Journal 6

Statement:

-The best way to resolve the tragedy of the commons (over fishing of common bodies of water etc...) is to privatize sections of the commons (instead of using government regulation)

Response from Dad:

My first thought is that the commons are already regulated.  One of the problems that we are faced with may simply be enforcing the existing regulation.  Enforcement of any regulation is a complex matter especially regarding international bodies of water that are deemed "common".  It is all too easy to simply assert, as many do, that because this is a complex matter we should inevitably privatize these common waters. The motivation behind privatization lies less in finding a solution that is equitable to all and environmentally sound, but more in the pursuit of profit.  What have we learned from the sub-prime fiasco?  Are we to believe that the institutions that profited so royally from creating complex financial vehicles, and then pedaled them irresponsibly to an uninformed public, should be the ones to monitor their own feckless behavior?  The global economy was devastated by these acts of greed from a select sector that was inadequately regulated.  Many of the "big fish" were saved in an effort to prevent the global economy from collapsing even more than it did. But the "little fish" are not being bailed out. We are all paying the price for the mistakes (and greed) of a few.

Rebuttal:

I think you are absolutely correct when saying the commons have are already been regulated, at least people have attempted to regulate them.  The biggest problem we are facing today with regulation is “Who regulates the regulators?” Even the people that are supposed to uphold legislation will turn their backs when personal or financial motives are on the table.  When examining a common area such as a fishery, it is very difficult to limit consumption because one does not know what the competitor will do.  This theory or “Game” is referred to as Prisoners Dilemma.  When studying this game, the important lesson to be learned is everyone will be better off through cooperation (ie. Consuming less).  When one-person defects (consumes more than his/her fair share) the cooperator is worse off while the defector enjoys personal gains.  The bottom line is there will always be the temptation to “Defect” because of profit.  We can see this defect occur from both the consumers and the regulators of the commons.  This is why regulation and cooperation are not the solution to the tragedy of the commons.

It is time to start looking for another solution, and I believe we can find that through privatization of the commons.  Call me a right wing nut job, but the less the government is involved with these matters, the better off we are.  Yes, the main goal behind this is for firms and individuals is to maximize profits but is that a bad thing?  We can make an environmentally conscious decision while keeping firms and investors happy as well.  By privatizing, people will own a certain chunk of the common area.  All of the resources in that area would belong to the individuals and/or firms.  When firms look at these things as personal assets, they will be more careful with the way they use them up.  Going back to the fishery example, fishermen, in theory, will fish at a slower rate, to give time for fish to reproduce.  Overfishing would cause a draught in the amount of fish seen in the future.   Profits and net income will fall if this occurs.

You raise a good point when you argue that we cannot trust firms looking to gain profit.  Yes we have seen this in the past.  Yes we are currently suffering the consequences.  These “Big fish” did most of their manipulation with investors in the stock market.  Many lied to investors by presenting “Complex financial vehicles” to show they were making profit when really they were suffering losses.  The problem with the actions of big business in the stock market is a topic of debate for another time.

Privatization of the commons is different because firms know there is not an infinite supply of resources and they will be responsible with what they own. Also there will not be the uncertainty of others “defecting”.    This creates the environment for firms to continue maximizing profit while becoming the solution to the tragedy of the commons.

Questions for Sanders

1. Realistically, how do you propose to convince Americans to move away from the capitalistic mindset to living with complete simplicity without the technological advances of the last 100 years?

2. Obviously the message in your book is extremely urgent and extreme.  Would there be some sort of middle ground where Americans don't have to give up all of their amenities but can help the globe become a more sustainable place?

3. Do you think it is possible to have sustainable development?

4. Where in Bloomington was the tree sitting incident that you referred to in chapter 1 of your book?

Paper Outline

            The question that I will be answering in my research paper is why is it so difficult for environmental legislation to be passed in congress?  This is an extremely relevant topic because a certain amount of regulation is needed to make the earth a sustainable place that will not be destroyed by the human race.  For example big corporations are producing massive amounts of pollution and releasing it into the atmosphere and not paying for their pollution.  This creates a sense of entitlement for firms to continue to release their waste at a minimum cost.  Without any regulation/delayed regulation, the consequences such as global warming, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer will continue to get worse and potentially destroy the planet.  The time is CLEARLY now to act on our environmental problems.  Firms need to feel the cost of polluting the environment.  Why have there been limited efforts from local, state and the federal government?

            To help answer this question I will be examining a bill that was circulated around Congress but never passed in to law.  The Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act was created by Jim Matheson, a congressman from Utah’s second district who is on the Science and Technology Committee.  It was created on February 10, 2009 by the 111th Congress, 1st Session, and has still not been passed.  The bill asks for $20 million dollars for the years 2010-2014 for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a research and development program that promotes water efficiency and conservation. This program will include research into new technology, as well as better storage and distribution systems aimed at achieving more efficient water use.  I will argue that this bill has not been passed because the PUBLIC believes that there are more salient issues in the United States.  Therefore elected officials focus on issues that the public wants in order to achieve another term in office (Re-election).  Issues, such as the environment, get pushed to the back burner because of this.  With this being said my thesis is:  The Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act is a bill that has not been passed which is direct evidence that politicians have their own personal agenda instead of doing what is best for the American people.

