyone, not just the tree-hugging hippies environmental elites. People need to mobilize together, accepting that it won't be easy. And with this type of large-scale effort, I believe we will find that it's not as hard as we imagined. That's the best part of a free market society. If enough people commit to changing their lifestyles, markets will have to adjust to the trends. It is time for some big changes.
Friday, February 8, 2008
When I read McCain’s short commentary on the environment, I was very disappointed. While I am liberal, I would hope that each politician would still show enthusiasm for protecting the environment because this is not a bipartisan issue. But his brief, vague “plan” was less than promising.
McCain can be classified as a market liberal because he stressed the symbiotic relationship between the economy and the environment. His goals to lessen impact is to limit carbon emissions by “harnessing market forces,” making advancements in technology, and investing in nuclear energy. These policies coincide with market liberals’ “faith in the ability of modern science and technology to help societies” (Clapp 6).
Obama, on the other hand, has an impressive plan that should give anyone hope for the future. I would classify his as being between an institutionalist and bioenvironmentalist. He emphasizes changes to national institutions in the form of a cap-and-trade system to limit pollution, incentives for farmers and forest owners, and limits use of harmful energy while funding energy initiatives in the U.S. These efforts are more bioenvironmentalist than institutionalist because they do not include foreign affairs. They focus on national policies. But institutionalist policies come forth in his plan to create an international energy forum and limit dependence on foreign oil since these involve international institutions.
I feel that Obama’s policies out-do McCain’s by far. He has very specific, straight-forward goals, and if they are actually implemented, I think they will create significant change. His policies extend further than parks and open space, as McCain refers to. They include efforts to change the way we live and our position on the environment, like his job and education goals. Changing our way of thinking is the key to a change for the future.
McCain can be classified as a market liberal because he stressed the symbiotic relationship between the economy and the environment. His goals to lessen impact is to limit carbon emissions by “harnessing market forces,” making advancements in technology, and investing in nuclear energy. These policies coincide with market liberals’ “faith in the ability of modern science and technology to help societies” (Clapp 6).
Obama, on the other hand, has an impressive plan that should give anyone hope for the future. I would classify his as being between an institutionalist and bioenvironmentalist. He emphasizes changes to national institutions in the form of a cap-and-trade system to limit pollution, incentives for farmers and forest owners, and limits use of harmful energy while funding energy initiatives in the U.S. These efforts are more bioenvironmentalist than institutionalist because they do not include foreign affairs. They focus on national policies. But institutionalist policies come forth in his plan to create an international energy forum and limit dependence on foreign oil since these involve international institutions.
I feel that Obama’s policies out-do McCain’s by far. He has very specific, straight-forward goals, and if they are actually implemented, I think they will create significant change. His policies extend further than parks and open space, as McCain refers to. They include efforts to change the way we live and our position on the environment, like his job and education goals. Changing our way of thinking is the key to a change for the future.
Environmentally Friendly Campaigns
No politician would be wise to ignore environmental concerns. Although environmental issues may not be at the forefront of all American's minds, such issues will shape much of the future presidency. Depending on how the new president views these issues depends on whether security, the economy, or social inequalities will be examined. In this close presidential race, each candidate has spouted their share of ideas for making the United States more environmentally friendly. Each of them differ in drastic ways, as they each view the problem differently. Each provide very different solutions, which could all work, but it is up to the American people to choose based on how they see the problems and what they believe to be the best solutions.
