Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Oregon is a Beacon of Hope
By Abel Collins
With all the commotion last month surrounding Massachusetts’s election of Scott Brown, it was easy to lose track of a story whose implications may be far more important. On January 26 in Oregon, an historic vote was cast in which the people supported two tax increases; one, an income tax increase on the wealthy, and a second on corporations. It was the first time the voters of Oregon enacted an income tax increase since the Depression. Yeah, that’s a long time, and it indicates that something monumental is happening in the country.
Ironically, the populism that Brown rode to victory in Mass. and that Republicans hope will return them to power was evident in Oregon’s vote to raise taxes, a distinctly un-Republican initiative. The people are acting to change a system that has come to disproportionately benefit corporations and the wealthy and that isn’t good for Democrats or Republicans. People are demanding change, and they are demanding fiscal responsibility so they don’t get stuck with a bigger bill down the road to see it happen.
What this vote shows is that the people understand the need to raise revenues to pay for social services, and they are willing to raise taxes to do it. For decades, the dirty word that politicians and policymakers have been scared to even mouth is taxes, considering it the equivalent of political suicide. Yet, the people understand the need for taxes, and they are willing to pay them, so long as the revenues raised are well used.
State governments around the nation should take note, because state revenues are in dire straits and making budget cuts cannot be the only answer. Indeed, large cuts are certain to diminish revenues further. It’s time for state politicians to stop avoiding the issue and honestly admit to the people what they already know, taxes are part of the solution. It would be wise also to recognize what Oregonians realized, new and increased taxes must be born proportionally by those who can afford to pay them.
I, for one, am sick of the evasions from politicians when they claim they would love to enact good policy but that would require them to raise taxes and would be politically infeasible. From this point forward, I am going to demand leadership and courage in facing these issues. No more excuses. Thank you, Oregon.
Here is the web address of an article that details the Oregon election:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/voters_pass_tax_measures_by_bi.html
With all the commotion last month surrounding Massachusetts’s election of Scott Brown, it was easy to lose track of a story whose implications may be far more important. On January 26 in Oregon, an historic vote was cast in which the people supported two tax increases; one, an income tax increase on the wealthy, and a second on corporations. It was the first time the voters of Oregon enacted an income tax increase since the Depression. Yeah, that’s a long time, and it indicates that something monumental is happening in the country.
Ironically, the populism that Brown rode to victory in Mass. and that Republicans hope will return them to power was evident in Oregon’s vote to raise taxes, a distinctly un-Republican initiative. The people are acting to change a system that has come to disproportionately benefit corporations and the wealthy and that isn’t good for Democrats or Republicans. People are demanding change, and they are demanding fiscal responsibility so they don’t get stuck with a bigger bill down the road to see it happen.
What this vote shows is that the people understand the need to raise revenues to pay for social services, and they are willing to raise taxes to do it. For decades, the dirty word that politicians and policymakers have been scared to even mouth is taxes, considering it the equivalent of political suicide. Yet, the people understand the need for taxes, and they are willing to pay them, so long as the revenues raised are well used.
State governments around the nation should take note, because state revenues are in dire straits and making budget cuts cannot be the only answer. Indeed, large cuts are certain to diminish revenues further. It’s time for state politicians to stop avoiding the issue and honestly admit to the people what they already know, taxes are part of the solution. It would be wise also to recognize what Oregonians realized, new and increased taxes must be born proportionally by those who can afford to pay them.
I, for one, am sick of the evasions from politicians when they claim they would love to enact good policy but that would require them to raise taxes and would be politically infeasible. From this point forward, I am going to demand leadership and courage in facing these issues. No more excuses. Thank you, Oregon.
Here is the web address of an article that details the Oregon election:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/voters_pass_tax_measures_by_bi.html
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Flaws of Cap and Trade: Part II: The Validators
By Abel Collins
The second weakness in the administration of the cap and trade system is found in the creation and validation of the carbon credits themselves. Typically, a carbon credit comes into being when an industry proposes a new business model that will allow it to reduce its carbon emissions. Each credit is claimed to be the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon reductions. This credit is then sold to a dirty industry to offset its own pollution. The claimed reduction must be substantiated at the outset by an audit from a rating agency called a validator and must subsequently be verified to have actually occurred by another similar audit.
Worldwide, there are less than thirty such validators, and the market is dominated by just two. The industry or business looking to create carbon credits hires one of these validators to certify its creation. The biggest certification requirement, aside from actually curbing carbon emissions, is that the project meets an additionality standard, proving that the carbon reducing project would not occur without the capital made available through the credits. Once the credit has been sanctioned by the validator, it can be sold in the carbon market. Complicating this picture further is the fact that many of the emissions reducing projects get their funding from venture capital through the large banks that control the carbon markets.
