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?

Journal 3

            Environmental issues are always a difficult topic when evaluating a President’s performance.  There are many promises made during a campaign that are used for the purpose of being elected, and then nothing ever comes of it when the official receives office.  I would like to examine President Obama’s promises in his campaign and see if he has followed through with everything he assured he would do.

            One lofty goal expressed in his campaign was to reduce carbon emissions in the United States by 80% by 2050.  According to Obama, this would be done by the implementation of a

market-based cap-and-trade system.  That is, the government will set a cap of a certain amount of emissions that will be allowed to enter the atmosphere, and will issue permits to companies via auction or sale.  Then the market allows those participants emitting less than their quota to sell their excess permits to emitters needing to buy extra to meet their cap.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf

            Another big issue that was addressed in Barrack Obama’s campaign was to cut funding for nuclear waste to be stored at Yucca Mountain.  After spending billions of dollars on mountain, reports have shown that storing waste at Yucca may not be as safe as people have said.  Obama offered a short term solution of holding the waste at their original reactors.  Obama stated that “all spending on Yucca Mountain should be redirected to other uses, such as improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country and exploring other long-term disposal options.”

             Two years into Obama’s presidency we can begin to evaluate if he has followed through on his promises.  Regarding the dramatic decrease of carbon emissions, Obama has done a lot of work in office, although dropping his lofty goal dramatically from 80% by 2050 to 28% by 2020.  There have been reports the goal may drop to 17% by 2020 in the near future.  President Obama also signed Executive Order 13514 which required all “federal agencies to conserve water, cut waste, support sustainable urban development and use their buying power to promote the growth of ‘environmentally responsible’ products and technologies.”  On this issue, Barrack has come through, although significantly less than he promised to the American people.

            Yucca Mountain has also been another point of success for the president.  As of February 2, 2010, radioactive waste will be halted once and for all from entering the mountain.  A White House spokesman stated, “The administration has determined that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is not a workable option for a nuclear waste repository and will discontinue its program to construct a repository at the mountain in 2010.” People were worried that Obama would not keep his word because he stalled this issue in his first year in office.  Experts say the federal government was hesitant because it would face legal liability for not taking the waste off nuclear power companies’ hands, as required by law.

            President Obama has done a good job on executing the promises that he made to the American people regarding the environment.  This is not something that we can expect from all presidential candidates, or any elected position.  This can be explained by the median voter theory (MVT).  Median voter theory can be explained by political parties moving more toward the center of the political spectrum to capture the votes of the moderate thinking American.  Political parties abandon their base (hardcore liberals, or conservatives) because they know they will get their vote even if they become more moderate.  The ultimate goal of a political party is not passing policy but to get elected.

            Once elected, there is a clear agenda for the person in office.  They want to pass popular policy in order to be reelected or possibly rise to higher position.  Only after that is achieved, is when “GOOD” policy is implemented.  This situation is a catch 22 because if an official just passes good policy that is not necessarily popular then he won’t be reelected to see the policy through.  But on the other hand, if the official passes popular policy, it eats in to his time to do the things that are important and necessary. 

“Good” policy is VERY difficult to achieve in the United States.  In this aspect, I do applaud the Obama administration for their work with the environment.  It is much more than the previous administration and I do not think environmentalists should be complaining.  This is the beginning of a very slow process.  Having lofty goals is ultimately unrealistic in the American democracy.

Journal 2

          Being a Republican, and having opposing views as my parents I have a lot to talk about regarding environmental policy.  I do not believe the federal government should be heavily involved in any aspect of a citizen’s life, including environmental issues.  I think policy toward the environment should be market based, that is how can we raise real GDP and experience economic growth.  Ultimately the goal in American society is to lower taxes; this is done by reductions in government spending.

                 

With that being said, there are exceptions to the rule of less government regulation.  Likewise with other aspects of government regulation, congress needs to be able to quickly step in and implement policy in time of environmental crisis.  To do this, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970.  Its duties are to protect human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. 

Because of the high saliency of environmental issues at the time, the Clean Air Act was passed immediately after the formation of the EPA.  This legislation was targeted at reducing the high amount of air pollution and smog in the country.  This government regulation has helped enhance human health and promote longer life spans.

While this Clean Air act was necessary, it has been reflected positively by the American society.  I would like to argue that this legislation decreased corporate profits and has also led to outsourcing. This in turn, has led to the decrease of American jobs.  This occurs because companies have to spend more to prevent breaking pollution laws, and unfortunately, has led many firms to manufacture overseas to cut production costs. 

Another example of good government regulation was the passing of The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974.  “It was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources.”  The law set up a minimum standard for the condition of tap water and requires all owners and operators of public water to abide by these set standards.  If the government never established this law, the market would not have taken care of the drinking water problem that was prevalent prior to the passing of the act.  This is why it IS important for the federal government to step in and protect the American people.

