1) Has any of your research and data analysis dealing with the extreme value theory led to any notable conclusions regarding the awaited 2012 event?
2) Of what research or conclusion are you most proud? (or) Of all that you've researched and analyzed, what has seemed to you the most useful?
3) Other than the photovoltaic panels on your roof, what sustainable or "green" changes (if any) have you made to your home? If you were to suggest just one "greener" addition or renovation to a family living in a house, what would that be?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
obama!
During his campaign, Obama promised quite a few things dealing with the environment. The Chicago Tribune lists several goals of his. The following are simply the goals outlined in these articles: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obama-green-box-19-nov19,0,6070882.story and http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2008/2008-11-05-091.html. Obama's first was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and he even provided a market-based solution to ease the pain: he detailed letting polluters exchange emission credits so that those who could not (or would not) reduce their emissions could pay to keep their practices. His second goal was generally "air pollution"-themed, and described more stringent standards regarding soot and smog. It also foretold getting rid of Bush's rule that allowed power companies to upgrade coal-fired power plants without pollution controls, and outlined new limits of toxic mercury emissions from power plants. His third goal simply was to double federal funding for clean-energy projects. The fourth was that by 2025, 25% of our country's electricity be powered by wind, solar, and other carbon-free sources. By 2030, Obama hopes that all new buildings are carbon-neutral, meaning that no zero carbon emissions come from these new buildings (unless, of course, one has "carbon credits" out the wazoo). The fifth goal was to simply use more money to clean up pollution in the Great Lakes area and to restore the fisheries there. Environmental News Service lists Obama's environmental goals: to make clean energy a priority, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and curb climate change.
As far as accomplishing these goals goes, it is only 2010, so accomplishment cannot be expected. But progress can. In march of this year, many environmentalists felt "betrayed" by Obama regarding his offshore drilling plan. The danger of oil spills and carbon emission from such drilling is great, as not even one month later, the largest oil spill in the history of the U.S. occurred. But many environmentalists have not hit him too hard regarding the oil spill. The president of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope, speaks favorably of Obama, "President Obama is the best environmental president we’ve had since Teddy Roosevelt...He obviously did not take the crisis in the Minerals Management Service adequately seriously, that’s clear. But his agencies have done a phenomenally good job" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38451.html). Environmentalists even put full-page ads in The Washington Post, thanking Obama this past June for holding off on his Alaska Drilling Project. (I think anybody in his shoes would have done the same). But Jonathan Alter, of Newsweek, disagrees in his article "Better Listen to Bill Clinton on Green Jobs" (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/26/alter-obama-clinton-and-clean-energy.html). "in late 2009, Clinton began lobbying privately for an energy-efficiency loan-guarantee program. " Essentially, Obama hasn't really moved this plan into action, though $90 billion of his Recovery Plan was dedicated to clean energy. So it seems, from all that I've gathered, that Obama is, like most politicians, making hefty promises, genuinely believing in them, but finding that the execution of such promises is the most difficult part. Obviously, a terrible accident occurred while he was in power, but I don't think this was all bad for his image. The brunt of the blame has been placed on BP, and, as the full-page "Thank you" ads from environmentalists show, many pity his situation rather than blame him for it.
As we discussed in class, the executive branch has virtually no power when it comes to environmental policy. The legislative branch is the powerful one. One thing the president can do, though, is appoint heads of agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency. This is obviously significant because the EPA has a lot of power when it comes to environmental policy and regulation. This also means that if the previous head of the EPA is ideologically different than the president, he can switch in a new head who will more likely side with himself. Then any environmental policies (or lack thereof) that are not well-received generally are blamed on the EPA head, not the president. I think that the power to appoint officers should be exercised. Though it does seem a little corrupt (the act of putting in power one of your friends or someone more on your side politically), this is the game of politics, so it's really all strategy. And even for those politicians who truly do want to solve the country's problems, putting in an officer who sides with them ideologically is the logical, smart, and most beneficial action. Considering that both sides (or all sides, however you view it) aim to get their ideas into action, I would say that no inconsistencies exist between my conservatism and the power of the executive to appoint officers.
The environmental advocates that are dissatisfied with Obama have reason to be, as he promised many things, such as a decrease in offshore drilling, followed by a terrible oil spill. But many of Obama's goals are very long-term, and only two years into his term, it is difficult to see both what Obama has done in the way of accomplishing these goals, and what he should have accomplished by now. I feel that Obama has not done as poorly as many environmentalists say... within his first hundred days as president he took countless steps in the green direction, including appointing a "green team" of advisors, creating the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (which protects 2 million acres of wilderness land), and cancelling several mountaintop mining permits which had been allotted by the Bush administration. Regardless of whether or not Obama is following his own prescription, he is improving the United States' environment from years past.