            I intend to prove my thesis by using readings from Carter on the Median Voter Theory (MVT).  This theory states that political parties will move their platform closer to the center of the political spectrum in order to attract the “swing” or median voter. For example Republicans will create a more liberal platform than they personally believe in, while Democrats will do that same to be more Conservative.  Parties believe that they will always get the vote of their die hard followers, even if they move their platform in the opposite directions.  This creates two parties with very slight differences.  It also creates policies that are popular, not necessarily important. 

            I further will prove my thesis by explaining how elected officials behave when they are in office.  These officials work hard to please the public by passing popular policy.  This is done to be reelected or to possibly move up the political chain (Mayor to Governor, Governor to Senator…).  They will make sure they are promoting what is salient to the public.  Only when their goals are accomplished will political actors start supporting policy that is ACTUALLY important.

           

            This strategy may have its weaknesses. For example, not all public popular interests are anti-environment.  Also politicians are able to find ways to please his/her electors and also address interests that are actually vital to the success of the nation/globe.  I will provide a paragraph or two solely addressing these weaknesses in my theory but I will also plan to point them out through the essay.

Outline

A.   Introduction

1.     Introduce primary question (Why is it so difficult for environmental legislation to be passed in congress?) 

2.     Saliency of question. (The globe is facing severe environmental problems and we need politicians to act to help address the situation).

3.     State Thesis: Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act is a bill that has not been passed which is direct evidence that politicians have their own personal agenda instead of doing what is best for the American people.

B.    Body (Part 1)

1.     Introduce Bill.

2.     List what the bill asks for.

3.     Summarize debates in congress.

4.     Explain the science and technology committee.

C.    Body (Part 2)

1.     Define Median Voter Theorem.

2.     Explain implications (political parties become similar).

3.     Explain effects on political actors (Introduce popular policy to get reelected instead of SMART policy).

D.   Body (Part 3)

1.     Further explain why elected officials don’t introduce smart policy.

2.     Natural to try to get reelected and please the population.

3.     Politicians try to move up in power (Mayor to Governor, Governor to Senator).

4.     Catch 22 have to against the people to truly do a good job but need the people to get elected.

E.   

     Body (Weaknesses)

1.     Public interests are not always anti environment (Anti Smart.)

2.     Politicians have adopted ways to be smart and please the public.

F.    Conclusion

1.     Summarize Bill.

2.     Summarize MVT.

3.     Summarize political actors actions.

4.     Restate thesis.

Questions

1. What are the current efforts to make Bloomington, and the Indiana University campus a more sustainable and more environmental friendly place?

2. How do you quantitively meassure sustainability on campus or in Bloomington?

3. What resources do you have to help achieve your sustainability goals?

Journal 5

To start this journal, I would like to define a utopia that I think the United States should strive to achieve within the next fifty years.  With a few basic attainable goals, we can help reverse many wrongs that people have committed against the environment.  I would also like to create a model that defines human nature.  With this model we can better address our environmental problems.

As American’s, we need to reduce carbon emissions by 65% in the next fifty years.  This is a major step in the fight to preserve the environment.  Carbon emissions are responsible for many environmental problems including the overall rise of the Earths average temperature.  Creating more alternatives to fossil fuel and oil consumption, such as hybrid cars, can help achieve this goal. 

            Next the United States needs to create more incentives to firms to not pollute.  The cap and trade system is a good way to start.  Cap and trade is a government policy that caps the amount of pollution that is able to enter the atmosphere.  They give firms pollution “credits” and if these firms don’t use all of the credits they are able to sell them for cash to other firms.  This is a good government regulation because it has a capitalistic twist.

            Obviously in the next 50 years a lot must be modified to the cap and trade system because the amount of pollution emitted needs to be reduced.  This can be done be reducing the amount of “Credits” in circulation and offering great incentives (tax breaks) to firms that pollute less than say, set quota. 

            The thing that I want to stress the most is humans should not have to compromise their living standards in an effort to help the environment.  Americans, and the rest of the world, can do things to help the environmental cause without giving up a certain lifestyle in which we all have become accustomed to.   Ultimately people have tremendously from the time when they nothing and were not causing environmental harm.  We have tasted the fruits of increased technology, and we are simply not able to do without the material items we have today.

            People have certain inherent values that they are born with.  I believe that these values or instincts are ones of self-interest.  In other words every human being strives to better himself before he or she looks out for others.  These values are something that we are born with and it takes a “push” for people to give up their own self-interest and strive to better other entities.

            The United States is a country that bases itself on excess.  Instead of saving, Americans strive to gain more.  I believe this is also a trait that humans are born with.  Humans are never satisfied with what they have and it is natural to want more.  This goes back to the idea of self-interest.  Humans always want more (excess) because they are striving to better themselves or reach their next goal.