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/sdwa.html

            We are a capitalist society.  We need to let the market and big business run its course by the use of market based instruments (MBI’s) regarding environmental law.  I believe we need to use price or other “economic variables” to provide incentives for polluters to reduce harmful emissions.  This means that MBI’s seek to address negative environmental externalities by adding an external cost to production through taxes or charges on pollution heavy goods or services.  This gives incentives to firms to pollute less to avoid higher taxes.

            I will be the first to admit that MBI’s are not the number one way to protect the environment because it does not place any real restrictions on the use of the environment.  It gives incentives for firms to pollute less by imposing taxes on negative externalities.  A firm’s goal is to maximize profit and through that process, they will pollute less if they have to pay the government for their waste.  This is the best solution to environmental problems because it satisfies the needs of two parties. The first party being the environmentalists because it gives incentives to pollute less, and the second party being the economy because it provides an atmosphere for economic growth and a rise in the living standard.

                 

This approach is different from others regarding environmental policy.  Voluntary action is where environmental issues are handled solely if an individual wants to do so. (Actors voluntarily agree to take action).  On the other side of the spectrum is regulatory instruments which are “legal, enforceable, command and control type instruments aimed at reaching desired, prescribed environmental quality targets or performance standards by regulating the behavior of individuals and/or firms” (Seik,1996).

http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N41/41_5_abs_TimilsinaDulal.pdf

                  I think my attachment to market based incentives fits closely to my Republican political ideology.  My thinking will always be on how government can control less, and how the people can take care of their own interests.  I think that MBI’s offer a middle ground where the federal government can offer incentives to not pollute, and lets the firms and the market run their course without intervention.  As stated previously, exceptions to the lack of government intervention are needed in times of crisis.  At this time it is the government’s duty to step in and protect the American people.

Journal 1

Chris Botti

9/4/2010

Journal 1

            I would like to start the first journal by explaining something very unique about myself.  I consider myself a conservative and my parents are very liberal.  This is a very rare situation and I have given a lot of thought on why this might be the case.  One conclusion is a result of a poor relationship with my stepmother over the past year.  My young self wanted to be contrary to everything that she was and believed.  This may have been the start of the formation of my political views.  Ever since I can remember my views are closely related to the Republican Party.

            That being said I would like to talk about environmental philosophy.  I would consider my viewpoint centers closest around the cornucopia philosophy.  That is we will always have resources and science for the human population to strive forever.  That being the case, there are something’s that are not renewable resources (oil) and the human population needs to watch how much they use. 

            Oil is something that the population needs to have.  In no way do I support the stop or dramatic reduction of the use of oil. I think that we need to watch the way that we use it, and make sure not to be wasteful because oil can be a scarcity and not to mention America has to do business in areas of the globe that are not our biggest fans.  Because of my feelings of this I think I can be labeled as conservatism, a person that wants to use resources, but not wastefully.

            Continuing on with my beliefs, I definitely lean with the Republican Party regarding economic policy.  This means I believe that there should be no economic redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.  I think Americans work hard for their money and there is no reason for the government to go and take this money to either give it to the poor or fund government programs.  Because of this, I believe that Obama’s tax hikes are outrageous and they need to be lowered so that Americans can keep their hard earned money in their pockets so that they can spend to help our economy.  The economy WILL NOT rebound with lots of government input.

            I would like to share a story that makes despise the Obama administration even more.  One of my fraternity brothers was searching for a job this past summer.  He needed money to pay rent, food, and fraternity dues.  He was recruited by a government (Obama) created job program to help the less fortunate.  After an interview, he was told he could not be hired because his parents, who are barely making $40,000 dollars a year and sending two boys to college, made too much money.  His parents were not paying the rent.  His parents weren’t funding his food.  His parents weren’t funding his fraternity dues.  Why is the criterion based on his parent’s income when it is he needing the money?  I find this as a good example on why governmental programs DO NOT work.

On the other hand I believe that the government needs to step in a make sure people are doing okay socially.  This means I would be considered conservative with my social beliefs as well.  People cannot be going around doing whatever they want.  The Democrats philosophy is if an act is not hurting others or themselves, go ahead and do it.  The best example of where I disagree is abortion.

I think abortion is a crime.   You wouldn’t kill a baby so you wouldn’t kill a HUMAN BEING inside your stomach.  People need to take responsibility for their actions.  If you are old enough to have sex and make that decision, be prepared for the consequences.  Only under special circumstances do I believe that an abortion is warranted.  In the unfortunate circumstance of rape the woman should have the right to the abortion but only in the first trimester.  Secondly if the baby is causing complications to that woman’s health the option for an abortion should be on the table.

            I think that my beliefs with the environment, economic and social align.  I am fairly confident that my philosophy is correct when trying to address difficult questions.  As a scholar I want to gather as much information possible when making decisions and creating my own personal philosophy.  During this class I am open to all new information presented to me and possibly having a friendlier approach to the environment.