In defense of socialism?

This interview with Naomi Klein over at Solutions is great food for thought. Below are some of her main points, which are all rational and interesting:

1. The numbers of people who "believe in" climate change in the US are actually falling. These numbers are correlated with ideology (which isn't surprising) but the way she describes the groupings might be. What we traditionally think of as "left" leaning people, she calls communitarian - those who believe we live together and share resources on a global scale, and who are upset by disparities and disadvantaged populations. These people obviously believe in climate change. Those on the "right" hold a more individualistic view or hierarchical view will tend to not believe in climate change. She essentially boils the debate down to an ideological one, with climate change serving as a proxy for the battle between two competing ways of looking at human, nation-state, and global relations.

This is a slightly different way of looking at it, not entirely new, but an intriguing perspective that can change a LOT of how we approach the issue.

2. The market will never solve the problem. She suggests that contrary to what we've been led to believe by our high-profile environmental groups, markets will never be able to undertake everything that needs to be done to really combat climate change.

Although she doesn't out and out say this, I think this is because markets are inherently individualistic. Cap and trade is great, but what we need is interventions to move our systems away from what they look like now - mass-transit infrastructure, changes in our perspectives on housing, and I would add, food production, manufacturing, and industrial design to just name a few.

3. "Who is demanding growth year after year?"

I've begun to really incorporate this line of logic into my thinking and debates in the past few years, as I think this is one of the key structural issues with our current system. As long as we demand unreasonable, indefinite growth, we're going to continue making short-term, damaging decisions. While I agree that corporations are not people, I think they generally make decisions like people do - in common sense and practical ways. Given their circumstances, they will undertake a set of choices and behaviors where long-term consequences are never even factored into the process. This must change.

A case in point - my parents' microwave recently broke - or at least started sounding like it was going to. When I called to find out if it was possible to fix it, they quoted prices to me that made it nearly impossible for a rational person to choose to repair over new. The cost to have someone come out to LOOK at the thing would be about 50% of a new microwave, and there was no guarantees on how much parts and labor would then cost, much less any guarantee that the microwave would then last much longer anyway. So, a normal person would just replace the microwave, despite the fact that it likely needs just one small part changed. Even worse, the microwave is a "hood" version, which combines microwave plus exhaust system for the stove. Thus, I'm forced to throw out a LOT of good stuff because of one small problem that they've priced unreasonably. Further, the company has no responsibility, incentive, or interest in taking the existing piece back and making use of it's component parts. So we essentially have to landfill it? How is this at all rational?

For those who will point out other disposal options that require ME to do hours of homework and then drive 20 miles to take care of it, I say - really? In our convenience-oriented society, can we really expect most regular folks to do this? This is where EPR (extended producer responsibility) really needs to happen, but in our country that's considered more regulation, stifling competition, and anti-jobs/anti-growth. See the problem?

Ms. Klein's answer is to push for a wholly changed system, utilizing the recent groundswell movements and popular demonstration to place pressure on current power structures. It's a very interesting message and one that I think I can get behind. Read the interview here, then tell me what you think!

More Mind-boggling Transportation Decisions!

The MTA in New York City is again increasing fares for its passengers in the midst of a huge budget crisis spurred by lower revenues and decreased state subsidies. The New York Times reports on the situation. Budget issues - I get it. People have to pay for their use of public transportation - okay. I'm a liberal socialist because I think that we should have better public transit - fine. Whatever. It's stuff like THIS:


A toll increase on the authority’s nine tunnels and bridges was also proposed, but the board will not vote on that plan until Oct. 27. Drivers who pay cash potentially face an increase of 30 percent or higher, while E-ZPass drivers may not pay any increase at all, under a proposal gaining momentum on the board.

that get me the most though. A 17% increase on 30-day passcard holders - people who use public transit the most and pollute via car emissions the least in the city - but NO increase for people who cross the bridge so frequently that they can't be bothered to pull out some cash and wait in line and who arguably pollute the most via car emissions.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. It does, given a certain set of circumstances and beliefs (which I do not hold.) Essentially, this set of policies promotes car usage at the expense of public transit usage, promotes emissions pollution instead of a better environment, and reinforces the current car-centric, unsustainable nature of our cities.

On a related note, NJ governor Chris Christie today also killed off an expansion to the Hudson Tunnel that would have increased train capacity into Manhattan from NJ. I'd say it was a great day for public transportation in the New York Metro Area.

Debt-Swap

According to the BBC the other day, the US and Brazil just signed a "debt for nature" swap. The agreement will convert "$21m (£13.5m) of Brazilian debt into a fund to protect tropical ecosystems."

While I know that the details of the deal and how that money will be applied is the most important part of this agreement (and the part that we don't know about) - I was pleasantly surprised to learn that we're (being the US) are doing debt-forgiveness this way. Obviously, this system will work much less with a country that has no means of repaying their debt at all (since no money to repay = no money for a fund) but I guess in a case like Brazil's, where it's more about allocation and commitment, this makes a lot of sense. Lower debt burdens also mean lower interest payments, which could go a long way in conservation efforts.