Here, then, is the problem. The validators are paid by the industries that are having their projects regulated, creating a monstrous conflict of interest and potential corruption. Reviewing the work of the validators to this point, it has been discovered that forty percent of projects do not meet additionality standards. Furthermore, the credits only produce 65-85% of the reductions that they promised. When graded, none of the validators received a grade higher than a D. Whether through corruption or incompetence, this administrative system is a proven failure.
Looking forward, the carbon market is already the fastest growing commodity market in the world, and it promises to get exponentially larger if the United States adopts a cap and trade policy. Clearly, major improvements to the administration of cap and trade are necessary if it is to function effectively. The question is, at what cost. Even if the conflicts of interest can be mitigated, the sheer amount of resources and bureaucracy that will be needed for the validation and verification process will produce tons of carbon emissions. There has to be a better way.
Please go to the address below and read this important article from Harper’s Magazine for more information on the validation and certification process.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf
The second weakness in the administration of the cap and trade system is found in the creation and validation of the carbon credits themselves. Typically, a carbon credit comes into being when an industry proposes a new business model that will allow it to reduce its carbon emissions. Each credit is claimed to be the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon reductions. This credit is then sold to a dirty industry to offset its own pollution. The claimed reduction must be substantiated at the outset by an audit from a rating agency called a validator and must subsequently be verified to have actually occurred by another similar audit.
Worldwide, there are less than thirty such validators, and the market is dominated by just two. The industry or business looking to create carbon credits hires one of these validators to certify its creation. The biggest certification requirement, aside from actually curbing carbon emissions, is that the project meets an additionality standard, proving that the carbon reducing project would not occur without the capital made available through the credits. Once the credit has been sanctioned by the validator, it can be sold in the carbon market. Complicating this picture further is the fact that many of the emissions reducing projects get their funding from venture capital through the large banks that control the carbon markets.
Here, then, is the problem. The validators are paid by the industries that are having their projects regulated, creating a monstrous conflict of interest and potential corruption. Reviewing the work of the validators to this point, it has been discovered that forty percent of projects do not meet additionality standards. Furthermore, the credits only produce 65-85% of the reductions that they promised. When graded, none of the validators received a grade higher than a D. Whether through corruption or incompetence, this administrative system is a proven failure.
Looking forward, the carbon market is already the fastest growing commodity market in the world, and it promises to get exponentially larger if the United States adopts a cap and trade policy. Clearly, major improvements to the administration of cap and trade are necessary if it is to function effectively. The question is, at what cost. Even if the conflicts of interest can be mitigated, the sheer amount of resources and bureaucracy that will be needed for the validation and verification process will produce tons of carbon emissions. There has to be a better way.
Please go to the address below and read this important article from Harper’s Magazine for more information on the validation and certification process.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Flaws of Cap and Trade: Part I: The Market
By Abel Collins
On paper, cap and trade offers a versatile regulatory strategy to reduce carbon emissions. Rather than the blunt tool of a blanket tax, the innovation of the carbon credit allows industries that might find it particularly onerous to cut carbon pollution to promote other sectors of the economy to make reductions in their place. By creating a carbon market, the world theoretically summons the mystical invisible hand of market efficiency theory to produce the most effective reductions.
Of course, market efficiency theory is now seen as a rather naïve economic model that is disproven on a daily basis, and ideas that make a lot of sense on paper are often met with resistance by reality. Such is the case with cap and trade. The translation of the theory into cap and trade reality is fraught with problems.
The most glaring problem is administration, and it is manifold. Before we delve into the many failings of the administration of cap and trade, it is important to note with administrative costs that resources dedicated to organizing and maintaining the system (administration) are resources that are being taken away from actually addressing the issue that the system is designed to resolve (e.g. healthcare). With cap and trade, there are two distinct areas of administration; the carbon markets, and the validation and verification of the carbon credits to be traded within those markets.
Large banks, notably J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, have graciously offered to administer the commodity markets for carbon credits. They have not made this offer out of concern about global warming or because they have any expertise in environmental matters. No, like everything else they do, they run the carbon markets in pursuit of profits, and there are many to be had.
Not only do the banks get paid to oversee the transactions in the marketplace, they are further allowed to use this position of advantage as they trade within it. Of even greater concern is how they can manipulate the market through unregulated financial instruments (i.e. derivatives, CDOs, etc.). With massive government subsidies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and unlimited sums of low-interest money available to the big banks, carbon markets are primed for overleveraging and bubble formation. As the markets get more and more manipulated, they will become less and less transparent and farther removed from their mission. Indeed, the carbon market, itself, is a secondary approach, regulating an intangible commodity to address climate change, and it in no way needs to be made more abstract through financial wizardry.