            To continue this model of humanity, I will propose that material items promote happiness.  When a person owns a nice house, car, boat, takes expensive vacations etc…he or she feels more successful than she otherwise would which leads to a feeling of happiness.  I would like to show this issue on a smaller scale to better prove my point.  When I purchase something at the mall, I have a feeling of happiness and excitement.  Also, with time, this good or service becomes something that we become accustomed to and we feel a need or entitlement to have more.  I agree that other things contribute to happiness as well such as love, family and friends.  In the end material goods and services create a higher comfort level, which leads to increased happiness.

            Because humans are born with these traits, there needs to be an outside actor that makes sure that we do not destroy the environment in our pursuit of happiness.  The government is the perfect candidate to be this actor.  I would like to make something clear.  The government cannot force us to give up what we have.  Instead they should strive to address environmental problems through setting goals (such as reducing carbon emissions) and making sure they are met.

            In conclusion, we have a problem with the environment but this problem does not merit compromising lifestyles.  We are born with an inherent value of looking out for our own self-interest.  We do this by purchasing material items in order to achieve a greater state of happiness.  To take away our ability to have excess would go against human nature.  Instead, government needs to follow through with policy that attacks the issues of environmental pollution.  With the implementation of these policies we can address our problems.

Journal 4

            The book A Conservationist Manifesto by Scott Russell Sanders is book that looks at ways to preserve life on planet earth.  Sanders has some very extreme views that I, personally, find difficult to relate to.  He has a clear agenda to have people live more simply in order to preserve the planet for generations to come.

            The book starts by talking about building “Arks” This is a direct reference to the book of Genesis when Noah was told to build an arch for himself and a male and female of every species while the forty-day flood came and destroyed all evil in the world.  Because of this an “Ark” to Sanders is land that is dedicated to the preservation of the Earth.  Although some people are doing this, the whole world needs to be viewed as an arch in order for the planet to be saved.

            The amount of consumption by the human population is cited for being the reason why the earth is being destroyed.  We have a demand for lots of material items and comfort.  If it is easier to drive than it is to bike (the environmental friendly alternative) we will of course always jump in the car and pollute the air.  Sanders feels like we have a sense of entititlement because we are bigger and smarter than all other species.  It is also generated from advertising, politics and the culture of always wanting more in society.  Advertising along the lines of, “One world revolving around you,” “I am what I shop,” and “It’s all about you” are what makes us an extremely consuming culture.  Sanders states, “While the world decays around us, we are urged to buy our way to security, as if we could withdraw inside a cocoon of money.  This story, the dominant one in America today, is a self-centered fantasy that leads to loneliness for the individual and disaster for the world” (pg. 36). This means that self-indulgence takes its toll on the planet and brings you further away from your friends and family.

            The author is painting a picture that American’s do what is best for them and disregard what is best for the community as a whole.  Sanders believes another image needs to be created quickly.  He is referring to a life of extreme simplicity.  A life where it is just living, sustaining energies, creatures, ideas and activities.  According the Sanders, in order to truly help the environment Americans must provide for themselves as many necessities as they can, share tools, and cars with neighbors and friends, and exchanging labor with others in the community.  Americans cannot rush from one pleasure to the next but instead savor the pleasures of nature.  This includes hanging clothes to dry (instead of using a dryer), cooking homegrown food (instead of driving to get fast food), and talking with friends and family instead of buying a ticket to the big game or concert. (Pg. 17).  Americans must think about the community, not the individual.

            While there is a big problem with pollution and deterioration of our natural recourses, there are better solutions than the one that Sanders is offering.  I believe in a more conservatist approach where we use our resources but in a way where we don’t waste.  Without waste, Americans could severely cut down the amount of damage that is occurring.

            The world has become a place where people maximize convenience by resources and technology.  By becoming more efficient through technology means individuals have a leg up on the rest of the world.  For example, I can get more done in one day by owning my own car, rather than biking, and grabbing a quick lunch (rather than growing it).  The more one can get done, the more attractive he/she becomes to an employer (who supplies income).

            Sanders view and agenda is silly and EXTREMELY unrealistic.  There is no way for the entire earth to become an “Ark”.  People have become accustomed living a certain life.  A lifestyle of personal consumption.  A lifestyle, that Sanders believes, where humans are intentionally  destroying the earth.  People will not take a step backwards when society is always moving forwards to create economic growth.  Sanders wont achieve his agenda of people living more simply by getting rid of their current lifestyles.

            Personally I will continue to use the resources given to me on this planet for the betterment of my life and career.  I think a better solution would be one where we preach to not waste.  This means that we can continue to live our lives the way we feel comfortable, we would just be more conscious not to waste what we have.

Questions

Being a republican I believe in limited government regulation.  I usually support MBI's has a good solution of environmental problems.  Does global Warming fit into the category of a "crisis" where the federal government needs to step up and protect the American people by implementing strict policy?


How can we make global warming an issue that every country is combating, not just the United States?