CUT HIM SOME SLACK OR YOU'LL END UP IN THE STACK

Welcome back.  I know I’ve got at least one reader so I’m going to continue with my blog.  My third entry will attempt to assess President Obama’s work on environmental issues.  Has he stood by his “change” platform or conformed to the political paradox of unfulfilled promises?  Has he been in office long enough to make change?  Does he even have the power to really make a difference? 

I’d like to take a moment here to preface this entry by saying that President Obama’s election victory was one for the textbooks.  Not only did the man run a flawless campaign, he was able to capture the majority vote of many states that hadn’t gone blue in decades.  Also, we as a nation elected the first African-American President in the history of our country.  Such a huge step for mankind!  Now that I’ve gotten that little rant off my chest lets talk about the platform Obama ran on.  

With America in shambles because of a faltering economy and a drawn-out war effort people were ready for a change.  We had stood by President George W. Bush’s side for 8 long years and we were ready for something new: a change.  This change is exactly what President Barrack Obama promised if and when he got elected. 

If you talk to two different people and ask them what they think a promise is one might say, “promises are meant to be broken” while the other may say, “promises are meant to be kept.”   I believe that when any President is elected it is his duty to keep as many promises as he has made (or try to the best of his ability).  I am a realistic person and I do have reasonable expectations when it comes to fulfilling these promises so, Mr. President, I haven’t jumped ship just yet…I’m going to continue with my blog format in laying out three relevant environmental promises Obama has made and discuss why these particular promises have been kept.  First, let us talk about President Obama’s pledge to increase funding for national parks and forests.  This can be seen as an extremely salient issue because the preservation of these national parks and forests means less displaced animals and more natural resource conservation.  Obama was able to execute this promise by signing a bill to increase funding (sounds pretty simple—oh if only all legislation required the stroke of a pen).  Next, lets take a more complex promise such as encouraging water conservation in the west.  He was able to tackle this promise by including it in a 175 million dollar stimulus pledge that listed water conservation (specifically w. regard to western states) as a priority.  Lastly, President Obama told his supporters that he would push farmers to use more efficient and renewable resources when farming.  Obama stood by this pledge by proposing new energy initiatives and increasing funding for the hopeful creation of hydroelectric powered sources.  

Above, I’ve mentioned only three environmental issues that Obama pledged to change and successfully followed through on.  Not every promise is going to be executed and I’m ok with that.  When a baseball player goes up to the plate is he expected to hit a homerun each time?  When a student takes an examination will they get each question correct?  When a comedian tells a joke will the entire audience laugh?  I think, we as citizens of the United States have unrealistic expectations.  We must prioritize issues most salient to the nation and realize that the President only serves a four-year term.   Which leads me nicely into my next topic of discussion.  How much power does the President really have?

Every piece of legislation, especially large bills, takes time.  Its not just as though President Obama can say, “I think that there is too much pollution, therefore all companies must stop polluting,” and bam a law banning pollution is created.  There is order in the legislative branch.  Each bill must get approved in the house and the senate before making its way to the President’s desk, which can take years.  This time, limits the power the President has.  If a bill proposed by the President never makes it past the house, is he responsible for his promise not being kept?  He wrote the legislation, didn’t he? 

I’m going to go out on a limb and tell environmentalists to cut President Obama some slack. He entered office in an economic recession and has been dealing with removing our troops from the Middle-East.  He HAS gotten a decent chunk of legislation passed with regards to the environment and if re-elected I feel he will continue to fulfill his promises.  Just give him some time.  As I’ve said before legislation isn’t born overnight just as change takes more than a few years.  Environmentalists talk about not taking the quick fix when it comes to using the Earth’s resources—well guess what give the guy some damn time.  Maybe change over time should have been his motto—would have saved us all an ear, no?

Post was a little harsh? You guessed it---go sleep in a haystack.

REGULATORS

Hopefully you didn’t sleep in that haystack for too long and you’ve mustered up enough strength to join me for my second blog post.  Entry dos will include my thoughts and attitude towards government intervention as it pertains to the environment, along with some Interesting Insight on Instruments Implemented (check out that alliteration) to carry out these policies.  I don’t know about you, but my hands are getting hot touching my keyboard---if you know what I mean…echhem.

            There are American citizens who associate with particular political parties that pride themselves in an ideology where the government has no power to tell its population what it can and cannot do to the environment.  Their philosophy tends to mimic that of something a tween would say to another tween, “You can’t tell me what to do/I don’t have to listen to you.”  Lets take a step back from this ever-so-common adolescent exchange and think about all the times our “terrible” American government has told institutions or us what to do regarding environmental matters (and let me hint—it hasn’t turned out so badly).   

            We can look at the government from two different levels: federal and local.  First, on a federal level our government has established numerous environmental agencies such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) whose mission is clearly stated as, “to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water and land -- upon which life depends.”  The EPA has been solely responsible for creating policy such as the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, which in laments terms, ensures safe drinking water for all Americans.  The act tests bodies of water for toxic substances and requires that all contaminants present in water must be made aware to the public.  I don’t know about you but when I fill a cup up with tap water, I take comfort in knowing I’m not going to croak because there are toxic chemicals in my aqua.  If government had not set these regulations your next sip could contain a hefty amount of lead—yum.  

