Sanders
Bernie Sanders might have just earned my vote. I know, I know…he’s a bloody SOCIALIST! As if that is a four letter word. Sorry, but we are already a socialist country. We bailed out the banks. We purchased part ownership of the largest automobile manufacture in the country – state ownership!! We essentially subsidize the military industrial complex. We subsidize Big Energy. We subsidize Big Agriculture. We are a socialist country, plain and simple, when it comes to business. Where we fail is in social programs for the countries people.
I digress, for his established ideals are not why I might have finally decided to go for broke with Sanders. He just released his formal plan to combat carbon pollution and ward off some of the worst of climate change, and it is aggressive. Basically the only plan that gets the USA to where it needs to be if the world has any hope at all of continuing to support humanity. Under the tenants of his “People Before Polluters” (not sure on the name, Bernie), the USA would slash carbon levels to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. I would prefer a carbon free worldwide economy by 2050, but 80% will slow humanities contribution to the mess dramatically. Sanders also promotes a complete halt of off shore drilling, and he would enact a carbon tax of $20 per ton of methane. Again, a start, but not where the figures need to be. Economists and scientists alike think that $40 per ton is where a carbon tax should be. 10 million new jobs could be created under this plan—granted, a good number of those would be cross training from oil, gas and coal jobs, but I can live with no new jobs if it meant zero emissions.
President Obama, for all the hatred towards him for “championing” climate change, has done next to nothing in nearly 16 years. Yes, mileage has improved on vehicles. That however does next to nothing on a global scale and is nowhere near where cars COULD be getting for fuel economy. Think 100 mpg as a minimum. Clinton has only mentioned 33% reductions as her target, which is not even close to avoiding 2 degree temperature increases.
MOST importantly, Sanders plan would BAN corporate money and lobbying efforts on behalf of carbon based energy from D.C. This needs to happen along all businesses and causes, but the flow of money is why so many in Washington don’t “believe” in climate change in an official capacity. Their votes have nothing to do with science and even less to do with morality, but everything to do with campaign cash. Removing that cash might just save us all.
The Climate Race
I also did some reading (and writing) over the weekend on how and why we need to focus our collective effort back to science and climate. In 1966 NASA’s funding represented about 4% of the entire annual budget and they employed around 400,000 people. Today, NASA gets about .05%, barely half a penny, of your tax dollar. Yet look what they have accomplished with that ½! A complete reconnaissance of the solar system, including a stunning visit to Pluto this last summer. Rovers on Mars that have hinted, finally, that life did once exist there, and proven that water still occasionally flows. A space station that has been constantly crewed for fifteen years, doing science with large scale practical applications. Space telescopes that have opened our eyes to the greater universe, and shown that, at a minimum, thousands of other planets our orbiting stars in our galaxy.
But that is not enough. Think about what 4% could have gotten us between the early 70’s and today. We would have likely had a much bigger, much more capable space station. Something out of “2001: A Space Odyssey” would have been possible. A small permanent base on the Moon also could be operating today. Mars? We would likely have already visited, or at the very least, launching our mission this decade. Space telescopes could have possibly already verified Earth-like conditions on an exo-planet, and we might be looking at new technologies to launch a multi-decade probe to go out for a visit.
Now look at the effort that will be needed to restore our atmosphere to where it needs to be. We can produce technologies that do not pollute—solar, hydro, wind, they are all out there. Nuclear fusion is, finally, quite likely on the way. But for far too long our government has kept the focus too small and local. Recycling campaigns make people feel good but do little except let landfills last a few more years. Better off eliminating oil-based plastics entirely. Extra mpg in your vehicles also feels good, and helps your fuel bill. But dumping the internal combustion engine entirely is what is needed. Equipment pricing for solar has dropped dramicatly the last five years, but utility companies, scared of dropping usage rates and therefore revenue, are doing the unthinkable – and charging you EXTRA for using their services less. We need innovation and new thinking, and we need them yesterday.