On paper, cap and trade offers a versatile regulatory strategy to reduce carbon emissions. Rather than the blunt tool of a blanket tax, the innovation of the carbon credit allows industries that might find it particularly onerous to cut carbon pollution to promote other sectors of the economy to make reductions in their place. By creating a carbon market, the world theoretically summons the mystical invisible hand of market efficiency theory to produce the most effective reductions.
Of course, market efficiency theory is now seen as a rather naïve economic model that is disproven on a daily basis, and ideas that make a lot of sense on paper are often met with resistance by reality. Such is the case with cap and trade. The translation of the theory into cap and trade reality is fraught with problems.
The most glaring problem is administration, and it is manifold. Before we delve into the many failings of the administration of cap and trade, it is important to note with administrative costs that resources dedicated to organizing and maintaining the system (administration) are resources that are being taken away from actually addressing the issue that the system is designed to resolve (e.g. healthcare). With cap and trade, there are two distinct areas of administration; the carbon markets, and the validation and verification of the carbon credits to be traded within those markets.
Large banks, notably J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, have graciously offered to administer the commodity markets for carbon credits. They have not made this offer out of concern about global warming or because they have any expertise in environmental matters. No, like everything else they do, they run the carbon markets in pursuit of profits, and there are many to be had.
Not only do the banks get paid to oversee the transactions in the marketplace, they are further allowed to use this position of advantage as they trade within it. Of even greater concern is how they can manipulate the market through unregulated financial instruments (i.e. derivatives, CDOs, etc.). With massive government subsidies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and unlimited sums of low-interest money available to the big banks, carbon markets are primed for overleveraging and bubble formation. As the markets get more and more manipulated, they will become less and less transparent and farther removed from their mission. Indeed, the carbon market, itself, is a secondary approach, regulating an intangible commodity to address climate change, and it in no way needs to be made more abstract through financial wizardry.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Attack Forces of Evil, Not Persons Doing Evil
By Nicolas Katkevich
Attack forces of evil not persons doing evil, is in many ways, the one principle of Kingian Nonviolence that the progressive movement immediately needs to adopt in order to become more effective in their pursuits and to begin tapping in to the power of Nonviolence.
During the recent Bush presidency I attended several anti-war/pro-peace demonstrations. At all of these demonstrations were signs, caricatures and chants denouncing George W. Bush as an ignorant fool. The energy and spirit was full of hate directed towards the man. While it is quite understandable as to why there would be anger and outrage direct at Mr. Bush; this type of hate and focused attack on an individual accomplishes nothing. The United States militarism, economic disparity and other social ills are not the fault of one person. Nor will these issues be resolved simply by electing the correct person into power. Rather, if we want to create true change, we must address the root conditions and causes of our country’s problems. We must create systemic, lasting change. This is where our energy must be focused.
Look at our situation today. George Bush is gone, and a new Democratic President is in office, and yet we still are fighting wars in the Middle East. It is clear that war and militarism were not solely energies stemming from Bush; rather the philosophy and use of violence is something that plagues us all. We must work together to overcome violence at the local and international level, through awakening peace within ourselves and by showing others the faults of violence.
Moreover, we must carry on movements with the realization that even our greatest enemy my soon be our greatest ally. Through our self-suffering we must look to arouse the conscious and hearts of not only the public, but our assailants as well. For the goal of Nonviolence is to win over people’s hearts and to create a “win-win” situation rather then a “win-loose” situation that we are accustomed to. We must reach out warmly, yet firmly to our assailants and show them that we do not wish to punish them, yet uplift them. Our love and compassion cannot be limited to only those whom we currently consider our friends and allies. Only through the power of Agape, unconditional love, will we be able to transform ourselves, our communities and our world.
Attack forces of evil not persons doing evil, is in many ways, the one principle of Kingian Nonviolence that the progressive movement immediately needs to adopt in order to become more effective in their pursuits and to begin tapping in to the power of Nonviolence.
During the recent Bush presidency I attended several anti-war/pro-peace demonstrations. At all of these demonstrations were signs, caricatures and chants denouncing George W. Bush as an ignorant fool. The energy and spirit was full of hate directed towards the man. While it is quite understandable as to why there would be anger and outrage direct at Mr. Bush; this type of hate and focused attack on an individual accomplishes nothing. The United States militarism, economic disparity and other social ills are not the fault of one person. Nor will these issues be resolved simply by electing the correct person into power. Rather, if we want to create true change, we must address the root conditions and causes of our country’s problems. We must create systemic, lasting change. This is where our energy must be focused.