On his campaign website, John McCain lists a variety of steps he could ensure will take place to make America more environmentally friendly, if he were elected. Such policies include, "Ensuring clean air, safe and healthy water, sustainable land use, ample greenspace - and the faithful care and management of our natural treasures, including our proud National Park System" (as stated on http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm). He insists, like a market liberal, that the economy and the environment are linked. Sustaining resources and our clean environment is in the best interest of our economy and vice versa. A stronger economy allows us to focus more on our environment and allows us with more opportunities of finding a solution. Although his website does not mention much about the actual steps he would take to ensure his promises, one can speculate that as a market liberal, his solutions will stem from strengthening the economy. He mentions that he would encourage more technologies and reduce our dependence of foreign energy in order to speed up and strengthen our own economy. Knowing that he is a market liberal and his possible solutions allows us to better evaluate whether he is the right candidate. Is the economy the main component in the I=PAT equation? Reducing our dependence on foreign oil and energy supplies may strengthen our own economy in one aspect, but will hurt it in others. Countries supplying us with the oil will no longer have the US dollars to trade, and therefore, our imports and exports will be negatively effected. This approach will drive consumerism, placing a larger role on developing countries, which supply our goods, on impacting the environment. As the environment is a shared commodity, reducing the US emissions and pollutants and encouraging our forests while devastating others will not provide a solution for solving our environmental problems.
Barack Obama shows some market liberal tendencies as well. If he were elected he promises to introduce a cap and trade system in which pollution credits could be auctioned off and encourage technological breakthroughs that will enhance our ability to be sustained by clean energy. He would set standards for auto manufacturers and help them to meet these standards. Each of his proposals involves providing more jobs for Americans. This will, in return, also help to strengthen the economy and perpetuate the funding for the programs. In this respect, Obama is a lot like McCain. He views the economy as a tool for encouraging environmental solutions and vice versa. However, Obama also believes in strengthening international institutions, which identifies him as a Institutionalist. Unlike McCain, Obama proposes to introduce a "New Forum of Largest Green House Gas Emitters," which would encourage international cooperation. This could potentially solve the problems McCain's campaign present. Other countries may have their voices heard as to how our policies, pollutants, and market driven ideals affect them. Obama also wishes to strengthen our ties with the UN. He proposes that we re-engage in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. His ideas involves solving our environmental concerns through strengthening our economy, but he also implies that the US cannot solve them alone. International cooperation and further steps will need to be taken. Of the two candidates, it seems that Obama's presidency would be more environmentally green.
On his campaign website, John McCain lists a variety of steps he could ensure will take place to make America more environmentally friendly, if he were elected. Such policies include, "Ensuring clean air, safe and healthy water, sustainable land use, ample greenspace - and the faithful care and management of our natural treasures, including our proud National Park System" (as stated on http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm). He insists, like a market liberal, that the economy and the environment are linked. Sustaining resources and our clean environment is in the best interest of our economy and vice versa. A stronger economy allows us to focus more on our environment and allows us with more opportunities of finding a solution. Although his website does not mention much about the actual steps he would take to ensure his promises, one can speculate that as a market liberal, his solutions will stem from strengthening the economy. He mentions that he would encourage more technologies and reduce our dependence of foreign energy in order to speed up and strengthen our own economy. Knowing that he is a market liberal and his possible solutions allows us to better evaluate whether he is the right candidate. Is the economy the main component in the I=PAT equation? Reducing our dependence on foreign oil and energy supplies may strengthen our own economy in one aspect, but will hurt it in others. Countries supplying us with the oil will no longer have the US dollars to trade, and therefore, our imports and exports will be negatively effected. This approach will drive consumerism, placing a larger role on developing countries, which supply our goods, on impacting the environment. As the environment is a shared commodity, reducing the US emissions and pollutants and encouraging our forests while devastating others will not provide a solution for solving our environmental problems.
