In advance of tonight's Presidential debate, I've spent some downtime at work sipping a coffee and musing about what I'm going to find most important for the next President. Clearly the economy is a major concern right now, and will require a great deal of change to get it strong again so that we can afford plane tickets to reunite, perhaps in Vegas. The credibility of the country abroad is also something that has been gravely damaged over the last eight years, and needs a good fixin'. But, being a good flag-waving, canoe-paddling, moccassin-wearing, "eh?"-saying Canadian, my biggest concern for the next four years is the environment. I've been ranting and thinking about it for a good amount of time now. It's not news to anyone that we're in a predicament. The IPCC - a commission of over 10,000 well-respected scientists from around the world - reported in 2004 that by 2012, great changes need to happen in the amount of emissions that go up into the atmosphere to slow the trends of global warming, and if the necessary action is not taken, the earth's climate is likely to reach a breaking point... terrible droughts and forest fires in some areas of the world, catastrophic flooding and hurricanes in others. It's even possible - so I learned from my Marine Ecology professor in Madrid - that the oceans currents (which regulate the world's weather patterns, and are fueled by discrepancies in water temperature, causing cold water to sink and warm water to rise) could slow or stop entirely if the planet's ocean temperatures continue to rise. For example, Europe's latitude is akin to northern Canada's, but the continent's temperatures are much like those of the Eastern seaboard of the US. The reason: the Gulf Stream brings warm water from Caribbean up along the Eastern seaboard, across the Atlantic, and down the European coast, keeping the region moderate in temperature. Without those currents in place, Europe becomes like Hudson Bay, which would only help to give polar bears a place to live now that their sea-ice is disappearing so rapidly.
Anyway, the environment and climate crisis really has strong ties into political and economic arenas throughout the world. Did you know, for instance, that there is a negative correlation between the price of oil and the level of democracy in the world's petro-dictatorships?... that is, the levels of freedom and democracy in those nations increases as oil prices fall, and vice-versa. As petrodictators gain more and more wealth, they have more and more influence over religious institutions (the Saudi brand of Islam preaches a much more fundamentalist/radical version than that in Pakistan, or even in Iran before Ahmenijad (sp?) took over), and they can prop up their economies and societies with oil revenue so that capitalism, innovation, and women's rights get lost in the fold. So, America - historically the international champion of capitalism and individual freedom for the oppressed - actually directly restricts the ability of the citizens of those countries (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, to name a few) to live freely and democratically by refusing to wean itself off foreign oil. Domestic oil seems to be fine (as all these Republican "Drill baby, drill" shouters keep shouting) as an alternative to foreign oil, but it is short-sighted and does little (read: nothing) to wean the country from oil dependency in general and begin a true path to energy independence, which anyone with any foresight would be able to recognize, as the world's oil supply is not unlimited. In order to truly get there, the country needs to do a lot more than the "25 Easy Steps to Being Green" or to turning off the lights during game 4 of the ALCS... while they are nice gestures and may draw attention to the need for Americans to reign in their rampant excesses (whether it be food intake or energy (gas, electricity) consumption) and to act in an environmentally sustainable and responsible manner, they also reinforce the idea that acting "green" is easy, and the current debacle of the planet can be solved with such simple measures. Rather, it requires dedication on revolutionary levels, and I'm concerned that neither McCain nor Obama will implement the full change needed.
Revolutionary levels mean laws and dedication. The current gas mileage goals of the US for 2020 are the levels imposed by European countries NOW. Instead of enforcing strict emissions standards for automobiles, the government offers a relaxed attitude, essentially saying "we'll get to this later." Later will be too late. While it will be unpopular for some - special interest groups and auto companies specifically - strict emissions regulations would be a beneficial longterm goal. This is just one example, but really, government needs to get involved to make strict regulations and get our country on track for energy efficiency and independence, and then let the ingenuity of American corporations and innovators to figure out ways to get it done.
That is all for now. Thank you for reading my rant.
Mis Hermanos y Yo
17 years ago
6 comments:
Unfortunately, in a time of crises, short-term problems greatly trump long-term concerns in attention, policy action, and resources. The environment, currently, has been put on the back burner. Lower gas prices at any and all costs is the nation's concern.
What is ironic is that those long-term concerns would greatly help to avoid some of the most significant problems, crises, etc. throughout the next fifty years. I'll be writing a piece on this in the near future.
The frustrating thing is that great economic benefit can be derived from some form of energy revolution in this country. Just as FDR created an unprecedented number of federal programs - and jobs - in his first 100 days in office to turn around the fate of the economy, the opportunity exists for whoever will be elected as President to do something in the same vein. The economy needs a boost, which can only be provided by stability and confidence. Aside from credit and loans, the unemployment rate is a major factor in stability and confidence in the economy, as people who are making money are going to be able to spend it.
Instead of $700 billion to bail out the poor mortgage choices of millions of Americans - shocking statistic: 1 in 6 Americans owes more money than the value of their house - perhaps the government would be wise to allocate some of that money to invest heavily in producing infrastructure to create alternative, clean forms of energy, providing jobs in the process. And in a long-term perspective, providing economic stability and the start of an environmentally responsible America.
Correction to Tacitus' comment:
I will not be writing a piece on this in the near future; thanks for stealing my thunder Sous.
dearest tacitus -
i was merely attempting to add fuel to your intellectual fire. please indulge us in your piece on the irony.
gracias.
Barack Obama in the final debate last night echoed these views:
"That's why I've focused on putting resources into solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal. These have been priorities of mine since I got to the Senate, and it is absolutely critical that we develop a high fuel efficient car that's built not in Japan and not in South Korea, but built here in the United States of America."
"We invented the auto industry and the fact that we have fallen so far behind is something that we have to work on."
I wish the candidates would have pressed the issue and said their goal within the next two decades will be to make the United States the leader of in alternative energy innovation, renewable energy, and fuel-efficient automobiles. This begins by providing, what Thomas Friedman has called in his new book, the "undercurrent of innovation" in this industry to blossom, rather than sit stagnant.
Tacitus is wise beyond his years. Marcos agrees with Tacitus.
Don't get Marcos wrong, Jonathan, Marcos also agrees that the environment should be at the forefront of the mind of America, and all great powers of the world for that matter.
Post a Comment