Look at our situation today. George Bush is gone, and a new Democratic President is in office, and yet we still are fighting wars in the Middle East. It is clear that war and militarism were not solely energies stemming from Bush; rather the philosophy and use of violence is something that plagues us all. We must work together to overcome violence at the local and international level, through awakening peace within ourselves and by showing others the faults of violence.
Moreover, we must carry on movements with the realization that even our greatest enemy my soon be our greatest ally. Through our self-suffering we must look to arouse the conscious and hearts of not only the public, but our assailants as well. For the goal of Nonviolence is to win over people’s hearts and to create a “win-win” situation rather then a “win-loose” situation that we are accustomed to. We must reach out warmly, yet firmly to our assailants and show them that we do not wish to punish them, yet uplift them. Our love and compassion cannot be limited to only those whom we currently consider our friends and allies. Only through the power of Agape, unconditional love, will we be able to transform ourselves, our communities and our world.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Tax
By Abel Collins
As large and complex an issue as fighting Climate Change is, I will tackle it in a series of posts in order to give it due attention. In the spirit of full disclosure, I feel compelled to say that I work for the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group that is devoting many of its resources toward averting global warming as much as is still possible. The Sierra Club is lobbying for strong legislation in Congress to address the issue this year. The plan the Club supports involves a cap and trade system. The views that I express here are not the views of the Sierra Club. These are my personal opinions.
Last year for the first time, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to address the clear and present danger of Climate Change. Not only is Climate Change (or Global Warming) a current problem, costing some 200,000 lives and untold billions of dollars in damages annually; it threatens to become an apocalyptic catastrophe if we fail to act swiftly in reducing our output of Greenhouse gases.
The House and the Administration have been rightly lauded for belatedly making an effort to deal with this issue more than ten years after the rest of the world took action with the Kyoto Protocol. The key tool for reducing carbon emissions in both the House legislation and the Kyoto accord is a cap and trade system. The basic concept with cap and trade is to commoditize carbon emissions into carbon credits that represent a reduction in emissions. The ‘cap’ refers to the total amount of carbon allowed into the atmosphere. The ‘trade’ refers to the exchange of the carbon credits between industries, other businesses, and individuals through the carbon market. Carbon emitting industries can thus buy carbon credits to offset their pollution and thereby create incentives to cut carbon pollution.
The alternate policy for reducing carbon emissions that is sometimes mentioned but never seriously considered is a carbon tax. (Other options are conceivable, but given the pea sized brain with which governments operate, two choices seem to be the maximum that can be deliberated at any one time.) The carbon tax is just what it sounds like; a levy on industries, other businesses, and people who produce carbon emissions through their economic activity. It is a simple and direct way to make polluters pay proportionally for their emissions. The carbon tax is routinely dismissed, because, we are told, it is politically infeasible. The argument is that the tax would be too punitive on businesses that would then pass the huge cost along to consumers.
I contend that the Cap and Trade system is inherently inefficient and dangerously flawed. In practice, cap and trade has not produced the carbon reductions that were promised by the carbon credits. Furthermore, the carbon market is helplessly vulnerable to corruption through financial manipulation. If the nations of the world truly want to combat Climate Change, they need to consider implementing a carbon tax.
As large and complex an issue as fighting Climate Change is, I will tackle it in a series of posts in order to give it due attention. In the spirit of full disclosure, I feel compelled to say that I work for the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group that is devoting many of its resources toward averting global warming as much as is still possible. The Sierra Club is lobbying for strong legislation in Congress to address the issue this year. The plan the Club supports involves a cap and trade system. The views that I express here are not the views of the Sierra Club. These are my personal opinions.
Last year for the first time, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to address the clear and present danger of Climate Change. Not only is Climate Change (or Global Warming) a current problem, costing some 200,000 lives and untold billions of dollars in damages annually; it threatens to become an apocalyptic catastrophe if we fail to act swiftly in reducing our output of Greenhouse gases.
The House and the Administration have been rightly lauded for belatedly making an effort to deal with this issue more than ten years after the rest of the world took action with the Kyoto Protocol. The key tool for reducing carbon emissions in both the House legislation and the Kyoto accord is a cap and trade system. The basic concept with cap and trade is to commoditize carbon emissions into carbon credits that represent a reduction in emissions. The ‘cap’ refers to the total amount of carbon allowed into the atmosphere. The ‘trade’ refers to the exchange of the carbon credits between industries, other businesses, and individuals through the carbon market. Carbon emitting industries can thus buy carbon credits to offset their pollution and thereby create incentives to cut carbon pollution.