Next, we take environmental regulation to the local level.  This can be seen in instances where local municipalities set aside plots of land for preservation—maybe through zoning ordinances? (local parks).  These local parks in turn can put money into town resident’s pockets by increasing property values.  Sounds nice now, ay?  

To sum up, I do feel that there are particular instances where the government should intervene with the environment.  Most environmental issues that present problems are not the direct result of one instance—they are the result of instances.  Rivers run through states, pollution crosses state lines.  There is a bigger picture here people.  Our government looks after it’s citizens and if that means laying down the law when it comes to environmental protection then I’m ok with it—well maybe sometimes….

Lets start a chant—market-based instruments, market-based instruments, market-based instruments.  I feel that if the government wants to implement environmental policy they must put market-based instruments into use.  One example of an MBI is a tradable permit to pollute.  To keep you interested, ill try to make this as simple as possible.  The government puts a cap on how much a certain company can pollute with potential fines for over-pollution.  Each company has a pollutant ration and after their ration runs out they must turn to other companies and buy their “unused pollution.”  What the government hopes this particular MBI will do is put a cap on the amount of pollution allowed and that the potential monetary fines will translate to less pollution.  If pollution is going to happen regardless why not monitor it? 

On the contrary some feel that these MBIs are just giving corporations a license to pollute and that we should rely more on traditional government regulation.  Yes, this seems like a good idea but don’t you think this stance seems to be a little TOO rigid.  With MBIs, the government is creating an artificial market for pollution. With government regulations, taxes come into play and the taxpayer winds up with the brunt of the burden. 

I think my preferred method of intervention correlates relatively closely with my political ideology.  I tend to think along the lines of an economist and that the market will balance all issues out.  These MBIs that I speak about, create the market needed to sustain our environments well being.  Frequent updating would be required but I do feel optimistic that this is our best shot at realistic regulation. 

Sorry for this post’s dryness…if you don’t like it go sleep in haystack.  

Check Me Out!

Before I begin with my ever-so exciting first post I must throw in a little disclaimer so you can't say I didn't warn you...this is my first blog so bear with me people...

Being"half" a Political Science major I feel as though I am constantly being nudged to answer the following questions, "which party do you identify most with and why?" and "what are your social and economic beliefs?"  Time and time again I find myself trying to identify more with one party to make my life a little easier, but life just aint' that easy.  If only it were as simple as two choices...sigh

I would however have to say that after living almost 22 years of my life in a relatively liberal household, my family has heavily influenced my political ideologies just as textbooks say they should.

As far as most social issues are concerned I would say I have a liberal mentality.  A "liberal mentality"--you may ask yourself what kind of nonsense is he talking about?  Let's take three heated social issues and discuss.  Education, abortion, and same-sex marriage.  Growing up in a rather affluent town, education was always top-notch.  My public school system spared no expense. When it came to adopting the newest technologies and hiring the most qualified mind molders, taxpayers were more than happy to cough up the dough.  All of this seemed pretty peachy to me until I reached my later years in high school and started to think about the unfair advantages I had compared to those growing up in an inner-city.  Why should my education be better?  Aren't we all equal?  Why should income and personal wealth determine the quality of education?  I feel that every American should have access to the same education no matter their economic standing.  Next up: ABORTION.  I'm Pro-Choice--extenuating circumstances (rape) or not, I feel a woman should be able to decide: end of debate!  Same-sex marriage anyone?  I'm an advocate of same-sex marriage.  The government is not decide what constitutes as a marriage.  If two PEOPLE are in love that's good enough for me.  Man marries man; man marries woman--is there a difference--not for this guy.

My economic stance tends to be a tad more conservative so I'll try to make this section as boring as possible--kidding...  I do not believe in the redistribution of wealth and feel that money earned is money that should be kept.  Why should I give my hard earned cash to the unemployed (harsh)?  Also, I'm a firm believer in profit maximization.  If outsourcing makes your company more profitable then so be it--why should our government give incentives (tax that I pay) to corporations that stay on American soil.  I'm a firm believer in every corporation for themselves. Don't forget I'm still MORE liberal--some food for thought--economically conservative individuals talk a lot about limiting government regulation...what happened when the major banks failed and the car corporations went bankrupt?

Cornucopians.  Say it three times fast.

After reading Layzer's text I would most definitely consider myself a Cornucopian.  I tend to think that economic growth and prosperity have no limit and if the global population continues to create new technologies we will figure out ways to curb shortages and create new resources.  While this approach seems rather optimistic, I do deem it to be true.  I am also a huge proponent of individual freedom--who is anyone to say what natural resources we can and cannot use.  The Earth gave them to us-- so let's use em'!


Shying away from a more environmentally philosophical approach I do find myself living in the present.  I don't always think about the negative effects my actions have. How much easier is it to get in a car than to walk somewhere?  Why carry groceries when you can put them in a plastic bag?  At this point in my life if something is more time efficient, it's for me.


If you've got a problem with my post...........go sleep in a haystack!