Dec 28

Top down or bottom up: One or the other or both?

Carbon Footprint, Politics No Comments »

Last month Sarah Palin wrote an oped in the Washington Post urging Pres. Obama to boycott Copenhagen. “Without trustworthy science,” also calling it “politicized science” and “agenda-driven science,” it’s not worth it for the U.S. to cut a deal, which would amount to a “job-loss program,” she wrote.

In her article, she acknowledges the retreating sea-ice off Alaska’s coast, thawing permafrost and coastal erosion. “We recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends . . . .”

With half the population and half of Congress agreeing with her thinking, short-term economics and short-term elections will continue to rule the day. And any shift at the national-policy level, for better or worse, will shift back with every election cycle. Washington is not likely to lead on this issue, will likely never get out ahead of us.  But they will follow the market forces that affect their local constituents.

Some things you can legislate, but can’t enforce adequately – like residential recycling, the speed limit, keeping your paint cans out of the town dump. There are many pressure points to create change, and regulations are one of them, though don’t always guarantee outcomes.

Some things regulate well from the top-down: exposing the public to radiation and no longer developing on wetlands. Some of these could be stronger, like limiting commercial carbon emissions, but nevertheless, these are natural top-down regulations.

Successful bottom-up movements leading to regulations include standards for drinking water and town-wide waste recycling, which is pretty much a norm for all garbage collecting, both things that didn’t really exist only 20 years ago.

Some studies claim that top-down costs more for industry and related markets than bottom-up movements. Partly because top-down happens rather quickly, bottom-up usually happens over a long, developing span of time. Incentives like taxes or fines play a role in outcomes and costs as well. Also, bottom-up grassroots movements that succeed also sustain themselves for the long term, since they come into their own with support already in place.

Human beings are in the unique position, for the first time in the history of the planet, to save or destroy the planet. No other species has had this position. It’s simply a choice we must make as a race. At the moment, it’s highly unlikely top-down regulation will mandate buying a Prius, installing solar power, or taking public transportation. It’s going to require leadership from the bottom, from those who care and understand about creating the infrastructure to make these changes

The more I watch Congress, or international politics, the more I see that little will change on a national or international level among industrial countries. We must lead the way from the bottom. The best things we can do, as individuals, is to do our thing, stay our course, talk it up, communicate together. No matter is too small during the holidays or any time. At home or at work or with family or wherever, every green act you do, everything you purchase, every comment you make sends a message. Send the right message.

Dec 18

Our Children, Their Future – What Government And Parenthood Have In Common

Politics, Resource Musings No Comments »

Society makes choices. Collectively we move forward or we don’t. There is no inherent gurantee our future will be a better one. It is all based on the choices we make individually that role up
collectively to where, we, as humans on this magnificent planet, build the future we create based on our actions today.

Government is a collection of people — some elected, some appointed — who pay attention to where society is going. Government is not inherently bad. Though there is a common mindset that this is so.

Buzz words like “big government” and “socialism” sound the alarm. Yet we take the work for granted and miss the point: like our roads, police, public schools and universities, the public library, water and sewer, and on and on.

I liken government to parenthood and the society as a whole as the children. Some things need to be done for our own good. Unwieldy children don’t want rules, think they know everything and can do without the parent (government).

Hence, we have rules (i.e laws). If people could be entrusted to do what’s right for the greater good, then we’d need less laws. But that, unfortunately, is not the case.  Teenage children are invincible and feel immortal. There level of maturity is questionable at times. Should a 16 year old be able to
stay out with friends till midnight or later? Should we condone teenage drinking?

We can all do a lot as individuals to make a difference in this world. Those of us that take the responsibility each of us have for our consumption and the fallout from that consumption. Basing your purchase decisions and lifestyle on the value of minimizing our impact on the ecosystem that sustains our existence. It matters for our kids. How we live today, the decision we make in the here and now effects the future more profoundly than most of us can comprehend.