The alternate policy for reducing carbon emissions that is sometimes mentioned but never seriously considered is a carbon tax. (Other options are conceivable, but given the pea sized brain with which governments operate, two choices seem to be the maximum that can be deliberated at any one time.) The carbon tax is just what it sounds like; a levy on industries, other businesses, and people who produce carbon emissions through their economic activity. It is a simple and direct way to make polluters pay proportionally for their emissions. The carbon tax is routinely dismissed, because, we are told, it is politically infeasible. The argument is that the tax would be too punitive on businesses that would then pass the huge cost along to consumers.
I contend that the Cap and Trade system is inherently inefficient and dangerously flawed. In practice, cap and trade has not produced the carbon reductions that were promised by the carbon credits. Furthermore, the carbon market is helplessly vulnerable to corruption through financial manipulation. If the nations of the world truly want to combat Climate Change, they need to consider implementing a carbon tax.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Be It Resolved
By Abel Collins
I have freedom of speech,
They say.
It’s even guaranteed
In writing,
The constitution binding.
Equally, I must have the freedom to listen;
To hear and give credence,
To believe if I must
One thing or another.
Call that religion.
I do not want a captive audience.
I want them free and freely associated.
Everything’s written down in Washington,
Stored in marble halls where we keep the country’s warranties.
I have many rights.
But here’s the rub,
Rights are not possessions.
They are ideas that take form only in action.
Pend here
Upon notions
Do I have the ability to express these freedoms?
Consider speech:
First of all,
Every voice must carry through a medium.
Already, I feel a little restricted…
I mean; I want a medium that allows me to speak to everybody
I want to turn to all seven billion of you and say,
‘Whoa there, how’s it going?
We’re going to just take a little break here
Spare me ten minutes
A moment of silence to rest your mind on the beauty around you:
The spectacle of nature and the wonder of civilization.
This beauty in you
As you are their individual reflection.
Mostly though, rest your attention upon the beauty in the people around you.
Yes, in this we are all kindred
We share this moment
This choice to be aware of the beauty that always surrounds us
That we are integral parts of.
Let this kinship be trust
Now, everyone put down your weapons
Whether metaphorical or physical.
Accept peace, and let’s move on
There’s much to accomplish
Humanity to save
Stars to reach
We must work together if we want to get it done.’
Ten minutes of free speech is all I need,
But it’s really just a dream.
The sound of my voice does not travel very far,
And what I say may sound good,
But the volume is turned too low.
Instead people hear the clarion call to fear
Bullhorns on bully pulpits
Talking to the nodding heads of people entranced by the steady beat of war drums.
The volume is kept loud and constant
Because if we had silence to think about what they threaten
The hypocrisy would be so monstrous and obvious
The only recourse could be revolution.
Orwell.
Yet I do have this voice,
And though my freedom is not all I hope for,
I can speak with those beautiful people near to me.
Some may even exercise their freedom to listen,
And surely something will happen when I say,
‘We can all speak a little louder.
Help me turn up the volume.’
I have freedom of speech,
They say.
It’s even guaranteed
In writing,
The constitution binding.
Equally, I must have the freedom to listen;
To hear and give credence,
To believe if I must
One thing or another.
Call that religion.
I do not want a captive audience.
I want them free and freely associated.
Everything’s written down in Washington,
Stored in marble halls where we keep the country’s warranties.
I have many rights.
But here’s the rub,
Rights are not possessions.
They are ideas that take form only in action.
Pend here
Upon notions
Do I have the ability to express these freedoms?
Consider speech:
First of all,
Every voice must carry through a medium.
Already, I feel a little restricted…
I mean; I want a medium that allows me to speak to everybody
I want to turn to all seven billion of you and say,
‘Whoa there, how’s it going?
We’re going to just take a little break here
Spare me ten minutes
A moment of silence to rest your mind on the beauty around you:
The spectacle of nature and the wonder of civilization.
This beauty in you
As you are their individual reflection.
Mostly though, rest your attention upon the beauty in the people around you.
Yes, in this we are all kindred
We share this moment
This choice to be aware of the beauty that always surrounds us
That we are integral parts of.
Let this kinship be trust
Now, everyone put down your weapons
Whether metaphorical or physical.
Accept peace, and let’s move on
There’s much to accomplish
Humanity to save
Stars to reach
We must work together if we want to get it done.’
Ten minutes of free speech is all I need,
But it’s really just a dream.