Innovation does not always come willingly, and it often comes when government leads the way. World War I and World War II saw technological zoom forward. NASA’s glory days of Apollo came out of the Cold War Space Race. Today, standing at the edge of the cliff and looking into the abyss, we need government to force our hands again. An Apollo-level era of spending is needed. Actually we need more than that, and not just the USA, but the entire world. POLICY needs to come into play. “Directed technical change” is a term used by MIT economists.
Kill the automobile as we know it. Cease digging up coal. Invest, massively so, in low-carbon ideas and technology.
And maybe we can back off the edge.
Groceries and The Food Desert
My friend, Nancy Gordon, sent me a link this morning about an issue that plays into some of the most basic issues facing our country, and DIRECTLY relates to the inequalities fueling the fires of discontent. In 2011, major food retailers pledged to open 1000 new outlets in neighborhoods that had no solid access to fresh produce and meat. They are currently at around 250.
The term “food desert” refers to a large neighborhood or area that has virtually no access to fresh foods, but instead relies on, at worse, 7-11 convenience stores and at best Dollar type stores. It is hardly a coincidence that many of these areas are inner city, home to the poor and those who likely don’t own cars and have few transit options to the areas of town that do have grocery outlets. The types of stores that do open in these low income areas typically charge more for like items – a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread might cost $1.00 more than at a suburban grocery store or Wal-Mart. And fresh and healthy food is non-existent. This forces the people who can afford it the least to pay more for less healthy foods. While those with bigger pay checks enjoy larger selections, healthier options and cheaper prices.
This sort of pattern has implications beyond the grocery bill of course. Health issues such as obesity and diabetes often run rampant in urban areas with low access to full grocery stores. And that affects health care costs, as many are frequently under or uninsured. I am not sure how to fix this free market problem, but it is another obvious example of how inequality is rising in the USA.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/grocery-chains-leave-food-deserts-barren-ap-analysis-finds/ar-AAg6ATL?li=BBnb4R7
Whew, this has been a long blog post, but I guess several days of writing it can make that happen. Last subject:
Congress and the War on Terror
I was amazed last week at how loudly the various wings of Congress and especially those running for office, barked and bayed last week after the terror attacks in San Bernardino, where Islamic terrorists killed 14. This only one week after the terror attack in Colorado Springs, where a Christian terrorist gunned down innocent people, and the same people were nearly completely silent. Calls for action, endless critiques of the current Administration’s lackluster efforts against ISIL and terror in general, the media has been non-stop terror coverage since. I have read and discussed before my biggest beef with D.C. on this front, and I’ll discuss it a little more here.
We continue to fight terrorism under the “authority” granted by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force act that was passed in 2001 after 9/11. In that act, the President was authorized to attack “nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” Guess what, those terrorists were al-Qaeda, they were aided and housed by the Taliban, and we eventually if not completely got them both. Mission, at least in the more direct terms of this act, accomplished.
So how in god’s name are we still waging war under the same authority?
The Obama Administration originally asked for authorization – asked for it – from Congress back in 2013 to intervene in Syria when it was still more of a question of Assad and less of ISIL. This is the way war is supposed to work. Countries don’t really “declare” war that often, but in the case of the USA, it is CONGRESS and not the President that holds the leash. The President may be Commander in Chief, but he or she should get Congress to let the dogs out of the kennel before letting them attack. The request in 2013 didn’t end up applying or being needed thanks for Russian diplomacy.
But then ISIL rose. The White House has already submitted a draft resolution requesting authorization action against the terrorist group. But again, Congress has balked at even discussing it in anything more than campaign rhetoric. President Obama has done the minimum needed, asked for authorization. And as is allowed, in times of need, the administration CAN go it alone, and has done so. But Congress is NOT doing one of their most important jobs – oversight of the military – and is not only failing said military and the US population, but is in fact turning its back on the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 specifically lays it out – Congress alone has the power to declare war and to govern and oversee the tools of war.
Sadly, in Washington D.C., the Constitution doesn’t mean what it used to.