As far as accomplishing these goals goes, it is only 2010, so accomplishment cannot be expected. But progress can. In march of this year, many environmentalists felt "betrayed" by Obama regarding his offshore drilling plan. The danger of oil spills and carbon emission from such drilling is great, as not even one month later, the largest oil spill in the history of the U.S. occurred. But many environmentalists have not hit him too hard regarding the oil spill. The president of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope, speaks favorably of Obama, "President Obama is the best environmental president we’ve had since Teddy Roosevelt...He obviously did not take the crisis in the Minerals Management Service adequately seriously, that’s clear. But his agencies have done a phenomenally good job" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38451.html). Environmentalists even put full-page ads in The Washington Post, thanking Obama this past June for holding off on his Alaska Drilling Project. (I think anybody in his shoes would have done the same). But Jonathan Alter, of Newsweek, disagrees in his article "Better Listen to Bill Clinton on Green Jobs" (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/26/alter-obama-clinton-and-clean-energy.html). "in late 2009, Clinton began lobbying privately for an energy-efficiency loan-guarantee program. " Essentially, Obama hasn't really moved this plan into action, though $90 billion of his Recovery Plan was dedicated to clean energy. So it seems, from all that I've gathered, that Obama is, like most politicians, making hefty promises, genuinely believing in them, but finding that the execution of such promises is the most difficult part. Obviously, a terrible accident occurred while he was in power, but I don't think this was all bad for his image. The brunt of the blame has been placed on BP, and, as the full-page "Thank you" ads from environmentalists show, many pity his situation rather than blame him for it.
As we discussed in class, the executive branch has virtually no power when it comes to environmental policy. The legislative branch is the powerful one. One thing the president can do, though, is appoint heads of agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency. This is obviously significant because the EPA has a lot of power when it comes to environmental policy and regulation. This also means that if the previous head of the EPA is ideologically different than the president, he can switch in a new head who will more likely side with himself. Then any environmental policies (or lack thereof) that are not well-received generally are blamed on the EPA head, not the president. I think that the power to appoint officers should be exercised. Though it does seem a little corrupt (the act of putting in power one of your friends or someone more on your side politically), this is the game of politics, so it's really all strategy. And even for those politicians who truly do want to solve the country's problems, putting in an officer who sides with them ideologically is the logical, smart, and most beneficial action. Considering that both sides (or all sides, however you view it) aim to get their ideas into action, I would say that no inconsistencies exist between my conservatism and the power of the executive to appoint officers.
The environmental advocates that are dissatisfied with Obama have reason to be, as he promised many things, such as a decrease in offshore drilling, followed by a terrible oil spill. But many of Obama's goals are very long-term, and only two years into his term, it is difficult to see both what Obama has done in the way of accomplishing these goals, and what he should have accomplished by now. I feel that Obama has not done as poorly as many environmentalists say... within his first hundred days as president he took countless steps in the green direction, including appointing a "green team" of advisors, creating the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (which protects 2 million acres of wilderness land), and cancelling several mountaintop mining permits which had been allotted by the Bush administration. Regardless of whether or not Obama is following his own prescription, he is improving the United States' environment from years past.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
policy instruments
I believe the government should regulate environmental matters for two reasons. The first is that our environment is something that should be cared for, used, and enjoyed carefully and consciously. The second reason why the government should regulate environmental matters is that the first is not happening. Humans leave much to desire in the way of conservationism and simply smart consumption. The government should regulate when it is found that voluntary efficient living is not taking place. And because we live in a world of humans, the "voluntary" approach doesn't usually work; therefore rules and laws should be created (by the state governments because location affects environment greatly) to create a more tangible and absolute "line" which should not be crossed. Ideally, once this line has been created, those who were not as willing to live "greener" lifestyles, will have some guidelines which they would follow to both better understand the effects of even the slightest inefficient habit, and to contribute to a healthier and stronger environment.