The sound of my voice does not travel very far,
And what I say may sound good,
But the volume is turned too low.
Instead people hear the clarion call to fear
Bullhorns on bully pulpits
Talking to the nodding heads of people entranced by the steady beat of war drums.
The volume is kept loud and constant
Because if we had silence to think about what they threaten
The hypocrisy would be so monstrous and obvious
The only recourse could be revolution.
Orwell.
Yet I do have this voice,
And though my freedom is not all I hope for,
I can speak with those beautiful people near to me.
Some may even exercise their freedom to listen,
And surely something will happen when I say,
‘We can all speak a little louder.
Help me turn up the volume.’
Monday, February 1, 2010
Babaji
Posted by: Nicolas Katkevich
The poem below is said to be the last message of Shri Haidakhan Babaji, a spirtual leader from India. I have this posted on a wall in my bedroom and I find it to be a great outline of how one should aspire to live their life. I thought I should share it on this blog:
Love and serve all humanity.
Assist everyone.
Be happy, be courteous.
Be a dynamo of irrepressible joy.
Recognize God and goodness in every face.
There is no saint without a past and no sinner without a future.
Praise everyone. If you cannot praise someone, let them out of your life.
Be original, be inventive.
Be courageous. Take courage again and again.
Do not imitate; be strong, be upright.
Do not lean on the crutches of others.
Think with your own head. Be yourself.
All perfection and every divine virtue are hidden within you. Reveal them to the world.
Wisdom, too, is already within you. Let it shine forth.
Let the Lord's grace set you free.
Let your life be that of the rose; in silence, it speaks the language of fragrance.
I am always with you
Shri Babaji
1984
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Motivation
By Abel Collins
Last week, I finished reading a book called Beyond the Limits written in 1990 by Meadows et al. For those unfamiliar with it, the book is a follow up to The Limits of Growth published in 1972. In both cases, the books detail exhaustive studies of the socio-economic and environmental states of the world to get an accurate picture of where humanity is headed. The scientists who conducted the studies and authored the books used systems analysis and a computer model named World3 to extrapolate potential futures for the human population and its quality of life.
The scary thing is that maintaining the status quo of the 1970s led inevitably to a population and standard of living collapse within this century, generally by about 2070. Even with the most optimistic assumptions, continuing the trends of exponential economic and population growth was certain to lead to a catastrophe due to a combination of overpopulation, resource depletion, and pollution.
The scarier thing is that it has now been forty years, and all we have done is accelerate. Economic growth and development has been the dominant force organizing the world for more than half a century. We even gave it a fancy name, globalization, though all it really amounts to is the increased utilization of our finite resources in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Likewise, the human population grows unabated.
According to the scientists’ models, the only way to avoid cataclysmic collapse is to embrace a sustainable model to replace the growth model. If we had embraced such a model in 1970, we could have achieved a stable population with a high standard of living by 2050. If we had made the change in 1995, we could have reached a slightly larger stable population with a lower standard of living. In the case of putting off the transition to a sustainable way of life until 2015, humanity faces a small population crash in the latter half of the twenty-first century followed by stable population with a significantly lower standard of living.
Here we are, five years from 2015. We are already seeing the telltale signs that we have overshot our limits and our destined for collapse. Peak oil is at hand, and other resources are being depleted just as quickly. Deserts are spreading. We are working harder and harder to feed the people of the world, and we are getting diminishing returns. Fisheries are being exhausted around the globe. Perhaps most importantly, clean water is becoming harder to come by. Add to these troubling symptoms the specter of climate change that already is happening faster than was foreseen and we face a terrible reality.
Here we are, five years from 2015, and from time to time I’m asked how or why I came to be an activist. I could speak to you of ideals that I have in plenty, but I don’t need to go that far. Rather, I reply snarkily, ‘wouldn’t you act if you saw that you were about to drive over a cliff?’ The truth is our culture is not sustainable. Exponential growth, economically or population wise, is not compatible with the finite nature of the world. Common sense, call it self-preservation, dictates that I act to change the course we are on. I am determined that it is possible, and I would encourage you to act with me. Let’s build a sustainable future.
Last week, I finished reading a book called Beyond the Limits written in 1990 by Meadows et al. For those unfamiliar with it, the book is a follow up to The Limits of Growth published in 1972. In both cases, the books detail exhaustive studies of the socio-economic and environmental states of the world to get an accurate picture of where humanity is headed. The scientists who conducted the studies and authored the books used systems analysis and a computer model named World3 to extrapolate potential futures for the human population and its quality of life.