Seems like a win-win to me. Does anyone know anything else about these type of programs?

The Sad Plight of Fish

Conservation virtually always faces pressures from every side and every angle, but few causes seem more hopeless than the plight of the oceans. Despite increasingly loud and well-supported warnings about overfishing and its dire consequences, nations, companies, and consumers remain unmoved. Today, we have yet another sad example of our collective inability to deal with the gross mismanagement of our fragile marine resources - the rejection of a ban on Atlantic Bluefin Tuna which has declined in number by 85% since the advent of industrial fishing.

Sue Lieberman, director of international policy with the Pew Environment Group, suggested lobbying from the fishing industry was ultimately responsible for the defeat. "This meeting presented a golden opportunity for governments to take a stand against overfishing, and too many governments failed to do so," she said. "The market for this fish is just too lucrative, and the pressure from fishing interests too great, for enough governments to support a truly sustainable future for the fish."  (Full article from the BBC here.)

The proposal was to put bluefin onto Appendix One of CITES (Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species) which would lead to a complete ban on trade in the species. Given the proven inability (through years of trying) for current conservation mechanisms and international management to halt the drastic decline in bluefin stock, listing the species on Appendix One seems to be the only reasonable and remaining option left for protecting the fishery. Yet selfish, short-sighted, and - I'll go there - stupid nations and politicians have once again chosen to bury their head in the sand and ignore the problem, thereby likely signing the death warrant for Atlantic Bluefin. Get it while you can folks, because it's going going gone soon! Or better yet, completely boycott the fish and start sending out letters to every world leader you know.

Are you willing to stand idly by while we cause yet another preventable extinction of an animal?

Roads through the Amazon

It always saddens me when I hear of potentially destructive acts in the Amazon. The fight for the rainforests have been going on for literally my entire life, and are some of the earliest memories I have of wanting to be environmentally active. Unfortunately, the fight continues today, and in many ways the Amazon is much worse now than it was before. Deforestation continues on a large scale, economic interests outweigh environmental concerns, and thousands of species have no doubt been lost to us without even our discovery of them.

Now, in the name of economic development, the governments of Peru and Brazil have agreed to stretch a length of road across pristine forest to connect the two countries and provide access to Pacific Ocean ports in Peru to Brazil. You can read information on this proposal here in a WorldWatch blog.

The traditional debate comes down to the environment versus economic development. Unfortunately, given our current systems and institutions, the environment most often comes out on the losing end. There is, I believe, no doubt to the truth that building a road connecting these two cities will bring short-term economic benefits to the people in the region, as well as open up new "development" to people coming from outside the region. My personal doubt is to the value of these economic benefits, and how we determine what is truly valuable.

Governments are pressured into making decisions like these for numerous reasons, but one of the largest is that they must show "economic growth." I've already posted once about the need to escape from GDP as a measure of economic growth and health, so I won't bother doing it here again. Suffice it to say that if governments did not feel the need to demonstrate X percentage of GDP growth each year, we'd have better decision-making and policies.

No, instead, what I will state in this particular post is probably a bit more damning to governments engaged in this type of growth. That is, they have failed their peoples elsewhere. From everything I have read and seen, life in the Amazon is not easy. Clear-cutting of rain-forests for things like agriculture is a short-term game. Farmers are forced to constantly pick up and move every few years once the soil becomes unproductive. Yet, there is no doubt in my mind that as the road opens, more and more farmers will come streaming into the area to continue their lives in perpetual nomadic poverty. Is this the fault of the farmers, or the fault of a government that has not come up with creative, innovative, and positive impact programs elsewhere in the country to provide for healthy and meaningful lives?

China's New Environmental Ministry

I haven't been following the Chinese environmental scene as much since I got to Europe and started my program there, so I was very pleasantly surprised to hear that China recently created a ministerial-level environment department - the Ministry of Environmental Protection. It's headed by the outspoken Pan Yue, former head of the precursor, the State Environmental Protection Agency or SEPA as it was known. Even there, at what many considered a fairly toothless government agency that took a backseat to just about every other arm of the central government, Pan Yue was outspoken and a real crusader about environmental issues, who would even rebuke higher ranking officials in public for failing to do this or that in regards to the environment.

Thus, there's a small amount of hope that China is headed in the right direction, especially if Pan Yue can keep himself out of trouble and out of the cross-hairs of other, more powerful politicos. Already, as this opinion article states, China has made some real progress on instituting regulations and targets. Now it's just a matter of this new ministry having the resources and the ability to implement these regulations down to the regional and local levels. Let's keep our fingers crossed.


From the IHT Opinion pages....
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/11/opinion/edgardner.php

So looking at China's pollution mess, we in the West have been quick to denounce the bad guys in Beijing, blaming them for doing nothing to protect their air, water and people.

But Chinese indifference to the environment is a myth. In the last few years China has begun to take aggressive action to bring its air and water pollution under control.

Here are a few examples:

-China's fuel-efficiency standard for cars is currently pegged at 43 miles per gallon, which means that when America's 2020 standards of 35 mpg go into effect they'll be lower than China's minimum standard of today.