Barack Obama shows some market liberal tendencies as well. If he were elected he promises to introduce a cap and trade system in which pollution credits could be auctioned off and encourage technological breakthroughs that will enhance our ability to be sustained by clean energy. He would set standards for auto manufacturers and help them to meet these standards. Each of his proposals involves providing more jobs for Americans. This will, in return, also help to strengthen the economy and perpetuate the funding for the programs. In this respect, Obama is a lot like McCain. He views the economy as a tool for encouraging environmental solutions and vice versa. However, Obama also believes in strengthening international institutions, which identifies him as a Institutionalist. Unlike McCain, Obama proposes to introduce a "New Forum of Largest Green House Gas Emitters," which would encourage international cooperation. This could potentially solve the problems McCain's campaign present. Other countries may have their voices heard as to how our policies, pollutants, and market driven ideals affect them. Obama also wishes to strengthen our ties with the UN. He proposes that we re-engage in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. His ideas involves solving our environmental concerns through strengthening our economy, but he also implies that the US cannot solve them alone. International cooperation and further steps will need to be taken. Of the two candidates, it seems that Obama's presidency would be more environmentally green.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Environmental persepectives of McCain and Obama
Looking over McCain's views of environmental issues, I can see that he is concerned about the environment and that he has proposed ways to make positive changes if he were elected. He acknowledges that global warming is occurring and that something needs to be done about it. In this sense, I think he leans towards being an Institutionalist. He says that he supported America's decision to not join the Kyoto Treaty, but also said that now it's necessary to convince China and India to join and then we should join as well. He spoke about the importance of working together globally to fix environmental problems, which goes along with the Institutionalist view of emphasizing a global commitment to improving the environment. McCain also believes that environmental issues and the economy are strongly linked, therefore he also has some Market Liberal beliefs.
Obama has a much more detailed plan of his goals to improve the environment if he were elected. I think that he leans more towards being a Bioenvironmentalist. His major point of emphasis is that of the depletion of natural resources and the need to decrease our dependency on fossil fuels. He promotes investing $150 billion in clean energy such as biofuels over the next 10 years, and wants to reduce our consumption of oil by 35% by 2030. Obama also says that he thinks it's important to work with other leading energy consuming nations to reduce greenhouse gases. I think that many of his ideas go along with the Bioenvironmentalist views that we will not be able to continue to grow at the current rate and still use the same technologies, and that we are depleting our natural resources and need to work with other nations to improve the environment.
I think that McCain does want to improve the environment, but I doubt that he would actually do much to change our current situation. He doesn't have nearly as detailed of a plan as Obama, and he is definitely trying to appease conservative voters. In a video on his website, he starts off by saying that global warming is a huge problem and that we have to do something about it, but then ends by saying that actually, it's in the best interest of the economy and international security. I think that Obama has some great ideas and I am especially supportive of his plans to work with industries and workers to create a "clean technologies workforce." I think that the government needs to create strong incentives for manufacturers to be environmentally friendly before we begin to see any major changes in our treatment of the environment.
Obama has a much more detailed plan of his goals to improve the environment if he were elected. I think that he leans more towards being a Bioenvironmentalist. His major point of emphasis is that of the depletion of natural resources and the need to decrease our dependency on fossil fuels. He promotes investing $150 billion in clean energy such as biofuels over the next 10 years, and wants to reduce our consumption of oil by 35% by 2030. Obama also says that he thinks it's important to work with other leading energy consuming nations to reduce greenhouse gases. I think that many of his ideas go along with the Bioenvironmentalist views that we will not be able to continue to grow at the current rate and still use the same technologies, and that we are depleting our natural resources and need to work with other nations to improve the environment.
I think that McCain does want to improve the environment, but I doubt that he would actually do much to change our current situation. He doesn't have nearly as detailed of a plan as Obama, and he is definitely trying to appease conservative voters. In a video on his website, he starts off by saying that global warming is a huge problem and that we have to do something about it, but then ends by saying that actually, it's in the best interest of the economy and international security. I think that Obama has some great ideas and I am especially supportive of his plans to work with industries and workers to create a "clean technologies workforce." I think that the government needs to create strong incentives for manufacturers to be environmentally friendly before we begin to see any major changes in our treatment of the environment.