The scary thing is that maintaining the status quo of the 1970s led inevitably to a population and standard of living collapse within this century, generally by about 2070. Even with the most optimistic assumptions, continuing the trends of exponential economic and population growth was certain to lead to a catastrophe due to a combination of overpopulation, resource depletion, and pollution.
The scarier thing is that it has now been forty years, and all we have done is accelerate. Economic growth and development has been the dominant force organizing the world for more than half a century. We even gave it a fancy name, globalization, though all it really amounts to is the increased utilization of our finite resources in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Likewise, the human population grows unabated.
According to the scientists’ models, the only way to avoid cataclysmic collapse is to embrace a sustainable model to replace the growth model. If we had embraced such a model in 1970, we could have achieved a stable population with a high standard of living by 2050. If we had made the change in 1995, we could have reached a slightly larger stable population with a lower standard of living. In the case of putting off the transition to a sustainable way of life until 2015, humanity faces a small population crash in the latter half of the twenty-first century followed by stable population with a significantly lower standard of living.
Here we are, five years from 2015. We are already seeing the telltale signs that we have overshot our limits and our destined for collapse. Peak oil is at hand, and other resources are being depleted just as quickly. Deserts are spreading. We are working harder and harder to feed the people of the world, and we are getting diminishing returns. Fisheries are being exhausted around the globe. Perhaps most importantly, clean water is becoming harder to come by. Add to these troubling symptoms the specter of climate change that already is happening faster than was foreseen and we face a terrible reality.
Here we are, five years from 2015, and from time to time I’m asked how or why I came to be an activist. I could speak to you of ideals that I have in plenty, but I don’t need to go that far. Rather, I reply snarkily, ‘wouldn’t you act if you saw that you were about to drive over a cliff?’ The truth is our culture is not sustainable. Exponential growth, economically or population wise, is not compatible with the finite nature of the world. Common sense, call it self-preservation, dictates that I act to change the course we are on. I am determined that it is possible, and I would encourage you to act with me. Let’s build a sustainable future.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Mr. Zinn
By Abel Collins
Today, I dedicated a few minutes of silent contemplation to the work of Howard Zinn in honor of his long and fruitful life. He died yesterday, but the effects of his contributions to the profession of history and his tireless activism will continue to have profound influence on our world.
He stripped away the glory, melodrama, and ego worship that is so prevalent in the study of history, and what was left was a much more accurate picture of reality. Zinn legitimized the lives of the countless people that have lived and sacrificed their lives to progress without fame or notoriety, and, in so doing, he legitimized all of us. For despite what most historians believe, it is the actions of each and every one of us that determine the course of history.
Beneath the pride and posturing, great leaders are primarily figureheads and would count for very little without the support of the masses behind them. Indeed, the greatest leaders throughout history have been those who realized the context of their power; those who have known that the communities they serve are the real heroes of change and the leaders are merely privileged to articulate their progress to the rest of society. Thus, we circle back to Howard Zinn, who was just such a leader. He gave strength to us who believe in and fight for equality, freedom, and fraternity by recognizing us as the true motive force in humankind’s search for humanity, and, together, we will go that much farther in finding it.
If you have not read A People’s History, do yourself a favor and take it out from the local library or even go the extra step and buy it. Heck, it may even be sitting in your bookshelf already, untouched since college. In any case, pick it up and take some time to reacquaint yourself with our history, our story. Take a few pages at a time. There is no rush. For myself, I kept it in the bathroom and finished it over the course of about three months, and I will probably do the same again when I realize that I need a reminder of what we have done, what we are doing, and where we are going.
Today, I dedicated a few minutes of silent contemplation to the work of Howard Zinn in honor of his long and fruitful life. He died yesterday, but the effects of his contributions to the profession of history and his tireless activism will continue to have profound influence on our world.
He stripped away the glory, melodrama, and ego worship that is so prevalent in the study of history, and what was left was a much more accurate picture of reality. Zinn legitimized the lives of the countless people that have lived and sacrificed their lives to progress without fame or notoriety, and, in so doing, he legitimized all of us. For despite what most historians believe, it is the actions of each and every one of us that determine the course of history.
Beneath the pride and posturing, great leaders are primarily figureheads and would count for very little without the support of the masses behind them. Indeed, the greatest leaders throughout history have been those who realized the context of their power; those who have known that the communities they serve are the real heroes of change and the leaders are merely privileged to articulate their progress to the rest of society. Thus, we circle back to Howard Zinn, who was just such a leader. He gave strength to us who believe in and fight for equality, freedom, and fraternity by recognizing us as the true motive force in humankind’s search for humanity, and, together, we will go that much farther in finding it.