As individuals we can do a lot, but only so much. Leadership can steer us in the right direction and bring society economies of scale by encouraging behaviors that enhance society and our ability to increase the chances of a resource plentiful future.

Our current trajectory is not guaranteeing a resource plentiful future for our children and those that will follow. Those that work to discredit the messengers and confuse the public and frame the debate in favor of do nothing when it comes to climate change are the unruly teenagers who prefer to not be parented.

The free-market economy — more like economic anarchy — does not inherently move the economy and culture toward the best interest of the people or culture. It moves blindly, driven by profit, not the interest of people or the planet, usually seeking the lowest commom denominator to maximize profit. With the right nudge from government, the market can shift to a desired direction, while maintaining the spirit of the free market.

Government, then has the moral obligation to make hard choices. To see the bigger picture and long term benefits for a better tomorrow. Just as parents make the hard choices in raising their children. The child might not like the discipline the parent envokes on their child — but it is in their best interest they do.

We cannot change the past, but we can know the past. We cannot know the future but our actions today shape the future we will have.  Action to change how we move ourselves and the goods that make up our economy,  how we build the buildings we live, work and play in and the consumption of resources to heat and cool these buildings, not to mention the food production systems are all needed for our collective best interest. Not for today, but for your kids and their kids, and on
and on, down the line of future human existence.

Dec 14

The enemies within

Politics No Comments »

I share this information below because it’s important to know how the other side thinks. It helps shape our case when debating the issue.

“. . . . That’s why I recently joined in cosponsoring legislation that will increase access to domestic supplies, expand the nation’s refinery capacity, and promote market-based alternatives for our energy future. Importantly, the bill includes key provisions of my legislation designed to improve the permitting process for the expansion of existing and construction of new refineries. . . .”

That’s Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), the former chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the current ranking member.

He calls global warming “a hoax.”

He said he would attend the Climate Conference in Copenhagen to make sure that the U.S. – specifically John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, the current chair of the committee —  does not make commitments he objects to, which is basically any commitment.

From an oped of his:  “No matter how many times Gore and others say the science is settled on human-caused global warming, it’s not.”

From an oped of his in The Oklahoman challenging the focus of Earth Day: “Despite spending enormous sums of money on massive advertising campaigns promoting the false notion that man-made greenhouse gases threaten our very existence, the American public remains unconvinced that climate change is a pressing concern . . . . . Therefore, the question must be asked on this, the 39th anniversary of Earth Day: at what expense are we ignoring many of the most pressing issues, environment in particular, to advocate for action on extremely costly policies that will have almost no impact on Earth’s climate?”

From another oped:

“Unfortunately, the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress seem too narrowly focused on pushing the agenda of the so-called environmental community. That agenda focuses obsessively on global warming and it involves job-killing regulations that would dramatically expand the government’s power, with no impact on climate change.”

From his web site:  “Jim has also been a champion for restoring common sense and sound science to important environmental and regulatory issues like clean air mandates, wetlands, and endangered species.”

Other random quotes from him:

“You would think that, instead of considering legislation that would raise the cost of gas at the pump, Congress would have spent its time doing everything in its power to bring down the price at the pump. “

. . . . According to the Energy Information Agency, the average American consumes 500 gallons of gasoline every year and the average vehicle is driven more than 12,000 miles per year. At $4.00 a gallon, people are spending $2000 a year on gas – and those are hard-earned, after-tax dollars. Even so, these national averages don’t tell the whole story. The gasoline price increases resulting from the Boxer Climate Tax Bill would have had a more harmful impact in the nation’s rural areas, like Oklahoma, where people must drive more than in heavily populated states. “

Inhofe, who has been elected three times to the Senate and will likely continue winning as long as he runs (he’s 75 years old), recently issued a U.S. Senate Minority Report titled “More Than 700 (Previously 650) International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”

Along with is usual claims, he quotes dozens of scientists with ambiguous credits, like “published over 200 scientific papers” to validate his science.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.”

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” -

A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”

I just wanted to remind everyone what we are up against. Now let’s get back to work.

preload preload preload