Political Dialogue
This presidential campaign year the environment has not been the focus that it should be, with the downturn in the economy and the increasing importance of immigration policy in peoples' minds. However the candidates have put forth their environmental views and would be policies were they to come into office and many of the differ in the way they approach issues.
Ron Paul, is a small "c" conservative and so believes there should be small government, with a little regulation, but not a lot of services. His major ideas on environmental issues are to protect property rights, which he believes would correct the environmental wrongs and would increase the cost of pollution for the polluters. This is a 'market liberal' approach since he focuses on correcting the broken markets, which favor the polluters and the wealthy, and that make those having their rights stomped on suffer. For instance he voted against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests, which ties in which his belief that government should not tax much but also should not spend much.
Hillary Clinton takes a different view and it is more 'institutionalist' since she wants more regulation and more government investment to promote green energy and technology. Her plan put emphasis on a mandatory cap and trade policy that would have 100% of permits and would also invest to become more energy independent. She proposes that we should reduce electricity 20% from proposed levels by 2020 by becoming more energy efficient and would want to put $50 billion in a Strategic Energy fund, partly paid for by oil companies to invest in alternative energy. Most of her other programs rely on regulation and believe that government is needed in the solution, but she has one proposed policy that is more 'social green'. This policy is a Connie Mae program which which would give middle and low income people the ability to buy green homes and to invest in green home improvements. This begins to address the power issues and gives support to those who want to be more environmentally friendly. In the US it can be expensive to be green!
In my opinion Hillary Clinton's plan is better because Ron Paul does not address the global warming issue (he is a skeptic). CO2 is the only pollutant, and it is only a pollutant when it overwhelms the Earth's sinks, that does not decrease with affluence, but increase and causes more harm. Although his ideas would help solve local environmental degradation, probably even better than straight regulation, he does not address the global pollution problems, in which we all bear the cost because of the nature of the planet. Although I believe Clinton's plans are not strong enough to really solve the problem, she has a good start and believes that global warming is a problem that must be addressed. Although I like many of Ron Paul's ideas I believes that he falls short on this issue, although he does believe that local environmental degradation is a big problem.
Ron Paul, is a small "c" conservative and so believes there should be small government, with a little regulation, but not a lot of services. His major ideas on environmental issues are to protect property rights, which he believes would correct the environmental wrongs and would increase the cost of pollution for the polluters. This is a 'market liberal' approach since he focuses on correcting the broken markets, which favor the polluters and the wealthy, and that make those having their rights stomped on suffer. For instance he voted against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests, which ties in which his belief that government should not tax much but also should not spend much.
Hillary Clinton takes a different view and it is more 'institutionalist' since she wants more regulation and more government investment to promote green energy and technology. Her plan put emphasis on a mandatory cap and trade policy that would have 100% of permits and would also invest to become more energy independent. She proposes that we should reduce electricity 20% from proposed levels by 2020 by becoming more energy efficient and would want to put $50 billion in a Strategic Energy fund, partly paid for by oil companies to invest in alternative energy. Most of her other programs rely on regulation and believe that government is needed in the solution, but she has one proposed policy that is more 'social green'. This policy is a Connie Mae program which which would give middle and low income people the ability to buy green homes and to invest in green home improvements. This begins to address the power issues and gives support to those who want to be more environmentally friendly. In the US it can be expensive to be green!
In my opinion Hillary Clinton's plan is better because Ron Paul does not address the global warming issue (he is a skeptic). CO2 is the only pollutant, and it is only a pollutant when it overwhelms the Earth's sinks, that does not decrease with affluence, but increase and causes more harm. Although his ideas would help solve local environmental degradation, probably even better than straight regulation, he does not address the global pollution problems, in which we all bear the cost because of the nature of the planet. Although I believe Clinton's plans are not strong enough to really solve the problem, she has a good start and believes that global warming is a problem that must be addressed. Although I like many of Ron Paul's ideas I believes that he falls short on this issue, although he does believe that local environmental degradation is a big problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)