If you have not read A People’s History, do yourself a favor and take it out from the local library or even go the extra step and buy it. Heck, it may even be sitting in your bookshelf already, untouched since college. In any case, pick it up and take some time to reacquaint yourself with our history, our story. Take a few pages at a time. There is no rush. For myself, I kept it in the bathroom and finished it over the course of about three months, and I will probably do the same again when I realize that I need a reminder of what we have done, what we are doing, and where we are going.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Howard Zinn
Posted by: Nicolas Katkevich
Howard Zinn passed away yesterday at the age of 87. Zinn was a dynamic and insightful author, activist and speaker who eloquently critiqued the American government and it's use of war and deception. Here is a quick video of Mr. Zinn recently speaking about President Obama and the wars in the Middle East.
Howard Zinn passed away yesterday at the age of 87. Zinn was a dynamic and insightful author, activist and speaker who eloquently critiqued the American government and it's use of war and deception. Here is a quick video of Mr. Zinn recently speaking about President Obama and the wars in the Middle East.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Military Budget: Staggering Spending, Simple Solution
Posted by: Nicolas Katkevich
President Obama has announced his intention to “freeze” the budgets of certain domestic programs (EPA, Health and Human Services, etc.) at their current level for the coming years. Exempt from this “freeze” are “security programs” such as the budgets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. It is very unfortunate that President Obama has not included the Defense Budget in this proposed freeze. In Reality the Defense budget needs not only to be capped, it needs to be drastically reduced. Under the guidance of this Administration the Department’s budget for 2010 is projected to reach $682 Billion, a $13 billion rise over fiscal year 2009. American needs to take a new path.
Just as we work for peace for ours inner selves and within our communities, spreading the word that violence does not solve problems, the United States government must also follow suit and move away from military might as a means of protection and security. For as long as the United States has a dominant world wide military presence, war waged by America will persist. With so much money and resources invested in the military; whenever a conflict of some sort arises, military use will be a first choice of action. The option of military force must be greatly diminished. The most direct way to achieve this goal is to curb the military budget and reinvest those resources into rebuilding America’s crippled economy and infrastructure.
I propose cutting the Department of Defense budget in half by 2030 to $340 billion. To accomplish this goal about $17 billion would have to be cut from the Defense budget each year. Decreasing the Defense Budget at this rate for would, compared to if the DoD continued to maintain it’s current funding, save $3.57 Trillion dollars over the twenty-year span. These funds would be allocated to rebuilding our economy, investing in green energy and reconstructing our nation’s infrastructure. Moreover the funds saved over this time period could easily wipe out America’s $1.35 trillion dollar debt. Closing overseas military bases (in Japan, Germany, Italy etc.), reducing our nuclear weapons capacity and ending the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would be great initial steps to achieving this goal. I believe that America can take this path, and it is only through drastically reducing the military budget that our nation not only thrive, but also become a moral beacon for the world.
President Obama has announced his intention to “freeze” the budgets of certain domestic programs (EPA, Health and Human Services, etc.) at their current level for the coming years. Exempt from this “freeze” are “security programs” such as the budgets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. It is very unfortunate that President Obama has not included the Defense Budget in this proposed freeze. In Reality the Defense budget needs not only to be capped, it needs to be drastically reduced. Under the guidance of this Administration the Department’s budget for 2010 is projected to reach $682 Billion, a $13 billion rise over fiscal year 2009. American needs to take a new path.
Just as we work for peace for ours inner selves and within our communities, spreading the word that violence does not solve problems, the United States government must also follow suit and move away from military might as a means of protection and security. For as long as the United States has a dominant world wide military presence, war waged by America will persist. With so much money and resources invested in the military; whenever a conflict of some sort arises, military use will be a first choice of action. The option of military force must be greatly diminished. The most direct way to achieve this goal is to curb the military budget and reinvest those resources into rebuilding America’s crippled economy and infrastructure.
I propose cutting the Department of Defense budget in half by 2030 to $340 billion. To accomplish this goal about $17 billion would have to be cut from the Defense budget each year. Decreasing the Defense Budget at this rate for would, compared to if the DoD continued to maintain it’s current funding, save $3.57 Trillion dollars over the twenty-year span. These funds would be allocated to rebuilding our economy, investing in green energy and reconstructing our nation’s infrastructure. Moreover the funds saved over this time period could easily wipe out America’s $1.35 trillion dollar debt. Closing overseas military bases (in Japan, Germany, Italy etc.), reducing our nuclear weapons capacity and ending the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would be great initial steps to achieving this goal. I believe that America can take this path, and it is only through drastically reducing the military budget that our nation not only thrive, but also become a moral beacon for the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)