I believe whole-heartedly in voluntary action. I understand that this is the most optimistic, some would even say naive, choice. But simply imagining a world in which everybody changes their own daily habits in favor of more efficient, less wasteful practices, inspires me to make that world happen. The practical side of me desires a combination of government regulation with voluntary action. This would essentially be a "let's try voluntary action, and then when some people predictably don't voluntarily act in a desirable manner, we'll make some rules" kind of approach. The more I think about voluntary action, the more I realize how hard it would be to enforce, because "voluntary" implies that no laws are affecting one's actions, and hence no one can possibly break a law...because there is no law!!! So a dependence on everybody to care strongly about the environment exists. Voluntary action could work maybe in a small town where the environment is important to all; and maybe the inspiring story of that town could soon help the entire country follow that example. I see and hear the sappy hope in this, but it is still what I believe.
Voluntary action is not very well-suited to environmental policy because it is difficult to make policy when there are no laws already in place. The citizens are acting simply out of their own desire (or lack thereof) to help the environment. There is nobody telling them to do so, and therefore there is nobody regulating . It would be difficult to punish citizens or assess situations, because identifying those who are causing problems would be virtually impossible. But if the "voluntary action with rules for the not so voluntary" approach were the way of the world, it would be quite well-suited to environmental policy. There would already be regulations on which to build or edit, and those who were not following those regulations could help in the creation of newer stringent (or more lax!) legislation. I believe that all of this should take place at the state level, because different than civil policy, for example, environmental policy is location-dependent.
Voluntary action is different from the other policy instruments in that it is government-free. Most other policy instruments, such as market-based solutions and government regulation involve the government, though market-based instruments are similar to voluntary action in that they are private. (Market-based solutions require the agreement of two private corporations, and involve the government indirectly. They essentially monetarily quantify the use of the environment, so that companies and corporations, who tend to use more resources than an individual, can choose to sell their extra allotments of resources).
Voluntary action aligns with my political ideology pretty well, which is conservatism. Voluntary action requires little to no government, which is exactly what I like. And even if some people are not so willing to act in a desirable fashion (meaning the "voluntary" doesn't describe everybody in the community), and the government has to step in to make some rules for those who need them, I don't feel as if my political ideology would be compromised. Such a situation would only lead to the creation and enforcement of new rules, so those not so willing are being held personally responsible for their inconsistency with the rest of the community. Obviously, figuring out who is not keeping up with the program would be difficult in the first place, so I think that practically speaking, even in a "voluntary action" style approach, regulation of some sort must be in place from the start just in case.
I believe whole-heartedly in voluntary action. I understand that this is the most optimistic, some would even say naive, choice. But simply imagining a world in which everybody changes their own daily habits in favor of more efficient, less wasteful practices, inspires me to make that world happen. The practical side of me desires a combination of government regulation with voluntary action. This would essentially be a "let's try voluntary action, and then when some people predictably don't voluntarily act in a desirable manner, we'll make some rules" kind of approach. The more I think about voluntary action, the more I realize how hard it would be to enforce, because "voluntary" implies that no laws are affecting one's actions, and hence no one can possibly break a law...because there is no law!!! So a dependence on everybody to care strongly about the environment exists. Voluntary action could work maybe in a small town where the environment is important to all; and maybe the inspiring story of that town could soon help the entire country follow that example. I see and hear the sappy hope in this, but it is still what I believe.
Voluntary action is not very well-suited to environmental policy because it is difficult to make policy when there are no laws already in place. The citizens are acting simply out of their own desire (or lack thereof) to help the environment. There is nobody telling them to do so, and therefore there is nobody regulating . It would be difficult to punish citizens or assess situations, because identifying those who are causing problems would be virtually impossible. But if the "voluntary action with rules for the not so voluntary" approach were the way of the world, it would be quite well-suited to environmental policy. There would already be regulations on which to build or edit, and those who were not following those regulations could help in the creation of newer stringent (or more lax!) legislation. I believe that all of this should take place at the state level, because different than civil policy, for example, environmental policy is location-dependent.
Voluntary action is different from the other policy instruments in that it is government-free. Most other policy instruments, such as market-based solutions and government regulation involve the government, though market-based instruments are similar to voluntary action in that they are private. (Market-based solutions require the agreement of two private corporations, and involve the government indirectly. They essentially monetarily quantify the use of the environment, so that companies and corporations, who tend to use more resources than an individual, can choose to sell their extra allotments of resources).
Voluntary action aligns with my political ideology pretty well, which is conservatism. Voluntary action requires little to no government, which is exactly what I like. And even if some people are not so willing to act in a desirable fashion (meaning the "voluntary" doesn't describe everybody in the community), and the government has to step in to make some rules for those who need them, I don't feel as if my political ideology would be compromised. Such a situation would only lead to the creation and enforcement of new rules, so those not so willing are being held personally responsible for their inconsistency with the rest of the community. Obviously, figuring out who is not keeping up with the program would be difficult in the first place, so I think that practically speaking, even in a "voluntary action" style approach, regulation of some sort must be in place from the start just in case.
Monday, September 6, 2010
what i believe!
I consider myself an environmentalist. (someone who cares to either preserve or conserve the natural resources found in the world in which we live) I identify with environmentalism because I believe that the Cornucopian idea of immense faith in humans to somehow eventually "have/use" more than we really "have" is illogical. Cornucopianism is the thought that though we do have a limited amount of resources now, by the time those resources run out, humans will have come up with new technological ways to replace those resources. But mostly, I identify with environmentalism because regardless of what power we humans have or will have with which to survive longer, (with our new and magical resources) I believe that using the resources we have now inefficiently is in itself a stupid thing to do. Just because one believes wholeheartedly that man will be able to maintain and recreate resources and survive indefinitely does not mean one should proceed to use the resources of today wastefully. Conservationism is the heart of my environmentalism, because to me it makes perfect sense and should be common sense. (Conservationism is the thought that one should use resources efficiently, rather than impractically preserving resources that were put on this planet to use) Thus far, I have read nothing regarding conservationism with which I don't agree. The "gospel of efficiency" (Samuel Hays's description of what Conservationists believe) is what I strive to read and follow.
My identification with moral extensionism stems from my belief that animals other than humans possess sentience. (Moral extensionism is the belief that animals and living beings other than humans have sentience, or the ability to feel). I don't have much scientific research at hand with which to back up this belief; it is just difficult for me to believe that a dog, cat, or mouse does not have the "capacity to suffer or to experience enjoyment or happiness."
My social beliefs are pretty plain and simple. I think one should be free to do whatever he or she chooses to do, as long as no one else is suffering for it. (Regarding abortion, I believe that the soon-to-possibly-be-baby is "suffering" for it). Ideology-wise, i think this means that I'm pretty "liberal" socially, with the big abortion exception. This means that I accept any and all both-sided-consensual social situations. Economy-wise, I am whole-heartedly for personal responsibility, very generally "against welfare," (I believe it is worthy in some situations) and sick of our country's disgusting spending habits. I like to conserve both our world and our money, and think that those who work hard deserve what they earn.
My environmental and political beliefs don't conflict too much. Obviously making life efficient costs money, but the point is that efficiency will save us money in the long run, so I generally consider upgrades in efficiency of procedures, whatever the cost, to be good investments in our future. Being an environmentalist means being in favor of certain environmental research, which obviously costs money. But once again, I consider that money well-spent.
As of now, I have not come upon any realizations or questions, but I have no doubt that this class will only confuse me more and by the end of it, i'm not sure if i'll have any true opinions!!! (i am VERY easily persuaded....it's a terrible and wonderful thing)
I guess we're all just trying to find a way to live peacefully with both nature and our money. (or lack thereof)
thanks for reading!!!!!!!!!
My identification with moral extensionism stems from my belief that animals other than humans possess sentience. (Moral extensionism is the belief that animals and living beings other than humans have sentience, or the ability to feel). I don't have much scientific research at hand with which to back up this belief; it is just difficult for me to believe that a dog, cat, or mouse does not have the "capacity to suffer or to experience enjoyment or happiness."
My social beliefs are pretty plain and simple. I think one should be free to do whatever he or she chooses to do, as long as no one else is suffering for it. (Regarding abortion, I believe that the soon-to-possibly-be-baby is "suffering" for it). Ideology-wise, i think this means that I'm pretty "liberal" socially, with the big abortion exception. This means that I accept any and all both-sided-consensual social situations. Economy-wise, I am whole-heartedly for personal responsibility, very generally "against welfare," (I believe it is worthy in some situations) and sick of our country's disgusting spending habits. I like to conserve both our world and our money, and think that those who work hard deserve what they earn.
My environmental and political beliefs don't conflict too much. Obviously making life efficient costs money, but the point is that efficiency will save us money in the long run, so I generally consider upgrades in efficiency of procedures, whatever the cost, to be good investments in our future. Being an environmentalist means being in favor of certain environmental research, which obviously costs money. But once again, I consider that money well-spent.
As of now, I have not come upon any realizations or questions, but I have no doubt that this class will only confuse me more and by the end of it, i'm not sure if i'll have any true opinions!!! (i am VERY easily persuaded....it's a terrible and wonderful thing)
I guess we're all just trying to find a way to live peacefully with both nature and our money. (or lack thereof)
thanks for reading!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)